|
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... 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 'SCUSE ME????? And, how exactly do you think *I* started this? Oh...wait, I got the callsign. Well, we've had that debate in here before and my equivalent to that is that it's like saying someone who wears skimpy clothes, or looks sexy, etc., is just asking to get raped. No not quite the same thing at all. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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. 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? Dwight: I was born Oct. 31, 1952, which makes me 51 years young. I don't feel a day over 30, however! 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? The suffix of Kim's call sign spells out a word which is commonly regarded as a vulgar reference to a woman's breasts. Therefore, her call sign is very inappropriate for a family-oriented activity such as the amateur radio service. 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. The "vulgarity" of Kim's call sign would be open to the perceptions of other hams. Riley Hollingsworth said it best when he said that a parent, grandparent, uncle or aunt of a young person who was also a prospective ham would likely be put off by her call, and choose a more appropriate activity for that young person to pursue. Thus, it has the potential to bring the ARS "…one step closer to extinction." I won't presume to speak for Kim, but I, for one, wouldn't want that hanging over my head! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: 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 - Mike: Very well said. I have no doubt that Kim chose her callsign with the specific intent of inciting controversy. However, in so doing, she has left herself open to others forming the opinion that she is simply a no-class slag with absolutely no taste, self-respect, or sense of propriety whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is no way that she can possibly dispel that perception unless she does the right thing and changes her call sign to something more appropriate for a family- oriented activity like amateur radio. Only time will tell whether or not she takes this advice to heart, and acts accordingly. However, if she intends to keep her present call sign, then she will always be in the position of having to defend the indefensible. And as long as there are still good, decent people involved in the ARS, her arguments will fall on deaf ears. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"N2EY" wrote:
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. That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic situation here. It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age group have young children. 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? Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that. And your source is? Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period. Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged". Forty or fifty is certainly not young. Both. I say neither is appropriate. Appropriate for what? As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what is appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas of what is appropriate. You and Kim keep using the term "vukgar" rather than addressing whether it's "appropriate". I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
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. (snip) By omitting the callsign, he made it an issue to be discussed. Were we all supposed to notice it and say nothing? What would *you* have him do? I'm a little confused about what some people want out of this thread. (snip) I wouldn't "have him do" anything. There has been no demands made of him from me. He's free to do what he wants, just as we're free to comment on what he does. What do you think of her reasoning behind getting that callsign? (snip) As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. I've told Kim what I think, and that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a several year period as some in this newsgroup have done. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
The suffix of Kim's call sign spells out a word which is commonly regarded as a vulgar reference to a woman's breasts. Therefore, her call sign is very inappropriate for a family-oriented activity such as the amateur radio service. By whose standards of inappropriateness, Larry? And who made that person the judge of what is appropriate in this radio service? The FCC issued the callsign. As far as I'm concerned, that is the only "judge" that matters in this regard. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... The "vulgarity" of Kim's call sign would be open to the perceptions of other hams. Riley Hollingsworth said it best when he said that a parent, grandparent, uncle or aunt of a young person who was also a prospective ham would likely be put off by her call, and choose a more appropriate activity for that young person to pursue. Thus, it has the potential to bring the ARS ".one step closer to extinction." I won't presume to speak for Kim, but I, for one, wouldn't want that hanging over my head! 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, you are one of the most vulgar persons I've ever been witness to. Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... Mike: Very well said. I have no doubt that Kim chose her callsign with the specific intent of inciting controversy. However, in so doing, she has left herself open to others forming the opinion that she is simply a no-class slag with absolutely no taste, self-respect, or sense of propriety whatsoever. From people such as yourself?! That's a joke! Unfortunately, there is no way that she can possibly dispel that perception unless she does the right thing and changes her call sign to something more appropriate for a family- oriented activity like amateur radio. My callsign is as appropriate as anyone else's. Oh, I know you feel differently but, like I have implied, people such as yourself just don't get it. What of your rude, crude, obnoxious behavior, Larry? Oh, wait, you think that's OK! ROFLMAO. Only time will tell whether or not she takes this advice to heart, and acts accordingly. Time's told. It won't be changed, unless I ever decide to get K5TIT, but I doubt I will. However, if she intends to keep her present call sign, then she will always be in the position of having to defend the indefensible. Y'know...you almost make that sound like you think having this callsign is some kind of punishment or something. I don't defend my callsign at all...why would the need arise? On the other hand, it's rather comical people such as yourself are so compelled to react to a callsign, when your very actions against other people are quite despicable and rather embarrassing to the ARS. My callsign *may* be offensive to some people. However, there's nothing equal to some of the personalities I see displayed in this newsgroup and one can only hope they don't act like that on the air! And as long as there are still good, decent people involved in the ARS, her arguments will fall on deaf ears. 73 de Larry, K3LT Isn't that something?! The people I consider good, decent folks in the ARS, don't have an issue with my callsign at all. Oh, by the way, isn't it around that time of year that this thread get dropped again, Larry? ROFLMAO!!!!! Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net... "N2EY" wrote: 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. That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. I know one guy from work that has his granddaughter living with him. Whew! Man, that would be hell on earth in my opinion! I have raised kids and it ain't happenin' again--at least not unless there are extremely unusual circumstances. And, if the parents think they're moving back in...pah!!!! There's one gal I know, who might even be a couple of years older than me, who has around a nine year old daughter. And, it was deliberate! But, even of people who are just acquaintences, that's all I know. Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic situation here. It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age group have young children. 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? Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that. I'd only answer that my callsign is not inappropriate under any circumstance. The word tit is (for the air on the ARS); however, the word tit is never used by me...and I've never heard it used by anyone else. And your source is? Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period. I've a feeling if it ain't issued from some form of almanac, governmental statistic, or otherwise recorable device, it ain't acceptable as fact. Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged". Forty or fifty is certainly not young. I don't think it's old, either, Dwight...and good heavens I certainly don't act it! ;) Both. I say neither is appropriate. Appropriate for what? As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what is appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas of what is appropriate. You and Kim keep using the term "vukgar" rather than addressing whether it's "appropriate". I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last) year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual time for it to be dying down. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote: 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. (snip) By omitting the callsign, he made it an issue to be discussed. Were we all supposed to notice it and say nothing? Ya wouldn't believe who pointed it out to me! LOL What would *you* have him do? I'm a little confused about what some people want out of this thread. (snip) I wouldn't "have him do" anything. There has been no demands made of him from me. He's free to do what he wants, just as we're free to comment on what he does. The only thing I'd suggest, but it's far too liberal for Jim, I'm sure, is that if he has a problem with my callsign and has a "list" with peoples' amateur radio callsigns in it, then it would have been far more appropriate (at least in my opinion) to either just leave my submission out of the list (could have even sent me a private email or posted why--this debate could have been had for the umpteenth million time under another thread altogether); or he could have put everyone in the list with just their name. But, "have" him do? While Jim has found it handy to feel that things are being *demanded* of him, no one has demanded a thing. What do you think of her reasoning behind getting that callsign? (snip) As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. I've told Kim what I think, and that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a several year period as some in this newsgroup have done. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Yeah, and it was probably me (shudder to think), but the issue with the omission of my callsign from the list isn't the issue; the issue is the editing of the post that was made by Jim, even though he edits things from my posts--NOT only my callsign, but words. I see no difference at all. He does. Some others see no difference at all. Some others do. So, what's different about this thread than any other thread in the newsgroup? :o Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "N2EY" wrote: 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. That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. Depends on how you define "young." When I was 50 my yongest daughter was only 8. More and more couples today are getting married later and having kids later. When I was going to "back-to-school" night for my youngest, some of the other parents could have been my kids if my wife and I had married and had kids when we were 20. By the same tokenn, I was not the only "senior" parent there. (SNIP) Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged". Forty or fifty is certainly not young. Speak for yourself. These days 60 isn't consider old in the same way it was years ago. Cheers, Bll K2UNK |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: 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. (snip) By omitting the callsign, he made it an issue to be discussed. Were we all supposed to notice it and say nothing? Victim mentality, Dwight! You and Jim get into a wizzing contest, and Kim gets her amusement by reading the posts. It's really too bad that you cannot avoid it, but I think Kim is right. That callsign seems to have some irresistable effect on some people. And you just can't help it. You don't have the power to resist. What would *you* have him do? I'm a little confused about what some people want out of this thread. (snip) I wouldn't "have him do" anything. There has been no demands made of him from me. He's free to do what he wants, just as we're free to comment on what he does. What do you think of her reasoning behind getting that callsign? (snip) As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. I've told Kim what I think, and that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a several year period as some in this newsgroup have done. Then it should be a null argument. You should not care why Jim omits her callsign, and it isn't your job to judge Jim. Some people might just care what the reasonings are though. And as for repeating ones self, you shouldn't "have to", but you are. The power of of that callsign is simply too much to resist. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote: 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. That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. Depends on where you are at, I guess. Most people I know have postponed having children until thier mid 30's. That puts them into their 50's when the kids leave the nest. A few even wait until their 40's, although they have found out that that doesn't work very well. Hopefully people don't age too fast where you come from, Dwight, but I'm 49 and don't feel the least bit old. Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic situation here. It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age group have young children. 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? Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that. Dwight, Take your average year old boy. He hears ANYTHING that can be taken out of context, and he'll be all giggly for quite a while. That's what they do. Anything gross or something that can be twisted in meaning, they will do it. And your source is? Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period. Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged". Forty or fifty is certainly not young. Middle aged is 60's. Congrat's Dwight, you've been moved down the scale and are officially younger! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote | That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or | 50 year old recently with a young child. |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. You must live in a different world then or don't get out much, my son is 39 and has two daughtgers age 11 and a son age 9, my daughter is 41 and has a daughter age 6 and a son age 4 and one on the way. I suggest you go to your local kindergarten school and see how many parents are there in their late 30's early 40's with small children. |
"JJ" wrote in message ... Dwight Stewart wrote: That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or 50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I haven't seen it to be commonplace. You must live in a different world then or don't get out much, my son is 39 and has two daughtgers age 11 and a son age 9, my daughter is 41 and has a daughter age 6 and a son age 4 and one on the way. I suggest you go to your local kindergarten school and see how many parents are there in their late 30's early 40's with small children. And don't forget the children being raised by their grandparents rather than their parents. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: Forty or fifty is certainly not young. I don't think it's old, either, Dwight...and good heavens I certainly don't act it! ;) Amazing how our concepts of "old" changes as we age. Decades ago, all of us thought 30 was old. Now "old" is something we're not. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: Forty or fifty is certainly not young. Middle aged is 60's. Congrat's Dwight, you've been moved down the scale and are officially younger! 8^) Sixty is "middle" aged? How many people have you met in this country that are 120 years old? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
It's really too bad that you cannot avoid it, but I think Kim is right. That callsign seems to have some irresistable effect on some people. And you just can't help it. You don't have the power to resist. Nobody said anything about not being able to resist, Mike. It was an issue (no more than any other issue discussed in this newsgroup), and I simply responded to it. Then it should be a null argument. You should not care why Jim omits her callsign, and it isn't your job to judge Jim. (snip) And I've been careful not to judge Jim. If Jim feels otherwise, he's sadly mistaken. (snip) The power of of that callsign is simply too much to resist. You're posting to this thread. Do you find the callsign too much to resist? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Forty or fifty is certainly not young. Middle aged is 60's. Congrat's Dwight, you've been moved down the scale and are officially younger! 8^) Sixty is "middle" aged? How many people have you met in this country that are 120 years old? It's a big bell curve, IMO - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: It's really too bad that you cannot avoid it, but I think Kim is right. That callsign seems to have some irresistable effect on some people. And you just can't help it. You don't have the power to resist. Nobody said anything about not being able to resist, Mike. It was an issue (no more than any other issue discussed in this newsgroup), and I simply responded to it. Then it should be a null argument. You should not care why Jim omits her callsign, and it isn't your job to judge Jim. (snip) And I've been careful not to judge Jim. If Jim feels otherwise, he's sadly mistaken. (snip) The power of of that callsign is simply too much to resist. You're posting to this thread. Do you find the callsign too much to resist? I pop in and out of the thread as need be. Remember I'm kind of the group Cassandra! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Victim mentality, Dwight! You and Jim get into a wizzing contest, and Kim gets her amusement by reading the posts. Well, not amusement...really...Mike. I mean, I wouldn't be in this newsgroup--in general--were it not for the amusement: true. BUT, not amusement specifically about my callsign. In fact, I find the whole issue of debate over my callsign more on the "I can't believe" it side; although I do recognize that, to some people, it really *is* that big a deal. Personally, I feel sorry for those folks. It's really too bad that you cannot avoid it, but I think Kim is right. That callsign seems to have some irresistable effect on some people. And you just can't help it. You don't have the power to resist. I think it's just that, Mike. A power thing. I mean, after all, why the chagrin over a callsign; and all the angst; and all the broohaha were it not for wanting to be miserable about something. Call it stupid of me but, again, I really don't see the huge issue with it and never have. I enjoy the deliberate ignorance of the reason I got the call...which at its root was purely on a dare from some local hams. Never in a million years did I know of this newsgroup, or even really believe it would get the attention that it has. I mean, think about it: I was a fairly new ham and had no real motivation to be on HF so didn't think of it from that perspective (of using it on a wide distribution basis) and hadn't even heard of any such thing as a "newsgroup" so didn't think of that venue, either. For me, ham radio was a "local" sport and everyone already knew me here, so it wasn't like I was setting out to get a callsign to "make a name" for myself. Good grief, ask Jim Haynie or any Section Leadership what a rabble rouser I've been--long before I ever got a callsign to go along with it! :) Then it should be a null argument. You should not care why Jim omits her callsign, and it isn't your job to judge Jim. For me, it wasn't about "omitting the callsign." It was about editing a post and taking out attributes that could (*could* mind you) be important to that specific post. I pointed that out long ago in this particular debate (under "The Pool" I believe), but Jim, et al, chose to ignore that aspect. Jim made it about my callsign--at least I think he did. I was all about that he'd been taking my callsign out of posts that *I* had posted. I hadn't even noticed this for a long, long time. But, when it was pointed out, I picked a post and took attributes out of it; more to make an immediate point than anything else. Some people might just care what the reasonings are though. And as for repeating ones self, you shouldn't "have to", but you are. The power of of that callsign is simply too much to resist. - Mike KB3EIA - The reasonings, as stated above, are quite innocent. The plusses (and, yes, I do consider them plusses--I ain't a liar), are incidental amusements that came along afterward. But, look at it this way: just as every other ham who has a "questionable" callsign and is not in this newsgroup therefore does not entertain the flak, so could I have been. But, I found this newsgroup... LOL Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
The reasonings, as stated above, are quite innocent. The plusses (and, yes, I do consider them plusses--I ain't a liar), are incidental amusements that came along afterward. But, look at it this way: just as every other ham who has a "questionable" callsign and is not in this newsgroup therefore does not entertain the flak, so could I have been. But, I found this newsgroup... LOL Oh.... you mean this isn't the aversion therapy meeting? ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Sixty is "middle" aged? How many people have you met in this country that are 120 years old? It's a big bell curve, IMO LOL. That's one seriously big bell curve. Actually, I was hoping you knew something about the 120 years that I haven't heard about. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: Decades ago, all of us thought 30 was old. Not me! Now "old" is something we're not. :-) Well, it's something *I'm* not. You're the one describing 40 and 50 somethings as "old men" ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY. |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: Now "old" is something we're not. :-) Well, it's something *I'm* not. You're the one describing 40 and 50 somethings as "old men" ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY. At 71, I've got to assume I'm beginnint to get "old". I'm not ashamed of it, though. Heck, I went to a heluva lot of trouble to get this old. Harold KD5SAK |
Harold Burton wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: Now "old" is something we're not. :-) Well, it's something *I'm* not. You're the one describing 40 and 50 somethings as "old men" ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY. At 71, I've got to assume I'm beginnint to get "old". I'm not ashamed of it, though. Heck, I went to a heluva lot of trouble to get this old. Well Harold, You're *starting* to creep up on it! ;^) Don't look at it as old though, call it "well seasoned". - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: As I've stated several times, I don't really care what her reasonings were. It's simply not my job to judge Kim. Dwight: Fine, then leave it up to me. I am an intelligent, educated, mature and responsible person, and thus highly qualified to make judgements on things like Kim's callsign -- and based on the evidence provided thereby, her character. I've told Kim what I think, and that is enough. I don't see any reason to keep repeating myself. And I certainly don't see any reason to repeat myself over and over through a several year period as some in this newsgroup have done. The main purpose of the "repetition" is to keep the issue on the "front burner" as it were. Kim has acted irresponsibly by choosing a call sign which incites controversy. Well, that's what she wanted, now she will have to deal with it. Twice today, she has posted suggestions that she wants this thread to go away. Well, only she can make that happen. And she knows how. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: The suffix of Kim's call sign spells out a word which is commonly regarded as a vulgar reference to a woman's breasts. Therefore, her call sign is very inappropriate for a family-oriented activity such as the amateur radio service. By whose standards of inappropriateness, Larry? And who made that person the judge of what is appropriate in this radio service? The FCC issued the callsign. As far as I'm concerned, that is the only "judge" that matters in this regard. Dwight: My own, and several other regular participants of this newsgroup, not to mention a handful of lurkers who communicate me regularly to let me know I'm right on track. In fact, one of them just posted here recently, and quite unexpectedly. The fact that the FCC issued the callsign is totally irrelevant. The FCC is a governmental agency which is driven by a total commitment to political correctness and the need to keep it's ass out of drafts. If they would decline to issue a call sign such as Kim's, they could be sued for big bucks for any number of reasons, most likely the violation of her First Amendment rights. Therefore, it is not the FCC's onus to take responsibility for an objectionable call sign. That is the responsibility of the person to whom it was assigned, if a sequentially-assigned call, or the person requesting a specific Vanity Call Sign. If I were to request a new, sequentially- assigned call, and got something like K3KKK or K3FUK, I would immediately return that license to the FCC and demand a reassignment which did not contain that particularly objectionable suffix. If Kim had any class at all, that is precisely what she would do with her present call. This is on Kim, not the FCC. The FCC is not in a position to sanction or disapprove any particular call sign. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Larry, you are one of the most vulgar persons I've ever been witness to. Kim: Certainly not. Anyone who knows me personally would be very quick to set you straight on that! I will not even dignify the scurrilous accusation you just made by asking you to explain it, because your opinion of other people's character is irrelevant, due to the untoward display of vulgarity demonstrated by your call sign. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Isn't that something?! The people I consider good, decent folks in the ARS, don't have an issue with my callsign at all. Oh, by the way, isn't it around that time of year that this thread get dropped again, Larry? ROFLMAO!!!!! Kim W5TIT Kim: There you go again, begging for this thread to be dropped! Whassamatta? Getting tired of defending the indefensible? Running out of arguments? Feeling like you're at the end of your rope? I thought so. Well, as it happens, you know how to make this thread go away. Start acting like an intelligent, mature, and decent human being, and get rid of that obnoxious call sign! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last) year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual time for it to be dying down. Kim W5TIT Kim: That sounds like wishful thinking. However, you asked for it, and as long as you've got it, you're gonna get it! This thread has a life of it's own, and as long as I am a participant in this newsgroup, it will always pop up whenever you least expect it. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: 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: Ms. Parton has a lot more going for her than an exceptionally well-rounded figure. She has a very attractive face (once you get over the big, bleached blonde hair and the stage makeup), an exceptionally engaging personality, and she is an exceptionally talented and entertaining singer, songwriter, and actress. And while her exceptionally large breasts may be, as she herself once said, "bought and paid for," they are nevertheless all hers, and she does make humorous, but always tastefully self-depricating, references to them as part of her act. However, I tend to doubt that if she were an amateur radio operator, that she would consider requesting a Vanity Call sign such as "W4TIT." Dolly Parton is the real thing -- beautiful, talented, and successful. Stop comparing yourself to her until you write a song like "Jolene" and several dozen others that are just as good. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: 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: You don't make an issue of your breasts? Then what is your call sign all about? I clearly recall that you stated that since you consider yourself to be particularly "well endowed," you took up some sort of challenge to request that particular Vanity Call Sign for the purpose of creating interest directed toward your breasts. Of course, I can understand your need to create confusion over this issue, but an out-and-out lie like you made above only serves to weaken your already thin credibility. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: 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) Dwight: Let's try a little experiment that would serve to prove what you just said. Sometime within the course of going about your daily duties, locate and approach an attractive woman with a particularly voluptious bustline. Say something like, "Hey, lady, I think you have a really nice set of tits there!" Do not duck, cut and run, hold a police riot shield over your face, or anything like that. Just stand there and take the consequences. Bring a witness, then report back on what happens, if and when you regain consciousness. (BTW, I don't recommend that you perform this experiment on a woman who is escorted by a particularly large male companion.) Anyone care to speculate on what the outcome may be? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote | | Dolly Parton is the real thing -- beautiful, talented, and successful. Stop | comparing yourself to her until you write a song like "Jolene" and several | dozen others that are just as good. | I'm an agnostic, but I'm a sucker for anything seen through the eyes of a child, and despite it's Christian overtones the best piece ever written and performed by DP is "My Coat of Many Colors". Second place goes to "Apple Jack". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
If Kim had any class at all, that is precisely what she would do with her present call. If kim had any class at all she would never have chosen such a call. |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
Ms. Parton has a lot more going for her than an exceptionally well-rounded figure. She has a very attractive face (once you get over the big, bleached blonde hair and the stage makeup) As Dolly once commented, "it takes a lot of money to look this cheap". |
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com