"Kim" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

And how would a callsign bring the
ARS one step closer to extinction?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't
want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of.

Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would
keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well,
I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being
involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third)
impression involved such callsigns.

as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word

[word deleted]

from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em.

That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it
from your callsign.

But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her
something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such
words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior.
And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate
behavior.

Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though
they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking
irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or
similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are
portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc.

I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected
to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed,
'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by
adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few
beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to
keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes
fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is
much more likely to learn that lesson.

*Anyone* who thinks
kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or
listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and
I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics.

But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their
presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when
they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all
behavior is appropriate in all contexts.

Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the
bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though
everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are
called, etc.

Sad but true.

The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

"Kim" wrote in message ...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...

And how would a callsign bring the
ARS one step closer to extinction?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't
want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of.

Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would
keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well,
I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being
involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third)
impression involved such callsigns.


as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word


[word deleted]


from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em.


That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it
from your callsign.

But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her
something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such
words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior.
And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate
behavior.

Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though
they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking
irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or
similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are
portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc.

I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected
to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed,
'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by
adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few
beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to
keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes
fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is
much more likely to learn that lesson.


*Anyone* who thinks
kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or
listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is around--and
I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics.


But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their
presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when
they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all
behavior is appropriate in all contexts.

Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the
bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though
everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are
called, etc.


Sad but true.


The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately.

73 de Jim, N2EY

But kim has already stated she dosen't care what anyone else thinks,
which is the general attitude of people with little or no taste.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:38:24 -0700, JJ
wrote:


But kim has already stated she dosen't care what anyone else thinks,
which is the general attitude of people with little or no taste.

LOL!

You do see the irony in this statement, I hope.....

73, Leo

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

And how would a callsign bring the
ARS one step closer to extinction?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Simple - by making the ARS seem to be something many people won't
want to be a part of - or have their kids be a part of.


It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone
sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then. And, if must
"finally realize" anything about a callsign, then it is definitely because
they took their own path getting there; not because anyone led them there.
To make that a bearer's responsibility to "the community of man" is
ridiculous and I don't wear that crap.


Dwight, you previously said you didn't know any parents who would
keep their kids out of ham radio over a callsign like Kim's. Well,
I know plenty of parents who would not support their kids' being
involved in ham radio if their first (or second, or third)
impression involved such callsigns.


Then, they'd best just keep their kids out of sports, school, movies,
churches; in fact, just lock 'em up and keep 'em safe. The responsibility
of the parent is to teach what is vulgar and what is not. My callsign is
not vulgar. The implication that breasts are something to hide, be
embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar
act.


as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word

[word deleted]

from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em.

That's true. A child who has never seen the word won't learn it
from your callsign.


See first sentence above.


But if the child already knows the word, you will have taught him/her
something worse. You'll have taught the child that the use of such
words in public, and in ham radio, is OK. That it's acceptable behavior.
And you've made it that much harder for them to learn appropriate
behavior.


See second sentence above.


Kids are influenced by what they see and hear adults doing, even though
they will deny such influence. Kids who see adults smoking, drinking
irresponsibly, cussing, etc., will be influenced to try the same or
similar behaviors themselves *IF* those behaviors in adults are
portrayed as acceptable, "fun", glamorous, etc.


And, it is not the responsibility of "the community" to see that a kid
doesn't learn all that stuff and think it's attractive. It's the
responsibility of the parents, family, and anyone personally involved with
the raising and upbringing of a kid. I taught my kids that all "that stuff"
was all over the place. One of them learned that it was not attractive and
lives responsibly, one of them thought most of it was great and barely
accomplishes anything each day. I must have succeeded with one and needed
to work a lot harder with the other. They *both* saw the same "community."


I recall quite clearly how, as a teenager, I and my peers were subjected
to lectures on the evils of illegal drugs like marijuana, LSD, speed,
'ludes, etc. Those lectures were not very convincing when delivered by
adults who needed two cups of coffee in the morning to get started, a few
beers or manhattans in the evening to slow down, and cigarettes all day to
keep going. Same principle applies in any subject - if Coach emphasizes
fair play and following the rules over winning at any cost, the team is
much more likely to learn that lesson.


That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they are
doing. I'd much rather take advice from someone who's been through what
they are preaching against than someone who's never been there. The phrase
"lead by example" has some truth to it. But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion. Here, you were
sitting right there listening to those lecturers preaching against the evils
as they partook in something you believed was evil and you still ignored the
value they taught--or at least devalued it, it looks like.


*Anyone* who thinks
kids are still that innocent these days, has not been on a schoolyard or
listening in on kids' conversations when they think no one is
around--and
I've even heard Kindergartners speaking of some pretty risque topics.

But that does *not* mean it doesn't matter what adults say and do in their
presence, or in public! The mere fact that you have to listen in when
they don't know you're there means the kids are learning that not all
behavior is appropriate in all contexts.


The good work of their parents, no doubt. Pffttt. With regard to breasts,
they can be a work of art, a tool of health, the target of the expression of
love, or represent some evil, twisted, sense of wrongdoing. I choose the
beauty of breasts--not the twisted logic. It's exactly like nude art. I
would never gasp at a child looking at a nude statue, or painting, or photo,
etc. I would ask them what they found beautiful.


Same principle as teaching them it's OK to pull their pants down in the
bathroom or doctor's office, but *not* OK to do in public! Even though
everyone knows what's under their clothes, what those body parts are
called, etc.


It's your expression of "those body parts" that, to someone like me, worries
me. Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible. "Those" body parts can be beautiful or dangerous, and
both must be recognized. When someone is pulling their pants down at the
doctor--it is quite OK, at least one would think; when someone is pulling
their pants down in public--it is quite not OK. However, in the right
circumstances both could be exactly the opposite. If a doctor--and this has
been done--is about to rape someone, then it's evil. And, I can think of
nothing better I would love to do to someone like Saddam Hussein, than to
moon him with a thousand milliion asses; or even just one: mine.


Sad but true.

The reason it's like that is the failure of adults to act appropriately.

73 de Jim, N2EY


Yep. You're exactly right. However, it seems that your "act appropriately"
and mine are two entirely different things. And, I'm done--sigh, once
again--discussing my callsign. It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's
mine. Period.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:




It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless someone
sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference
to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some
other reason?

"JJ" wrote in message
news
Kim W5TIT wrote:




It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless
someone
sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference
to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some
other reason?


Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop
my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she
gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public.
Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
news
Kim W5TIT wrote:




It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless

someone

sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference
to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some
other reason?



Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop
my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before she
gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the public.
Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also...

Kim W5TIT


You stated in a previous post that you knew the callsign would get a
reaction, that is why the T-I-T part of your callsign was chosen. If it
is just another call sign, why did you expect a reaction?
Why didn't you choose some other suffix? Why TIT? Here is why in your
own words.

"I jokingly told my fellow hams one day (all men, of course) that it was
silly to get initials for a vanity callsign--one should put some real
punch into a vanity callsign."

You wanted some "punch" in your callsign, thus the suffix "TIT" as it
references your breasts, thus getting the attention and reaction you so
desperately want.

You also stated, "The fun that evolves out of it is a great bonus." In
other words you new the reactions it would give, and you enjoy the
comments about your callsign and it's reference to your breasts. If it
were just a callsign like any other, there wouldn't be any fun that
evolves out of it and a great bonus would it?

Extremely poor taste.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
news
Kim W5TIT wrote:




It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless

someone

sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference
to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some
other reason?



Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to
drop
my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before
she
gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the
public.
Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also...

Kim W5TIT


You stated in a previous post that you knew the callsign would get a
reaction, that is why the T-I-T part of your callsign was chosen. If it
is just another call sign, why did you expect a reaction?
Why didn't you choose some other suffix? Why TIT? Here is why in your
own words.


You're correct, I chose T-I-T for the suffix of my callsign; however, I did
not choose the name "tit," the nickname "tit," or the *word* "tit." I also
did not choose the *callsign* W5TIT for vulgar, sexual, or otherwise
negative reasons. All of you who feel it is have dreamed that one up on
your own.


"I jokingly told my fellow hams one day (all men, of course) that it was
silly to get initials for a vanity callsign--one should put some real
punch into a vanity callsign."

You wanted some "punch" in your callsign, thus the suffix "TIT" as it
references your breasts, thus getting the attention and reaction you so
desperately want.


So, boring, mundane, random, etc., is your way of defining what is "right."
Again, you've dreamed that one up on your own.


You also stated, "The fun that evolves out of it is a great bonus." In
other words you new the reactions it would give, and you enjoy the
comments about your callsign and it's reference to your breasts. If it
were just a callsign like any other, there wouldn't be any fun that
evolves out of it and a great bonus would it?

Extremely poor taste.


Oh, so you know of others who don't have "fun" callsigns. Gosh...maybe you
should get yourself, and them, into something a whole lot more fun.
Because, for you to be so obsessed over an innocuous callsign just lends
itself to your misery of being in the hobby around such questionable,
deranged characters such as me.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Oh, so you know of others who don't have "fun" callsigns. Gosh...maybe you
should get yourself, and them, into something a whole lot more fun.
Because, for you to be so obsessed over an innocuous callsign just lends
itself to your misery of being in the hobby around such questionable,
deranged characters such as me.

Kim W5TIT


Spin it anyway you want kimmygirl, you chose the suffix tit because of
the reference to breasts, to give your call some "punch" as you put it.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"JJ" wrote in message
news
Kim W5TIT wrote:




It's my opinion that my callsign would be totally innocuous unless
someone
sat there and thought about it for a bit--if even then.

Oh come on! You chose that call sign on a dare because of the reference
to breasts. Are you going to attempt tell us you chose TIT for some
other reason?


Ummmmm, I did not choose T-I-T, I chose *W* *5* T-I-T. Wishing me to drop
my callsign would be about like telling Dolly Parton to cover up before
she
gets on stage. Her boobs are one of her trademarks--at least to the
public.
Oh, wait, you may find her vulgar also...

Kim W5TIT


Dolly Parton does not make an issue of her breasts. Therefore there is no
vulgarity.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE