"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:


And, it works great working DX and pileups--when I
used to do that!

Don't look now, Kim, but you're a No-code Technician. There is no way
you can "work DX and pileups" on HF unless you were operating as a
third party using your OM's privileges, and that would also require the
use of his call sign. Oh, yeah, six meters. Sure, I DX and pileups are
possible there, but I rather suspect you were talking about HF. Please
give us a run-down on your OM's VHF DX'ing capabilities. That should
be a good one.

73 de Larry, K3LT



"Don't look now, Larry" but I am a CODED Tech+. Don't even tell me you have
missed that for the past umpteenth years! I have been a CODED Tech+ nearly
since the beginning of being an amateur. I think it was a couple/few months
after getting my ticket that I finally passed the 5 wpm.

And, yes, for the first two or three years I worked a lot of HF, on 10M
anyway, and always worked a pileup if I heard one, always worked DX if I
happened to hear someone during the weekday on my lunchhour and can't think
of a time when I have failed to "get through."

So, don't look now, Larry, you're wrong, as usual. Sneer away....it becomes
you.

Kim W5TIT

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

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Thank you. And, as someone else pointed out, if a kid derives the word
"tit" from my callsign, it AIN'T because I taught 'em. *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. Sad
but true.

Kim W5TIT

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

Your message didn't show up on my server, Kim. So I'll use Leo's message
(thanks, Leo) to post my response. Anyway, yes, I also seem to remember
your
callsign wasn't an issue until after you disagreed with Larry and friends.
Only at that point did they decide to focus on your callsign to distract
from the counter-arguments you made. However, regardless of how it
started,
that is certainly how your callsign is being used now. It now seems Larry
and some of his friends would rather belittle your callsign than seriously
respond to your comments on various issues. Of course, some, on the other
hand, are simply using your callsign in the same manner as the codswallop
of
the typical newsgroup troll (including Larry on occasion).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Yep. Period. That's the end of the story

Kim W5TIT

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:12:59 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Leo wrote:


You may want to suggest an experiment to those guys who do not
understand how this must feel. Ask them to place a large banana in
the inside front of their pants before they head off to work one
morning. Have them engage as many of their co-workers as possible in
conversation.



Then, the next day, have them go in (minus the banana ) and see if
they can find anyone who remembers what the hell they were talking
about the day before......


Actually that doesn't seem like a very good example, "Leo". You'd get
the same result whether the guy wore the banana in the front or in the
rear of his pants.

ROFL! And *that* kind folks, is the retort of the week! Good one Dave.

I wonder if Dave is basing his statement on first-hand empirical
evidence...

- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

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

"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

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.

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.

Leo wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim"
wrote:

Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.

Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it.

The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to
support your observation, Kim.

Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign"
that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the
callsign):

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him
- it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package',
as it were.

You are mistaken, Leo.

That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced"
about Kim's callsign.

The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion
before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I
did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here
on rrap, in use by its holder.

IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other
than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement.

In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were
pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your
use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine
my surprise when I discovered it was for-real!

Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:26:39 -0600, "Kim"
wrote:


Another interesting little snippit... If I recall, it was only after I
"took on" some of the things Larry (and his ilk) was posting that he decided
to take a dislike to my callsign.

Makes one wonder if it is the callsign that is the reason for the attitude;
or that they just plain dislike me and can't think of any other way to
express it.

The statements of those who voice the strongest objections tend to
support your observation, Kim.

Jim himself, who insists that it is just the "inappropriate callsign"
that bothers him, stated (regarding his negative opinion towards the
callsign):

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

This statement indicates that it isn't just the call that bothers him
- it's a combination of the call plus other 'factors'. The 'package',
as it were.


You are mistaken, Leo.

That statement of mine was in response to claims that I was "prejudiced"
about Kim's callsign.

The word "prejudice" means to "pre-judge". IOW, to come to a conclusion
before knowing all the relevant facts. My statement

"It wasn't formed beforehand. It was formed only after I encountered
the callsign and its owner here, and considered all the issues."

simply proves that I wasn't prejudiced because I didn't pre-judge. And I
did not encounter that callsign, or ones like it, before I saw it here
on rrap, in use by its holder.

IOW, I did not hear about it somewhere else, see it used by someone other
than Kim, etc. And I did not rush to judgement.

In fact, when I first saw it, I thought "Kim" and the callsign were
pseudonyms being used to hide the identity of the poster. Like your
use of only your first name, rather than your callsign. Imagine
my surprise when I discovered it was for-real!

Look at the context in which I wrote that statement, and it is clear
that it simply means I formed my opinion of Kim's callsign based on
experiences here, not on prejudice.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And I might add, if I were trying to introduce my grandson or
granddaughter to amateur radio, do you think I would walk up to kim and
say, "I would like you to meet kim, her callsign is W5TIT." Hardly, she
would be the one person I would steer them away from as I would
certainly like to present better examples of what amateur radio is about.