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