On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:24:14 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
Clearly, letters only become vulgar when
one attaches a specific meaning to them.
Without a context to make "TIT," or other
such letters, vulgar, I can't really envision
a "parent or uncle or grandparent" keeping
a child out of Amateur Radio simply
because those letters appear in a callsign.

The "context" is self-evident. It is a well-
known vulgarity referring to a woman's
breasts in a connotation which is generally
considered to be of a sexual nature. (snip)


The "vulgarity" and "of a sexual nature" is self-evident to you, Larry.
Funk & Wagnals describes "tit" as "teat, breast or nipple." Princeton
University's WordWeb defines "tit" as "either of two soft fleshy
milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman" or "the small
projection of a mammary gland." And, of course, both mention a "small
insectivorous bird." Many farm animals have teats or "tits," but most don't
consider them to be "of a sexual nature."


(snip) Would you as aggressively challenge
one of those guys, like you've done with
Kim, if any one of them were active in this
newsgroup?

Yes, I would. Even if those call signs were
issued sequentially, there is no reason for
the licensee to keep them and use them on
the air if they are of an objectionable nature.
The FCC would certainly honor their request
for a call sign reassignment. Anyone who
kept and used such a call would be subject to
the same questions regarding their motives as
is Kim.


Then you have a lot of aggressive questioning to do. In addition to the
examples given before (containing either "TIT" and "ASS"), I found about a
dozen more with the same suffixes and several dozen more with other
questionable suffixes (GAY, FAG, LEZ, CUM, SEX, and so on). At this stage in
the search, I suspect there may eventually be several hundred callsigns you
might object to. Given that, and the amount of time you've spent just
questioning Kim alone, you may have decades of aggressive questioning still
to do before you finish the entire list. Of course, the more logical
approach would to discuss this with the FCC instead. After all, if getting
rid of "questionable" callsigns in a "family-oriented hobbyist radio
service" is your true goal, that would be the most appropriate, and
effective, way to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Well said, Dwight!

73, Leo