|
I don't think the request of a sexually-suggestive and clearly offensive
amateur radio callsign requires much work http://www.chinatibettravel.net/cnbi...tailed_Tit.jpg |
Leo wrote:
The use of one's own moralistic views and beliefs to deny the rights of another is "inappropriate" too, Jim. That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a newsgroup post? But, if you wish to further moralize upon this issue, I refer you to the ultimate authority, with all sincerity and best wishes: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference I salute Jim's wisdom in knowing the difference and his courage in changing the things he can. Dave K8MN |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:42:14 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: Leo wrote: The use of one's own moralistic views and beliefs to deny the rights of another is "inappropriate" too, Jim. That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a newsgroup post? I'm sorry that you're having difficulty interpreting the generally accepted concepts of human social interaction, or the precise subject of my original objection and subsequent discussion on this subject, "Dave". My intent was to illustrate, not to educate. But, if you wish to further moralize upon this issue, I refer you to the ultimate authority, with all sincerity and best wishes: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference I salute Jim's wisdom in knowing the difference and his courage in changing the things he can. Of that I am certain, Dave :) Dave K8MN "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." --Isaac Asimov 73, Leo |
Leo wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:42:14 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: Leo wrote: The use of one's own moralistic views and beliefs to deny the rights of another is "inappropriate" too, Jim. That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a newsgroup post? I'm sorry that you're having difficulty interpreting the generally accepted concepts of human social interaction, or the precise subject of my original objection and subsequent discussion on this subject, "Dave". My intent was to illustrate, not to educate. Let's be open here, "Leo". You aren't sorry and I'm not having difficulty. You wrote of denying "rights". I responded to that comment. If you didn't really mean "rights", you should have chosen another term. If you're intent was to illustrate something other than what you stated, your illustration fails. But, if you wish to further moralize upon this issue, I refer you to the ultimate authority, with all sincerity and best wishes: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference I salute Jim's wisdom in knowing the difference and his courage in changing the things he can. Of that I am certain, Dave :) It was kind of you to provide the quote. Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT the Texas twit wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message ... Leo wrote: ...and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the H$%% is a decond?? I dunno)....... Don't worry about it Leo, anyone who can't spell a word more than one way simply has no imegintion. ROFLMAO!! Hey, Leo? Another irony...!!!! Kim W5TIT It's a joke stupid. |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? |
"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "Kim" wrote in message ... "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... And how would a callsign bring the ARS one step closer to extinction? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of. It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Others disagree with that. And I think if you really believed it were "totally innocuous unless some sat there and thought about it for a bit", you would not have chosen it, because you've said it was chosen in part for the reactions it would get. And, if must "finally realize" anything about a callsign, then it is definitely because they took their own path getting there; not because anyone led them there. I disagree. The callsign starts them on the path. Otherwise you would not have chosen it. To make that a bearer's responsibility to "the community of man" is ridiculous and I don't wear that [expletive deleted] You may refuse to "wear" it, Kim, but communities live and die on how well their members accept their responsibilities to the community. One reason for so many laws that seem silly or stupid is that they are an attempt to get people to take on their responsibilities to the community. Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third) impression involved such callsigns. Then, they'd best just keep their kids out of sports, school, movies, churches; in fact, just lock 'em up and keep 'em safe. Why? In my experience, they will not encounter things like your callsign from adults in sports, school, or church. At least not in any of them that I have been a part of in the last 10-15 years. Movies are not only rated by content but kids under certain ages are not permitted to see certain movies because of content - a good example of the community taking responsibility. The responsibility of the parent is to teach what is vulgar and what is not. Not just the parents. (Each child has at least two). It's also the community's responsibility - meaning everyone in the community. My callsign is not vulgar. Not to you. Others differ on that. I say it's inappropriate. The implication that [body parts] are something to hide, be embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar act. Would you then say that they are no different from, say, a hand or a nose? Would you say that it's always appropriate to display them, talk about them, etc., regardless of the context or the situation? That's where you're argument leads. as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word [word deleted] from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em. That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it from your callsign. See first sentence above. You mean the one about it being totally innocuous? See my response. But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior. And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate behavior. See second sentence above. The one about the path? See my response. Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc. And, it is not the responsibility of "the community" to see that a kid doesn't learn all that stuff and think it's attractive. Yes, it is. That's one major reason to be a part of a community - so that the next generation can be raised in an environment that passes on the best of the previous generation's values and standards. Communities can only exist and thrive if the people in them are better off being a part of them, *and* realize and fullfil their responsibilities to the community, as well as demanding their rights. It's the responsibility of the parents, family, and anyone personally involved with the raising and upbringing of a kid. How can they do that if the community works against them? It's *everyone's* responsibility, in varying degrees. I taught my kids that all "that stuff" was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive and lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and needed to work a lot harder with the other. You just proved what I'm saying is valid. It's clear that they were both exposed to things that were inappropriate or even potentially harmful, but one was able to resist and the other wasn't. Here's an analogy: Almost everyone has an "Aunt Edna" who has smoked three packs of Camels a day since he was 12 and who is now hale and healthy in his 90s. And almost everyone also has an "Uncle Bill" who passed away at a young age from a combination of health problems brought about by smoking. A lot of people - particularly smokers - remember Aunt Edna and forget all about Uncle Bill. Some even claim that Aunt Edna somehow proves that smoking isn't that bad for you. But what the Aunt Edna/Uncle Bill story proves is that a few people are very resistant to, and a few others very susceptible to, health problems caused by smoking. And most people are somewhere in the middle. More important, you can't tell ahead of time who is going to wind up like Aunt Edna and who is going to wind up like Uncle Bill. So the intelligent, reasonable, logical, human thing to do is to act as if everyone has Uncle Bill's susceptibility, not Aunt Edna's resistance. They *both* saw the same "community." No, they did not. Communities are constantly changing. I suspect what really happened was that one was simply more resistant to certain things and the other more susceptible. I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed, 'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is much more likely to learn that lesson. That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they are doing. No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do". Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do". I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what they are preaching against than someone who's never been there. The adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves ingested substances that were all those things. The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it. Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly. But the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion. That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer keeps on making the mistakes. Here, you were sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the evils as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored the value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like. That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not as I do", they use the adult's behavior as an excuse. That's not mature, adult reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a lot of fun. You cannot always treat children as if they are adults in smaller bodies. To do so is inappropriate and potentially very harmful. *Anyone* who thinks kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics. But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all behavior is appropriate in all contexts. The good work of their parents, no doubt. And their community. Pffttt. What does that mean? Would you rather have them talk that way all the time, in all contexts? With regard to [body parts] they can be a work of art, a tool of health, the target of the expression of love, or represent some evil, twisted, sense of wrongdoing. Yep - it all depends on the context. In some contexts their appropriate, in others their not. A thumb is usually innocuous. A nose is usually innocuous. Thumbing one's nose isn't. I choose the beauty of [body parts] ..--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or photo, etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful. It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health care is a different context than trying on clothes. Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are called, etc. It's your expression of "those body parts" that, to someone like me, worries me. Why? Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because they are horrible. They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE. "Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at the doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is pulling their pants down in public--it is quite not OK. Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts that you say must be spoken of, right? Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not usually appropriate in public? However, in the right circumstances both could be exactly the opposite. If a doctor--and this has been done--is about to rape someone, then it's evil. Of course. But that's not the point. The action described is only appropriate in a doctor's office if it's medically required. And, I can think of nothing better I would love to do to someone like Saddam Hussein, than to moon him with a thousand milliion asses; or even just one: mine. Again, an extreme that proves *my* point. Sad but true. The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately. Yep. You're exactly right. Well, there you have it. However, it seems that your "act appropriately" and mine are two entirely different things. I sure hope so! And, I'm done--sigh, once again--discussing my callsign. Maybe. It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's mine. That's your opinion. Here's mine: It's inappropriate for the ARS. It helps the ARS move one step closer to extinction. Period. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote:
Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third) impression involved such callsigns. (snip) Really? Can you show even one example of someone who has kept their kid out of Amateur Radio because of Kim's callsign, or any of the callsigns I've listed over the last couple of days? I haven't seen one person of the child rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup. Instead, I see old men, some too old to even have young, impressionable, grandkids, in a newsgroup acting like hearing the word "tit" was the shock of their life. I'm not buying it, Jim. This whole debate has a ring of false indignation around it. Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person hearing it, makes it. I don't think tits are vulgar, and I hope kids don't think that (if they do, someone certainly failed to educate them properly). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: Both you and Dwight must lead sheltered lives. More people use the word "tit" in the derogatory, vulgar manner than use it in the neutral, clinical (snip) You're absolutely right, Dee. I do live in an environment where tits, breasts, and other words to describe the human body are not outright, and immediately, derogatory or vulgar - only a certain context makes them so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Leo" wrote:
Well said, Dwight! As was intended. Thank you, Leo. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
With all that pure dielectric around, it is a wonder that the Puritans can conduct themselves properly...enough to get a circulating electric current. :-) LOL! One of your best yet, Len. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Leo wrote:
My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts, as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her as less than equal. Period. Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in her post of 05/23/2000: From Kim's post Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona. Back to me: Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep. While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent, and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here long enough! And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes: Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and couldn't Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first sarcastic remark Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity callsign. I Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign that would Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I would get Kim K5TIT if I could. Back to me: There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: Both you and Dwight must lead sheltered lives. More people use the word "tit" in the derogatory, vulgar manner than use it in the neutral, clinical (snip) You're absolutely right, Dee. I do live in an environment where tits, breasts, and other words to describe the human body are not outright, and immediately, derogatory or vulgar - only a certain context makes them so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) And in kim's case, where the callsign was choosen specifically to get a reaction to the word "tit", that puts it in that context. |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:55:27 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
Leo wrote: My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts, as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her as less than equal. Period. Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in her post of 05/23/2000: From Kim's post Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona. Back to me: Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep. While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent, and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here long enough! And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes: Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and couldn't Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first sarcastic remark Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity callsign. I Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign that would Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I would get Kim K5TIT if I could. Back to me: There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts. Tifted tutmouses? I think I saw one of them last summer! Mike, you may well be correct in your analysis - a callsign such as that one could well be used in many different ways (troll being one of them). Troll itself has different connotations - it could be an icebreaker ,convesation starter, or usenet WMD - depending on its use, and the actions of the user. My arguement has from the beginning focussed on a very specific part of this overall issue - the exclusion of only one call from a list, while leaving the others intact. The reason being - if the folks who complain so vehemently here believe that Kim's call/behaviour/language/whatever are obscene, inappropriate, high in transfats or otherwise detrimental to the sanctity of the group, then the appropriate thing to do would be to ignore or killfile her, and be done with it. Why would anyone wilfully and intentionally annoy her by intentionally removing her call from each post time and time again? Unless there are other agendas....like to elicit a predictable reaction, perhaps..... I suspect that some of the folks here are using the issue of her call as a springboard to voice their pedantic, didactic, sanctimonious, gynomammarophobic [ that last one's a Leo word :) ] and occasionally bombastic beliefs and viewpoints. The net result is similar to pouring gasoline on a fire - Kim responds in defense, ups the ante, and the PDSG&OB gang goes at her for another round, etc. etc. A chain reaction, in the truest sense. The only reason that I personally have continued with this for so long is to attempt to stick with and get across my original point. Which ain't easy, given the back and forth exchanges between Kim and the boys since this thread began......and the countless attempts to divert attention from it off onto related (and easily defended) issues. Anywho, my philosophy is that if you treat someone fairly and they behave inappropriately, you have a good reason to fault them for it. If, on the other hand, you pi&& them off first and get them good and angry, you forfeit that "hey, I'm innocent!" defense - and share in the blame. Trolled? Perhaps! But I really don't recall Kim doing anything incorrect or inappropriate at the outset of this, other than the reediting of Jim's posts - she seems to have simply wanted to be treated equally as an amateur. Mike, I believe that you yourself redid the pool to reduce it to all first names at one point - an intelligent and compromising way to diffuse the situation. But diffused it would not be (and not beacuse of Kim's actions...) - so here we are. Forgetting for the purpose of this issue the past - um - interchanges on this subject between Kim and the resident keepers of order and decorum in this forum, the gross anatomy lessons came later....when this thread was already running hot! - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Why not admit that you fall short of being able to read and understand? At the end of the day, we learn that only Dave has understanding and everyone else has problems. Not really. All we've learned is that someone who isn't sure of his name believes that he is "everyone else". Dave K8MN He does? He doesn't believe that he is Kim, he doesn't believe that he is Mike, he doesn't believe that he is Len. He doesn't believe that he is Leo. But Dave still has problems relating to other people. |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well, I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third) impression involved such callsigns. (snip) Really? Can you show even one example of someone who has kept their kid out of Amateur Radio because of Kim's callsign, or any of the callsigns I've listed over the last couple of days? Nope. I do know parents who would steer their kids away if they knew, though. haven't seen one person of the child rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup. Yes, you have. Instead, I see old men, some too old to even have young, impressionable, grandkids, How do you know how old somebody's grandchildren or children are, Dwight? How old are these "old men"? in a newsgroup acting like hearing the word [word deleted] was the shock of their life. Well, that leaves me out. I'm not shocked by it at all. Heard it plenty of times. In fact, years ago National Lampoon did a canonical list of the various slang names for certain body parts. Ran to hundreds of words. I simply say it's inappropriate for ham radio, that's all. Do you think it's appropriate? I'm not buying it, Jim. This whole debate has a ring of false indignation around it. Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person hearing it, makes it. Have I *ever* said it was vulgar? I don't think [word deleted] are vulgar, and I hope kids don't think that (if they do, someone certainly failed to educate them properly). So your values have to be everyone else's? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in her post of 05/23/2000: From Kim's post Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what Kim thoughts the three letters [letters deleted] would have on the male persona. Back to me: Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. Exactly. Which is why, a few posts back, I quoted Maximus: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"William" | | No, Dan, no laughing matter. He was serious about working other | amateurs out of band. | Dear Willy Weeper, I have never worked an amateur outside of the amateur bands, and I have no intention of ever doing so. You are a dump huck liar. Deal with it. And you're back in my killfile until you come up with another gutless anonymous email address which slips past. PLONK With warmest personal regards, de Hans, K0HB |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT You stated in a previous post that you knew the callsign would get a reaction, that is why the T-I-T part of your callsign was chosen. If it is just another call sign, why did you expect a reaction? Why didn't you choose some other suffix? Why TIT? Here is why in your own words. "I jokingly told my fellow hams one day (all men, of course) that it was silly to get initials for a vanity callsign--one should put some real punch into a vanity callsign." You wanted some "punch" in your callsign, thus the suffix "TIT" as it references your breasts, thus getting the attention and reaction you so desperately want. You also stated, "The fun that evolves out of it is a great bonus." In other words you new the reactions it would give, and you enjoy the comments about your callsign and it's reference to your breasts. If it were just a callsign like any other, there wouldn't be any fun that evolves out of it and a great bonus would it? Extremely poor taste. |
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in her post of 05/23/2000: From Kim's post Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what Kim thoughts the three letters [letters deleted] would have on the male persona. Back to me: Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. Exactly. Which is why, a few posts back, I quoted Maximus: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!" A little bit, for a little while. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Others disagree with that. And I think if you really believed it were "totally innocuous unless some sat there and thought about it for a bit", you would not have chosen it, because you've said it was chosen in part for the reactions it would get. From those friends and associates, Jim...who were in on why the callsign, etc. The implication that [body parts] are something to hide, be embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar act. Would you then say that they are no different from, say, a hand or a nose? Would you say that it's always appropriate to display them, talk about them, etc., regardless of the context or the situation? That's where you're argument leads. No, they are no different than a hand, a nose, a foot, all of which could be sexual appendages at some point. But, *in the right context* they (tits) are just as bland and boring as a nose, a foot, or whatever. And, as to displaying them, I personally have no problem at all with nudity in general. I am not prone to "automatically" assume a nude body is for sex, or something vulgar as you may describe it. I think it's darned unfair that men can run around showing their tits, when a man is just as likely to get aroused by someone playing with their nipples as any woman is. What's the difference whether a man goes topless or a woman goes topless? I taught my kids that all "that stuff" was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive and lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and needed to work a lot harder with the other. You just proved what I'm saying is valid. I don't think I did at all. But have it your way... That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they are doing. No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do". Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do". What do you mean "would you"? I did. My parents morals, objective lessons, words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me. I knew that they were right because, as my mother would tell me "if you start smoking now, it will be extremely difficult for you to quit when you learn how bad it is," as she was puffing on her cigarette--I knew how much she wanted to quit smoking. I saw no contradiction whatever in what she was saying. She was right. Did you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached? I certainly didn't. I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing it." I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what they are preaching against than someone who's never been there. The adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves ingested substances that were all those things. Not sure why you felt like you had to elaborate. I knew where you were coming from. The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it. Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly. But the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion. That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer keeps on making the mistakes. Your philosophy is different than mine, then. Either it is or it ain't. If I believe the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" is pertinent and that I've learned more from it than those who tried to lead by example, then I believe it across the board--not selectively. And, I believe it. Here, you were sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the evils as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored the value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like. That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not as I do", they use the adult's behavior as an excuse. Please don't use "they" in the vernacular. I did not. Oh, and lots of my friends did not. That's not mature, adult reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a lot of fun. How could someone who sees a parent smoking, hacking, stinking up the place, chained to the cigarette, ever think smoking could be a lot of fun?! I used to smoke, but not because I thought it was fun. I think I probably started to get in trouble--get the attention of my mom so she'd quit. Heh heh...but it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago. Sex? Oh, no way that could be any fun. I grew up in a town of less than a thousand people and I saw teen-aged girls getting pregnant at like 13!! Wasn't no way that was fun. .--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or photo, etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful. It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health care is a different context than trying on clothes. I think it's appropriate and natural to have children see each other nekked. By the way, why are you so huffy about not printing a callsign (all inclusive with its prefix and suffix) but you'll bring up and print the subject of "naked adults?" I mean, really...where is your logic in *that*? Anyway, and as to adults being naked, I used to take showers with my kids (sons) when they were little, stopped probably when they were--oh I don't know--3 or 4. Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?! Good grief, I hope not. But, as I said, have it your way. And, why *is* it OK for nudity when one is, presumably, an infant or toddler and then, just as they are probably quite comfortable with the nude body--we suddenly decide "OHMYGAWD...you can't see me *THAT* way!!!" Whaddup wid dat? Why? Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because they are horrible. They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE. Maybe to you. And that's your right to believe like that. But, don't make a judgement call--and you have--about someone who thinks it differently than you. And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign. Either leave me off altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as each and every other ham. And, by the way, I am pretty much going to quit debating the topic because it's pretty darned obvious that we disagree--wholeheartedly--on this. You've turned it into a debate about my callsign. The issue isn't *why*, it is that you did and that you could have handled it differently. Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa." I am not at all, neither is Leo, or anyone else. The point is you could have left my name completely *off* the list. "Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at the doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is pulling their pants down in public--it is quite not OK. Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts that you say must be spoken of, right? Hey! Now you're talking! Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not usually appropriate in public? Well, there may be patients who wouldn't mind exams in public...I would, though. However, in the right circumstances both could be exactly the opposite. If a doctor--and this has been done--is about to rape someone, then it's evil. Of course. But that's not the point. The action described is only appropriate in a doctor's office if it's medically required. And, I can think of nothing better I would love to do to someone like Saddam Hussein, than to moon him with a thousand milliion asses; or even just one: mine. Again, an extreme that proves *my* point. Sad but true. The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately. Yep. You're exactly right. Well, there you have it. However, it seems that your "act appropriately" and mine are two entirely different things. I sure hope so! And, I'm done--sigh, once again--discussing my callsign. Maybe. It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's mine. That's your opinion. Here's mine: It's inappropriate for the ARS. It helps the ARS move one step closer to extinction. Period. 73 de Jim, N2EY And, you're incorrect... Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Leo wrote: My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts, as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her as less than equal. Period. Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in her post of 05/23/2000: From Kim's post Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona. Back to me: Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep. While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent, and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here long enough! And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes: Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and couldn't Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first sarcastic remark Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity callsign. I Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign that would Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I would get Kim K5TIT if I could. Back to me: There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts. - Mike KB3EIA - Hmmm, body parts that are vulgar, Mike. And, I don't think there's a vulgar body part. Oh, maybe the tongue... Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote | I personally have no problem at all with nudity | in general. I am not prone to "automatically" | assume a nude body is for sex... Here's how you can tell..... if a person is 'nude', that means they aren't wearing any clothing. On the other hand, if a person is 'nekkid', that means they aren't wearing any clothing and they're up to something. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: "JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT You stated in a previous post that you knew the callsign would get a reaction, that is why the T-I-T part of your callsign was chosen. If it is just another call sign, why did you expect a reaction? Why didn't you choose some other suffix? Why TIT? Here is why in your own words. You're correct, I chose T-I-T for the suffix of my callsign; however, I did not choose the name "tit," the nickname "tit," or the *word* "tit." I also did not choose the *callsign* W5TIT for vulgar, sexual, or otherwise negative reasons. All of you who feel it is have dreamed that one up on your own. "I jokingly told my fellow hams one day (all men, of course) that it was silly to get initials for a vanity callsign--one should put some real punch into a vanity callsign." You wanted some "punch" in your callsign, thus the suffix "TIT" as it references your breasts, thus getting the attention and reaction you so desperately want. So, boring, mundane, random, etc., is your way of defining what is "right." Again, you've dreamed that one up on your own. You also stated, "The fun that evolves out of it is a great bonus." In other words you new the reactions it would give, and you enjoy the comments about your callsign and it's reference to your breasts. If it were just a callsign like any other, there wouldn't be any fun that evolves out of it and a great bonus would it? Extremely poor taste. Oh, so you know of others who don't have "fun" callsigns. Gosh...maybe you should get yourself, and them, into something a whole lot more fun. Because, for you to be so obsessed over an innocuous callsign just lends itself to your misery of being in the hobby around such questionable, deranged characters such as me. Kim W5TIT |
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote | I personally have no problem at all with nudity | in general. I am not prone to "automatically" | assume a nude body is for sex... Here's how you can tell..... if a person is 'nude', that means they aren't wearing any clothing. On the other hand, if a person is 'nekkid', that means they aren't wearing any clothing and they're up to something. 73, de Hans, K0HB Ummmm, Hans, there's a lot easier way to tell if people without clothes on are "up to something" or not. :o Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no vulgarity. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Oh, so you know of others who don't have "fun" callsigns. Gosh...maybe you should get yourself, and them, into something a whole lot more fun. Because, for you to be so obsessed over an innocuous callsign just lends itself to your misery of being in the hobby around such questionable, deranged characters such as me. Kim W5TIT Spin it anyway you want kimmygirl, you chose the suffix tit because of the reference to breasts, to give your call some "punch" as you put it. |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no vulgarity. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And I doubt if Dolly had a ham license she would apply for a call sign with the suffix of "TIT", she has more class than that. |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:42:14 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: Leo wrote: The use of one's own moralistic views and beliefs to deny the rights of another is "inappropriate" too, Jim. That's an issue you seem unable to sort out for us, "Leo". Which one of the new "rights" applies in forcing Jim to use her callsign in a newsgroup post? I'm sorry that you're having difficulty interpreting the generally accepted concepts of human social interaction, or the precise subject of my original objection and subsequent discussion on this subject, "Dave". My intent was to illustrate, not to educate. Leo, congrats. You are a small voice in the wilderness when you point out that Dave is socially retarded and prone to misinterpret what he reads. But you are not alone. bb |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Kim" wrote in message ... I taught my kids that all "that stuff" was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive and lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and needed to work a lot harder with the other. You just proved what I'm saying is valid. I don't think I did at all. But have it your way... The results prove that what I said was valid. That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they are doing. No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do". Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do". What do you mean "would you"? I did. Then you were different than most children I knew. My parents morals, objective lessons, words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me. Uh huh. I knew that they were right because, as my mother would tell me "if you start smoking now, it will be extremely difficult for you to quit when you learn how bad it is," as she was puffing on her cigarette--I knew how much she wanted to quit smoking. I saw no contradiction whatever in what she was saying. She was right. Of course she was right. But that didn't stop you from smoking. How many years were you a smoker, Kim? Your mother's actions had more influence than her words. Despite what she said, you smoked anyway. And finally quit when - 10 years ago? Did you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached? Nope. But neither did I think that it made sense to listen to someone who *unrepentantly* lived one way and preached another. Living one way and preaching another is a pretty good definition of hypocrisy, btw. And the fact remains that, logical or not, children are more influenced by their parents' actions than their parents' words. I certainly didn't. Yet you smoked for how many years? I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing it." But when it came to smoking, those words didn't stop you. I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what they are preaching against than someone who's never been there. The adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves ingested substances that were all those things. Not sure why you felt like you had to elaborate. I knew where you were coming from. I was teaching by example. The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it. Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly. But the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion. That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer keeps on making the mistakes. Your philosophy is different than mine, then. I sure hope so! Either it is or it ain't. If I believe the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" is pertinent and that I've learned more from it than those who tried to lead by example, then I believe it across the board--not selectively. And, I believe it. You can believe whatever you want - just as "creationists" can believe that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. Your belief doesn't make it true. Here, you were sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the evils as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored the value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like. That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not as I do", they use the adult's behavior as an excuse. Please don't use "they" in the vernacular. I have no idea what you mean by that. I did not. Yes, you *did*. Otherwise you would never have started smoking. Oh, and lots of my friends did not. Maybe. I bet a bunch of them smoked, though. That's not mature, adult reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a lot of fun. How could someone who sees a parent smoking, hacking, stinking up the place, chained to the cigarette, ever think smoking could be a lot of fun?! I don't know. But they do. You did. I used to smoke, but not because I thought it was fun. I think I probably started to get in trouble--get the attention of my mom so she'd quit. And that was how many years ago? Heh heh...but it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago. My point exactly. Your mom's lectures were to no avail - her *actions* got you to start smoking, and to continue for years - decades. Again, your story confirms the truth of what I'm saying. If your mom had not smoked, you would not have smoked either, because you would not have had to try to get her to quit. Neither of my parents smoked when I was growing up. There were no lectures against it. Just the example. None of us kids got the habit, either. I tried it when I was 21 - went through two packs in about a week, decided it was no big deal and never had another one. .--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or photo, etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful. It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health care is a different context than trying on clothes. I think it's appropriate and natural to have children see each other nekked. So it would be OK with you for, say, 10-12 year old boys and girls to see each other naked? By the way, why are you so huffy about not printing a callsign (all inclusive with its prefix and suffix) but you'll bring up and print the subject of "naked adults?" I mean, really...where is your logic in *that*? Are you saying that the discussion of naked adults is inappropriate? Anyway, and as to adults being naked, I used to take showers with my kids (sons) when they were little, stopped probably when they were--oh I don't know--3 or 4. Why? Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?! Kim - have I ever described *anything* here as vulgar? I would say that for an adult to shower with children of the opposite sex - at any age - is very inappropriate. Good grief, I hope not. Ask the experts. But, as I said, have it your way. And, why *is* it OK for nudity when one is, presumably, an infant or toddler and then, just as they are probably quite comfortable with the nude body--we suddenly decide "OHMYGAWD...you can't see me *THAT* way!!!" Whaddup wid dat? Who says nudity for infants and toddlers is "OK"? Not me. It's necessary when changing diapers and such - but not after they're toilet trained. Why? Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because they are horrible. They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE. Maybe to you. To a lot of people. One can go to jail for hauling them out at an inappropriate time or place. And that's your right to believe like that. But, don't make a judgement call--and you have--about someone who thinks it differently than you. When you tell me not to make a judgement call, *you* are making a judgement call. What gives you the right to make a judgement call, but not me? And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign. The what's your beef? Either leave me off altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as each and every other ham. You're not on the list anymore - by your own request. Didn't you see that? And, by the way, I am pretty much going to quit debating the topic because it's pretty darned obvious that we disagree--wholeheartedly--on this. You've turned it into a debate about my callsign. The issue isn't *why*, it is that you did and that you could have handled it differently. Of course I could have handled it differently. But that would have compromised my standards. Which I would not do. Period. Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa." Where's the whining? I'm pointing out facts. Look at the posts where I was told what I should do, should have done, should post, should not post. Lotta judgement calls from others about what *I* should do. The point is you could have left my name completely *off* the list. And then you would have whined and moaned about how you weren't included. "Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at the doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is pulling their pants down in public--it is quite not OK. Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts that you say must be spoken of, right? Hey! Now you're talking! Exactly. So why will I get arrested if I do it in most public places? Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not usually appropriate in public? Well, there may be patients who wouldn't mind exams in public...I would, though. Why? You said you have no problem with "nudity in general". Can't get any more "general" than at high noon on Main Street. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Kim W5TIT wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Leo wrote: My point, again, is that Kim, as a fellow amateur, has every right to expect to be treated as an equal by her fellow amateurs. Omitting just her call in the list was not a fair thing to do . Period. I have not, and would not, insist that Jim use her call in any of his posts, as it violates his standards. But, leaving only hers out treated her as less than equal. Period. Leo, what about those that don't want to play the game? Kim stated in her post of 05/23/2000: From Kim's post Kim Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? Kim The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. Kim And that's all. No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what Kim thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona. Back to me: Sooooo, you and Jim and all the others carrying on with this simply allows Kim to achieve her stated goal. She's cast the line, and quite frankly, you all have swallowed the hook gut deep. While we are being frank, I must commend Kim for what is a permanent, and apparently irresistible troll. There is no doubt that this one subject may overtake the Morse code subject if Kim hangs around here long enough! And although it would appear that Kim says that her callsign is not based on some body parts, earlier in the same post she writes: Kim I told them one day about how virtually boring they were being and couldn't Kim they come up with *anything* but initials! Well, the first sarcastic remark Kim was a question about what I would get if I were to get a vanity callsign. I Kim was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my Kim vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign that would Kim be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I would get Kim K5TIT if I could. Back to me: There it is. Kim might be better able to explain the difference, I read it as a body part related to the chest, but it doesn't matter. The callsign is a troll regardless of whether it refers to body parts or small birds. (Tifted tutmouses) 8^). And Kim enjoys better success with it than Lenover21 does with his "designed to engage" posts. - Mike KB3EIA - Hmmm, body parts that are vulgar, Mike. And, I don't think there's a vulgar body part. Oh, maybe the tongue... I don't think any body parts are vulgar, Kim. Where did I say that? All body parts are beautiful, regardless what we call them. I sure as gitout ain't the Victorian morality police. If you are talking about my saying you would be better able to explain the difference, I'm talking about what I read as a minor discrepancy between your posting: No body parts, nothing about it at all, except what thoughts the three letters t-i-t would have on the male persona. and: I was actually in deep thought, as one of them keyed up and said that my vanity was in my chest so how could "we" come up with a callsign that would be related to that? HA! I keyed up and simply told them, that I would get K5TIT if I could. One part of the post seems to say that no body parts are involved, and the other says elswise. I don't really care much about your callsign one way or the other. But I do recognize that some people do. And you do too, according to: Oh, yeah. The best part. What DID I have in mind when I chose the call? The fact that it would get the attention of the male ego...just as it has. And Jim and Larry and Dwight and Leo and JJ and Dave and the others are indulging you quite nicely, wouldn't you say? I would only wish that there were *no* more attention paid to your callsign than mine. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: (snip) haven't seen one person of the child rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup. Yes, you have. Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group. How old are you now? 49? How many young, impressionable, children do you have running around your house? Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either. How do you know how old somebody's grandchildren or children are, Dwight? Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country. How old are these "old men"? Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who else? I simply say it's inappropriate for ham radio, that's all. Do you think it's appropriate? Kim's callsign or the word alone? Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person hearing it, makes it. Have I *ever* said it was vulgar? And I didn't say you said it was vulgar. So your values have to be everyone else's? Don't be silly. I never said that either. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"William" | | No, Dan, no laughing matter. He was serious about working other | amateurs out of band. | Dear Willy Weeper, I have never worked an amateur outside of the amateur bands, and I have no intention of ever doing so. That was not my question, so I'll ask it again. Would you work another amateur that you knew was out of band? bb |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: (snip) haven't seen one person of the child rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup. Yes, you have. Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group. What age group is that? I know people ranging in age from '20s to '50s who are raising small children. The days when the nests were all empty by the time Mom and Dad hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And that's in "typical" America. How old are you now? 49? Yup. My birthday is qrz.com. How many young, impressionable, children do you have running around your house? Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic situation here. Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5 children ranging in age from toddlers to teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the point). Would you then say I was right and Kim's call was inappropriate? Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either. He's a little older. So what? And Larry and I are not the only ones. People have all kids of family situations these days. Blended families, "second" families, adoptions, people raising or helping to raise their grandchildren, etc. etc. etc. How do you know how old somebody's grandchildren or children are, Dwight? Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country. And your source is? How old are these "old men"? Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who else? Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged". I run 35-40 minutes every morning. Last week my running log shows 268 minutes for the week. You know any "old men" who do that? I simply say it's inappropriate for ham radio, that's all. Do you think it's appropriate? Kim's callsign or the word alone? Both. I say neither is appropriate. Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person hearing it, makes it. Have I *ever* said it was vulgar? And I didn't say you said it was vulgar. You and Kim keep using the term "vukgar" rather than addressing whether it's "appropriate". So your values have to be everyone else's? Don't be silly. I never said that either. It's implied by your statements. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: (snip) haven't seen one person of the child rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup. Yes, you have. Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group. How old are you now? 49? How many young, impressionable, children do you have running around your house? Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either. How do you know how old somebody's grandchildren or children are, Dwight? Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country. How old are these "old men"? Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who else? Sorry you consider that old, Dwight! I simply say it's inappropriate for ham radio, that's all. Do you think it's appropriate? Kim's callsign or the word alone? Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person hearing it, makes it. Have I *ever* said it was vulgar? And I didn't say you said it was vulgar. So your values have to be everyone else's? Don't be silly. I never said that either. You know, Dwight, I'm not so sure. I don't recall Jim ever making an issue of the issue, except for ommitting the callsign. He's not doing anything except omitting what he finds inappropriate. He isn't calling Kim names, and he Is engaging her in posts here in the group. And as pointed out, the callsign was indeed chosen so that some people WOULD find it inappropriate. What would *you* have him do? I'm a little confused about what some people want out of this thread. Jim HAS to use Kim's callsign? Jim has to apologize to Kim for finding her callsign inappropriate? Jim has to have his posts approved for content before posting? What do you think of her reasoning behind getting that callsign? I don't care one way or the other, aside from an acceptance of it, and for discussion of the callsign to go away, even though that would probably be dissapointing to the owner, who has stated that the callsign was designed to get attention, and which people are giving attention to the callsign in what must be an immensely gratifying amount to her. Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no vulgarity. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either. And, in addition, I've heard many interviews and giggles wherein Dolly was either alluding to or answering direct questions pertaining to her breasts. Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "JJ" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some other reason? Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public. Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also... Kim W5TIT Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no vulgarity. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either. And, in addition, I've heard many interviews and giggles wherein Dolly was either alluding to or answering direct questions pertaining to her breasts. Kim W5TIT Answering a direct question is not making an issue of it. That is addressing other people's issues. Same for alluding to them, she is addressing other people's issues. She is not the one starting it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Huh? Well, I don't make an issue of my breasts, either. Except every time you use your call sign, which is exactly why you chose it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com