Dwight Stewart wrote:

"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.

How right you are. A number of beholders have deemed Kim's call vulgar.
I'm one of them.

But I don't really see the word itself as vulgar,
especially in an innocuous radio callsign.

That is apparent.

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?

Yes to both.

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?

You really think in that way? Do you think I'd approve if Kim had
chosen a vulgar name for a male body part to use as the suffix of her
call?

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.

Excellent dodge of the statement, Dwight. You might have a future in
politics.

Dave K8MN