"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Unfortunately, the image is
objectionable in any context, and it's
effect on the ARS has the potential
to be exactly as Mr. Hollingsworth
predicted.


If you say so, Larry. I, on the other hand, don't have the time right now
to continue this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"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.

It's typical in much of the USA.

However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child.

Do *you* have reason to meet such people, Dwight? How many "parent's nights"
have you spent recently at the local elementary school?

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.

But you've spent a good part of your adult life outside the USA, haven't you,
Dwight?

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.

Just among my family, friends and acquaintances, the number of families
with at least one parent over 40 and at least one child under 10
exceeds 40%.

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?

You're avoiding the question.

Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim.

Why not?

Anything can be justified or condemned using that.

Not true at all.

And your source is?

Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.

My 49+ years has resulted in meeting a lot of 40+ parents of small children.

Do you consider that to be "old"?
I don't. I consider it to be "middle
aged".

Forty or fifty is certainly not young.

Not old either.

Both. I say neither is appropriate.

Appropriate for what?

Appropriate for the amateur radio service, which should be G-rated.

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.

Either a call such as Kim's is appropriate for the ARS or it isn't. If you have
no objection to it, you're saying it's appropriate, and therefore the rest of
us should accept it. Well, I don't. Period.

You and Kim keep using the term
"vukgar"

actually, "vulgar"

rather than addressing
whether it's "appropriate".

I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times.

And you think it is.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alex Flinsch
writes:

gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

You know, Alex, if Kim had used that as her justification, and had never
mentioned her "well-endowed" figure and the dare she took from friends
to request that call sign, I might have accepted that reason. However,
I would have suggested that "TET" would have been even better. Her
only problem then may have been an adverse reaction by Vietnam-Era
Veterans. It was Kim who raised the issues of her physical characteristics
in regard to her call sign, for the sole purpose of calling attention to them.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:


I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might
place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC.

Harold
KD5SAK

Harold:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd have to say, none at all.

You just Keep Drinking 5 Scotches And Kool-Aids.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harold Burton"
writes:


I'd hate to think what kind of sex oriented twist some folks might
place on my callsign and it's the original assigned to me by the FCC.

Harold
KD5SAK

Harold:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd have to say, none at all.



No problem or disappointment, my own obsessions don't run that way either.
but there are probably other minds out there that might react with a titter
(no pun intended) to a simple alpha-numeric identifier.

Harold
KD5SAK

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:

However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child.

Do *you* have reason to meet such
people, Dwight? How many "parent's
nights" have you spent recently at the
local elementary school?


My wife has a degree in elementary education and has taught off and on for
twenty-five years. She is now back in school getting another degree in
secondary education. She graduates in a few months and will then start her
masters degree classes this coming summer.


But you've spent a good part of your adult
life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight?


Yes, around thousands of active duty military personnel and civilian
employees of the military.

And now I have to cut this short, Jim. I'm starting a new business and
it's really eating up my time at the moment. Things should settle down in a
few days. Until then, this newsgroup will have to take a back seat. Take
care.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

JJ wrote in message ...
William wrote:

JJ wrote in message ...

Alex Flinsch wrote:

In article , Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


the word "tits" used to describe their breasts. "Boobs," yes, occasionally,
but not the "t" word. I digress; this is about Kim, the reason why she
requested her call sign, and the unfavorable image it projects on others


gee, and all this time I thought she took that callsign because TIT was
simple to send and had a nice rhythm in morse.

Alex / AB2RC

Are you kidding? I doubt she can even send Morse.


You don't have to send - just copy.

So how are you going to converse with another Morse station, assuming
you are in the CW portion of the band, if you don't send?

All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

Reread the
post, it was talking about sending.

This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing. The exam is receive only.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:

However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child.

Do *you* have reason to meet such
people, Dwight? How many "parent's
nights" have you spent recently at the
local elementary school?


My wife has a degree in elementary education and has taught off and on for
twenty-five years. She is now back in school getting another degree in
secondary education. She graduates in a few months and will then start her
masters degree classes this coming summer.

Doesn't answer the question, Dwight!


But you've spent a good part of your adult
life outside the USA, haven't you, Dwight?


Yes, around thousands of active duty military personnel and civilian
employees of the military.

The vast majority of whom were under 40, let alone 50, right? How much
of
the US military (other than senior officers) is over 40?

And now I have to cut this short, Jim. I'm starting a new business and
it's really eating up my time at the moment. Things should settle down in a
few days. Until then, this newsgroup will have to take a back seat. Take
care.

Good luck in the new venture! I dare say that if it has anything to do
with young (10 and under) children, you may be surprised at how many
of them have at least one parent in the 40-50 y.o. range.

73 de Jim, N2EY

William wrote:


All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.


This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

The exam is receive only.

So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it? You
must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of. And I still
stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she
can't copy it either.

JJ wrote in message ...
William wrote:


All of the portions of the band are CW portions.

True, one can operate CW in any portion of the band, but if you are in
the phone band, you can answer a CW station on phone, you don't have to
answer in CW as opposed to if you are in the portion of the band where
one can not use phone, ie., must use CW, thus the "CW" portion of the
band, you must answer in CW.

Unless you are an amateur in a foreign country where freedoms abound.

Reread the

post, it was talking about sending.


This purpose of this group is Morse Code testing.

It is? Since when? That topic is often discussed but just where does it
state the purpose of the group is Morse testing?

The exam is receive only.

So what good is being able to receive Morse if you can't send it?

Dunno. That always puzzled me. Just one of the many oddities of the
inventive licensing system.

You
must be one of the cbplussers ULX speaks frequently of.

If you're listening to ULX, you've got bigger problems than CB radio.
You probably really hated passing that $250 over to him.

And I still
stand behind my statement that kim probably can't send CW, or bet she
can't copy it either.

You can stand behind your modified statement all day long.