Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

No it only becomes vulgar when
chosen as a vanity call for the
purpose of "getting in someone's
face". If a person were to choose
it because there name was
something like "Tonya Irene
Tidwell" and they wanted their
initials, it is not vulgar. (snip)



However, given the topic of this discussion (children and the ARS one step
closer to extinction), how is one supposed to know the difference between
the in your face "TIT" and the "TIT" initials? In the end, without a
specific context, it's just a callsign.

IIRC kim chose the call sign on a dare because of the "TIT". Now why
would anyone challenge someone to chose that callsign unless they saw
the "TIT" had some kind of in your face or sexual reference? That is
exactly why she chose the call sign, because of the tit reference.
Extremely bad taste.

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

Picture a senerio where some ham brings his young grandson or
granddaughter to a ham meeting or a field day to introduce them to
amateur radio. They walk in and there stands some broad with an XL size
tee shirt on that is still two sizes too small, with a call sign like
that across her chest. Not a very good statement for ham radio.