Dave Heil wrote in message ...

I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual.

Or, "I have given some thought to my choice of working Frenchmen out
of band on 6M, and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice
reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual."

Dave, do you recognize yourself in this alternative scenario?

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 13 Jan 2004 09:54:02 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

I am aware that you preceive it that way. Are you aware that no disrespect
was intended?

No.

Unfortunately, the Gutenberg press doesn't lend itself to the full
range of human vocal expression and we often infer emotion based upon
prior typed exchanges with our victims.

Mistakes in interpretation are made daily, yet are unambiguous when
the typist provides line after line of all CAPS, excessive exclamation
points (!!!), and multiple lines of
"bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha" maniacal laughter.

"Bend Over" is another good clue that your on-line buddy has seen too
many reruns of Deliverance and wishes you ill will.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays?

Sure it has, Kim. Why should I pray for you if you're not even going to
tackle it yourself? After all, If I prayed for you and told you so,
you'd simply think I was someone with that "certain tone of voice".

Dave K8MN

If you were to tell me that you prayed for me, I would thank you. But
I would wonder if God listened to smug prayers.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Leo wrote:

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion.

...and yours seems to be to set yourself up as an expert in debate while
taking the view that we're somehow obligated to be even handed toward
something which we find in poor taste.

Now there's a smug remark.

I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

Jim is quite obviously acting on his principles in this matter.

And you yours in this matter.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

What game are we playing which requires a level field? Kim wasn't being
courteous to others in her choice of callsign. Perhaps you'll want to
take her to task over it. She singled herself out in her choice of
calls.
Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Similarly, you weren't being courteous to other Tanzanian amateurs by
working Frenchmen out of band on 6M when you held a Tanzanian call,
and subsequently stating that you would continue to do so because you
were within your authorization.

You give Tanzanian amateurs a bad name.

Meanwhile you state you would somehow manage to tune past a legally
issued American callsign, apparently in preference of out of band
Frenchmen on 6M.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than those
you've exhibited here. It seems that you've set yourself up here to
defend bad taste.

Dave K8MN

So we're to believe that your private, real morals are better than
those
you've exhibited here and on the air?

It seems that you've set yourself up here and on the air to defend bad
taste.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

It's hard for you to get your "point" across when you still don't
understand what you did.

Dave K8MN

Kind of like working Frenchmen out of band on 6M, huh?

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Regardless, lets get to the basics of
this issue. What is wrong with the
word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as
a noun meaning "either of two soft
fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs
on the chest of a woman." Seem rather
innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like
most women, has those "soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs." So
why would so many be offended by her
very mention of that fact? It's not like
she's refering to the sexual organs
or something.


Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight.
The term is vulgar slang (snip)


Vulgar is very much in the eyes of the beholder, dependant on how the word
is used and who uses it. But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar,
especially in an innocuous radio callsign. Would you be so offended if it
had been issued by the FCC at random? Would you be so offended if it had
been selected by a man? In the end, it appears to me that most are
complaining simply because a woman selected a callsign which highlights a
unique aspect of womanhood. Perhaps these guys are jealous that woman have
those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs" and they don't. Tit
envy?


Maybe you're the kind of fellow who
would be proud to have his wife, mother
or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not.


I wouldn't even attempt to tell my wife, mother, or adult daughter, which
callsign to select for themselves. All of these women clearly have enough
intelligence to select the callsign they want, whatever it might be.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.


Hmmmm, never thought of it that way, Leo, but your observation comes true.
I can't tell you how many times I have been given "oh jeeze" looks from
women who think I absolutely deliberately grew these things to their size!
I guess I've never paid that much attention to it; it's the equivalent of
"blaming" someone for being born any other way.

Kim W5TIT

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays?

Sure it has, Kim. Why should I pray for you if you're not even going to
tackle it yourself? After all, If I prayed for you and told you so,
you'd simply think I was someone with that "certain tone of voice".

Dave K8MN

If you were to tell me that you prayed for me, I would thank you. But
I would wonder if God listened to smug prayers.


Now, I like that response, and much more to the point, Brian! And, I don't
think it'd be much wonder at all, though

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

Regardless, lets get to the basics of
this issue. What is wrong with the
word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as
a noun meaning "either of two soft
fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs
on the chest of a woman." Seem rather
innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like
most women, has those "soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs." So
why would so many be offended by her
very mention of that fact? It's not like
she's refering to the sexual organs
or something.


Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight.
The term is vulgar slang (snip)


Vulgar is very much in the eyes of the beholder, dependant on how the
word
is used and who uses it. But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar,
especially in an innocuous radio callsign. Would you be so offended if it
had been issued by the FCC at random? Would you be so offended if it had
been selected by a man? In the end, it appears to me that most are
complaining simply because a woman selected a callsign which highlights a
unique aspect of womanhood. Perhaps these guys are jealous that woman have
those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs" and they don't. Tit
envy?


Maybe you're the kind of fellow who
would be proud to have his wife, mother
or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not.


I wouldn't even attempt to tell my wife, mother, or adult daughter,
which
callsign to select for themselves. All of these women clearly have enough
intelligence to select the callsign they want, whatever it might be.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Y'know...the thing I think that fascinates me most in all this stuff is
that, when I was asked about my callsign I could have just said, "none of
your business." My callsign *could* have been chosen for any number of
reasons: I bring light to the man over in Florida (K2TIT) who had that
callsign as a commemoration to the TET offensive and, when he was
considering a call, K2TET had been taken/issued (I don't remember which
Michael told me).

Anyway, I openly and honestly told the story (yeah, Dave, the earlier and
the later version) of how my callsign came to be and, *that* is what has
determined the approach to my callsign--nothing more! *Not* the callsign.

So, the moral of this story is that, as long as one keeps quiet about their
reasons for doing something, it must remain unquestionable to those in this
newsgroup who now--simply because of a story and nothing more--find
themselves high and mighty (over a--good grief--ham radio callsign!).

Oh wow, I just looked the K2TIT callsign up (to try and confirm that Michael
was that guy's name, but I think it was)--and it's been two years since he's
given it up! Hmmmm, now I could get my preferred callsign--I'd wanted the
'K' call, not 'W'. I actually believe that having a 'W' call is offensive
to many long-licensed hams; much more offensive than having a suffix of any
sort.

Kim W5TIT

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 06:46:22 -0600, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil

Now she has to live with the fallout. Some will give her a *wink* or a
*chuckle*. Some will voice their disapproval.

Full figured women live with the risk of fallout every day, Dave -
it's a fact of life.


Hmmmm, never thought of it that way, Leo, but your observation comes true.
I can't tell you how many times I have been given "oh jeeze" looks from
women who think I absolutely deliberately grew these things to their size!
I guess I've never paid that much attention to it; it's the equivalent of
"blaming" someone for being born any other way.

Yup, people do have a natural tendency to get hung up on physical
characteristics. I've heard that from a couple of friends in the same
- um - situation...guys have trouble looking you in the eye, and the
other women (and some guys..) become insecure. Dumb and insensitive,
but it seems to be human nature.

You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not
understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in
the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one
morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in
conversation.

Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana ) and see if
they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking
about the day before......

That oughta learn 'em!


Kim W5TIT

73, Leo