On 22 Jan 2004 09:39:22 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim"
wrote:

Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.

Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it.

The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to
support your observation, Kim.

Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign"
that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the
callsign):

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him
- it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package',
as it were.

You are mistaken, Leo.

That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced"
about Kim's callsign.

The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion
before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I
did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here
on rrap, in use by its holder.

IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other
than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement.

In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were
pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your
use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine
my surprise when I discovered it was for-real!

Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.

You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here,
and not simply on the callsign, aren't you? Your statement that you
did not pre-judge certainly enforces this, does it not?

I keep hearing that the callsign is inappropriate, but what you really
mean that it is a combination of factors - right?

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:38:24 -0700, JJ
wrote:


But kim has already stated she dosen't care what anyone else thinks,
which is the general attitude of people with little or no taste.

LOL!

You do see the irony in this statement, I hope.....

73, Leo

In article , Leo
writes:

On 22 Jan 2004 09:39:22 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim"
wrote:

Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he
decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.

Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the
attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it.

The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to
support your observation, Kim.

Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign"
that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the
callsign):

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him
- it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package',
as it were.

You are mistaken, Leo.

That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced"
about Kim's callsign.

The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion
before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I
did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here
on rrap, in use by its holder.

IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other
than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement.

In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were
pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your
use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine
my surprise when I discovered it was for-real!

Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.

You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here,
and not simply on the callsign, aren't you?

Nope.

I'm saying that I didn't have an opinion until I encountered the callsign here.

Your statement that you
did not pre-judge certainly enforces this, does it not?

Nope. All my statement says is that I did not have an opinion until I saw the
callsign. And at first I thought it wasn't a real, FCC issued callsign, but
simply a way of staying anonymous. Like you do, "Leo".

I figured that the person using it here chose it as a screen name
because FCC wouldn't issue such a call. I was mistaken - FCC
*would* issue it, but only as a vanity. Which surprised the

[expletive deleted]

out of me!

I keep hearing that the callsign is inappropriate, but what you really
mean that it is a combination of factors - right?

Wrong. The callsign, and others like it, are simply inappropriate for the
ARS. Just my opinion. That FCC allows them and that hams choose
them doesn't make them any more appropriate for the ARS.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 23 Jan 2004 00:59:25 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:
snip


Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.

You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here,
and not simply on the callsign, aren't you?

Nope.

Guess this is the part that confuses me, Jim - in the first sentence
above, you state that you formed your opinion of Kim's callsign based
on experiences here. In the decond sentence, you said "nope" to
exactly the same thing....

I'm confused!

snip

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:47:09 GMT, Leo wrote:

On 23 Jan 2004 00:59:25 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:
snip


Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.

You are saying that your opinion was formed based on experiences here,
and not simply on the callsign, aren't you?

Nope.

Guess this is the part that confuses me, Jim - in the first sentence
above, you state that you formed your opinion of Kim's callsign based
on experiences here. In the decond sentence, you said "nope" to
exactly the same thing....

I'm confused!

....and spelling challenged too. Make that 'second' sentence (what the
H$%% is a decond?? I dunno).......

73, Leo ...again

snip

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

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.

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


"Don't look now, Larry" but I am a CODED Tech+. Don't even tell me you have
missed that for the past umpteenth years! I have been a CODED Tech+ nearly
since the beginning of being an amateur. I think it was a couple/few months
after getting my ticket that I finally passed the 5 wpm.

And, yes, for the first two or three years I worked a lot of HF, on 10M
anyway, and always worked a pileup if I heard one, always worked DX if I
happened to hear someone during the weekday on my lunchhour and can't think
of a time when I have failed to "get through."

So, don't look now, Larry, you're wrong, as usual. Sneer away....it becomes
you.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Yes, you're right. I was wrong. I admit my mistake. Too bad you won't
do the same and change your call sign.

73 de Larry, K3LT

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:13:59 -0700, JJ
wrote:

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.

Absalutely right!

73, Leo

"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. 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.
To make that a bearer's responsibility to "the community of man" is
ridiculous and I don't wear that crap.


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. The responsibility
of the parent is to teach what is vulgar and what is not. My callsign is
not vulgar. The implication that breasts are something to hide, be
embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar
act.


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.


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.


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. It's the
responsibility of the parents, family, and anyone personally involved with
the raising and upbringing of a kid. 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. They *both* saw the same "community."


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. 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 phrase
"lead by example" has some truth to it. But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion. 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.


*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. Pffttt. With regard to breasts,
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. I choose the
beauty of breasts--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.


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. Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible. "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. 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. 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.


Sad but true.

The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yep. You're exactly right. However, it seems that your "act appropriately"
and mine are two entirely different things. And, I'm done--sigh, once
again--discussing my callsign. It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's
mine. Period.

Kim W5TIT

"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