"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