"Kim" wrote in message ...
"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.

Others disagree with that. And I think if you really believed it were
"totally
innocuous unless some sat there and thought about it for a bit", you
would
not have chosen it, because you've said it was chosen in part for the
reactions it would get.

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.

I disagree. The callsign starts them on the path. Otherwise you would
not
have chosen it.

To make that a bearer's responsibility to "the community of man" is
ridiculous and I don't wear that

[expletive deleted]

You may refuse to "wear" it, Kim, but communities live and die on how
well
their members accept their responsibilities to the community. One
reason for
so many laws that seem silly or stupid is that they are an attempt to
get
people to take on their responsibilities to the community.

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.

Why? In my experience, they will not encounter things like your
callsign
from adults in sports, school, or church. At least not in any of them
that
I have been a part of in the last 10-15 years. Movies are not only
rated
by content but kids under certain ages are not permitted to see
certain
movies because of content - a good example of the community taking
responsibility.

The responsibility
of the parent is to teach what is vulgar and what is not.

Not just the parents. (Each child has at least two). It's also the
community's responsibility - meaning everyone in the community.

My callsign is not vulgar.

Not to you. Others differ on that.

I say it's inappropriate.

The implication that

[body parts]

are something to hide, be
embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar
act.

Would you then say that they are no different from, say, a hand or a
nose?
Would you say that it's always appropriate to display them, talk about
them,
etc., regardless of the context or the situation? That's where you're
argument
leads.

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.

You mean the one about it being totally innocuous? See my response.

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.

The one about the path? See my response.

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.

Yes, it is. That's one major reason to be a part of a community - so
that
the next generation can be raised in an environment that passes on the
best of the previous generation's values and standards.

Communities can only exist and thrive if the people in them are better
off
being a part of them, *and* realize and fullfil their responsibilities
to the community, as well as demanding their rights.

It's the
responsibility of the parents, family, and anyone personally involved with
the raising and upbringing of a kid.

How can they do that if the community works against them? It's
*everyone's*
responsibility, in varying degrees.


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.

You just proved what I'm saying is valid.

It's clear that they were both exposed to things that were
inappropriate or even
potentially harmful, but one was able to resist and the other wasn't.

Here's an analogy:

Almost everyone has an "Aunt Edna" who has smoked three packs of
Camels a day since he was 12 and who is now hale and healthy in his
90s. And almost everyone also has an "Uncle Bill" who passed away at a
young age from a combination of health problems brought about by
smoking. A lot of people - particularly smokers - remember Aunt Edna
and forget all about Uncle Bill. Some even claim
that Aunt Edna somehow proves that smoking isn't that bad for you.

But what the Aunt Edna/Uncle Bill story proves is that a few people
are very
resistant to, and a few others very susceptible to, health problems
caused by smoking. And most people are somewhere in the middle. More
important, you can't tell ahead of time who is going to wind up like
Aunt Edna and who is going to wind up like Uncle Bill. So the
intelligent, reasonable, logical, human thing to do is to act as if
everyone has Uncle Bill's susceptibility, not Aunt Edna's resistance.

They *both* saw the same "community."

No, they did not. Communities are constantly changing. I suspect what
really happened was that one was simply more resistant to certain
things and the other more susceptible.

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.

No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors
as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because
the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do".

Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do".

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 adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke
grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told
how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves
ingested substances that were all those things.

The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it.

Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly.

But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion.

That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when
it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer
keeps on making the mistakes.

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.

That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not
as I do",
they use the adult's behavior as an excuse. That's not mature, adult
reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when
someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a
lot of fun.

You cannot always treat children as if they are adults in smaller
bodies. To do so is inappropriate and potentially very harmful.

*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.

And their community.

Pffttt.

What does that mean? Would you rather have them talk that way all the
time, in all contexts?

With regard to

[body parts]


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.

Yep - it all depends on the context. In some contexts their
appropriate, in others their not.

A thumb is usually innocuous. A nose is usually innocuous. Thumbing
one's nose isn't.

I choose the
beauty of

[body parts]

..--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.

It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it
appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let
adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health
care is a different context
than trying on clothes.

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.

Why?

Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible.

They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE.

"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.

Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts
that you say must be spoken of, right?

Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not
usually appropriate in public?

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.

Of course. But that's not the point. The action described is only
appropriate in a doctor's office if it's medically required.

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.

Again, an extreme that proves *my* point.

Sad but true.

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

Yep. You're exactly right.

Well, there you have it.

However, it seems that your "act appropriately"
and mine are two entirely different things.

I sure hope so!

And, I'm done--sigh, once
again--discussing my callsign.

Maybe.

It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's
mine.

That's your opinion. Here's mine:

It's inappropriate for the ARS.

It helps the ARS move one step closer to extinction.

Period.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

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.

Others disagree with that. And I think if you really believed it were
"totally
innocuous unless some sat there and thought about it for a bit", you
would
not have chosen it, because you've said it was chosen in part for the
reactions it would get.


From those friends and associates, Jim...who were in on why the callsign,
etc.


The implication that

[body parts]

are something to hide, be
embarrassed about, think of only in a sexual manner, etc., is the vulgar
act.

Would you then say that they are no different from, say, a hand or a
nose?
Would you say that it's always appropriate to display them, talk about
them,
etc., regardless of the context or the situation? That's where you're
argument
leads.


No, they are no different than a hand, a nose, a foot, all of which could be
sexual appendages at some point. But, *in the right context* they (tits)
are just as bland and boring as a nose, a foot, or whatever.

And, as to displaying them, I personally have no problem at all with nudity
in general. I am not prone to "automatically" assume a nude body is for
sex, or something vulgar as you may describe it. I think it's darned unfair
that men can run around showing their tits, when a man is just as likely to
get aroused by someone playing with their nipples as any woman is. What's
the difference whether a man goes topless or a woman goes topless?


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.

You just proved what I'm saying is valid.


I don't think I did at all. But have it your way...


That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they
are
doing.

No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors
as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because
the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do".

Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do".


What do you mean "would you"? I did. My parents morals, objective lessons,
words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me. I knew that they were
right because, as my mother would tell me "if you start smoking now, it will
be extremely difficult for you to quit when you learn how bad it is," as she
was puffing on her cigarette--I knew how much she wanted to quit smoking. I
saw no contradiction whatever in what she was saying. She was right. Did
you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached? I certainly
didn't. I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a
reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing
it."


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 adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke
grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told
how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves
ingested substances that were all those things.


Not sure why you felt like you had to elaborate. I knew where you were
coming from.


The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it.

Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly.

But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion.

That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when
it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer
keeps on making the mistakes.


Your philosophy is different than mine, then. Either it is or it ain't. If
I believe the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" is pertinent and
that I've learned more from it than those who tried to lead by example, then
I believe it across the board--not selectively. And, I believe it.


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.

That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not
as I do",
they use the adult's behavior as an excuse.


Please don't use "they" in the vernacular. I did not. Oh, and lots of my
friends did not.


That's not mature, adult
reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when
someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a
lot of fun.


How could someone who sees a parent smoking, hacking, stinking up the place,
chained to the cigarette, ever think smoking could be a lot of fun?! I used
to smoke, but not because I thought it was fun. I think I probably started
to get in trouble--get the attention of my mom so she'd quit. Heh heh...but
it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago.

Sex? Oh, no way that could be any fun. I grew up in a town of less than a
thousand people and I saw teen-aged girls getting pregnant at like 13!!
Wasn't no way that was fun.


.--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.

It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it
appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let
adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health
care is a different context
than trying on clothes.


I think it's appropriate and natural to have children see each other nekked.
By the way, why are you so huffy about not printing a callsign (all
inclusive with its prefix and suffix) but you'll bring up and print the
subject of "naked adults?" I mean, really...where is your logic in *that*?

Anyway, and as to adults being naked, I used to take showers with my kids
(sons) when they were little, stopped probably when they were--oh I don't
know--3 or 4. Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?! Good grief, I hope not.
But, as I said, have it your way. And, why *is* it OK for nudity when one
is, presumably, an infant or toddler and then, just as they are probably
quite comfortable with the nude body--we suddenly decide "OHMYGAWD...you
can't see me *THAT* way!!!" Whaddup wid dat?


Why?

Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible.

They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE.


Maybe to you. And that's your right to believe like that. But, don't make
a judgement call--and you have--about someone who thinks it differently than
you. And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me
anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign. Either leave me off
altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as
each and every other ham. And, by the way, I am pretty much going to quit
debating the topic because it's pretty darned obvious that we
disagree--wholeheartedly--on this. You've turned it into a debate about my
callsign. The issue isn't *why*, it is that you did and that you could have
handled it differently. Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I
have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa." I am not at all,
neither is Leo, or anyone else. The point is you could have left my name
completely *off* the list.


"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.

Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts
that you say must be spoken of, right?


Hey! Now you're talking!


Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not
usually appropriate in public?


Well, there may be patients who wouldn't mind exams in public...I would,
though.


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.

Of course. But that's not the point. The action described is only
appropriate in a doctor's office if it's medically required.

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.

Again, an extreme that proves *my* point.

Sad but true.

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

Yep. You're exactly right.

Well, there you have it.

However, it seems that your "act appropriately"
and mine are two entirely different things.

I sure hope so!

And, I'm done--sigh, once
again--discussing my callsign.

Maybe.

It's valid, it's beautiful, it's fun, it's
mine.

That's your opinion. Here's mine:

It's inappropriate for the ARS.

It helps the ARS move one step closer to extinction.

Period.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And, you're incorrect...

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

| I personally have no problem at all with nudity
| in general. I am not prone to "automatically"
| assume a nude body is for sex...


Here's how you can tell..... if a person is 'nude', that means they
aren't wearing any clothing. On the other hand, if a person is
'nekkid', that means they aren't wearing any clothing and they're up to
something.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

| I personally have no problem at all with nudity
| in general. I am not prone to "automatically"
| assume a nude body is for sex...


Here's how you can tell..... if a person is 'nude', that means they
aren't wearing any clothing. On the other hand, if a person is
'nekkid', that means they aren't wearing any clothing and they're up to
something.

73, de Hans, K0HB



Ummmm, Hans, there's a lot easier way to tell if people without clothes on
are "up to something" or not.

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

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.

You just proved what I'm saying is valid.

I don't think I did at all. But have it your way...

The results prove that what I said was valid.

That's a copout--to ignore the advice of someone because of what they
are doing.

No, it isn't! Regardless, it's what kids do. Kids see such behaviors
as hypocrisy on the part of the lecturer - and their right, because
the 'adult' is really saying "Do as I say, not as I do".

Would *you* accept "Do as I say, not as I do".

What do you mean "would you"? I did.

Then you were different than most children I knew.

My parents morals, objective lessons,
words of wisdom, etc., were never questioned by me.

Uh huh.

I knew that they were
right because, as my mother would tell me "if you start smoking now, it will
be extremely difficult for you to quit when you learn how bad it is," as she
was puffing on her cigarette--I knew how much she wanted to quit smoking. I
saw no contradiction whatever in what she was saying. She was right.

Of course she was right.

But that didn't stop you from smoking. How many years were you a
smoker, Kim?

Your mother's actions had more influence than her words. Despite what
she said, you smoked anyway. And finally quit when - 10 years ago?

Did you go around expecting everyone to live as they preached?

Nope. But neither did I think that it made sense to listen to someone
who *unrepentantly* lived one way and preached another.

Living one way and preaching another is a pretty good definition of hypocrisy,
btw.

And the fact remains that, logical or not, children are more influenced by
their parents' actions than their parents' words.

I certainly didn't.

Yet you smoked for how many years?

I learned far more things by observing that maybe there was a
reason for the lecturer lecturing against something while they were "doing
it."

But when it came to smoking, those words didn't stop you.

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 adults were preaching against stuff they hadn't done (smoke
grass). Their argument was against "using drugs as a crutch" and told
how they were "bad for you" and "addicting" - while they themselves
ingested substances that were all those things.

Not sure why you felt like you had to elaborate. I knew where you were
coming from.

I was teaching by example.

The phrase "lead by example" has some truth to it.

Exactly! Adults must set the example of how to live responsibly.

But the phrase "learn from the
mistakes of others" has much more weight, in my opinion.

That's fine when it's about things like falling off a ladder. Not when
it's about things that appear to be "fun". And not when the lecturer
keeps on making the mistakes.

Your philosophy is different than mine, then.

I sure hope so!

Either it is or it ain't. If
I believe the phrase "learn from the mistakes of others" is pertinent and
that I've learned more from it than those who tried to lead by example, then
I believe it across the board--not selectively. And, I believe it.

You can believe whatever you want - just as "creationists" can believe that the
Earth is only about 6000 years old. Your belief doesn't make it true.

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.

That's *exactly* how *kids* think! Once they detect "do as I say, not
as I do", they use the adult's behavior as an excuse.

Please don't use "they" in the vernacular.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I did not.

Yes, you *did*. Otherwise you would never have started smoking.

Oh, and lots of my friends did not.

Maybe. I bet a bunch of them smoked, though.

That's not mature, adult
reasoning, but it's what many if not most kids do - particularly when
someone is telling them not to do something that they think might be a
lot of fun.

How could someone who sees a parent smoking, hacking, stinking up the place,
chained to the cigarette, ever think smoking could be a lot of fun?!

I don't know. But they do. You did.

I used to smoke, but not because I thought it was fun.
I think I probably started
to get in trouble--get the attention of my mom so she'd quit.

And that was how many years ago?

Heh heh...but
it didn't work. I just quit about seven years ago.

My point exactly. Your mom's lectures were to no avail - her *actions* got you
to start smoking, and to continue for years - decades.

Again, your story confirms the truth of what I'm saying. If your mom had not
smoked, you would not have smoked either, because you would not have had to try
to get her to quit.

Neither of my parents smoked when I was growing up. There were no lectures
against it. Just the example. None of us kids got the habit, either. I tried it
when I was 21 - went through two packs in about a week, decided it was no big
deal and never had another one.


.--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.

It's not about gasping. It's about what is appropriate. Is it
appropriate for children to see each other naked? Naked adults? To let
adults see them naked? All depends on the context. For example, health
care is a different context than trying on clothes.

I think it's appropriate and natural to have children see each other nekked.

So it would be OK with you for, say, 10-12 year old boys and girls to see each
other naked?

By the way, why are you so huffy about not printing a callsign (all
inclusive with its prefix and suffix) but you'll bring up and print the
subject of "naked adults?" I mean, really...where is your logic in *that*?

Are you saying that the discussion of naked adults is inappropriate?

Anyway, and as to adults being naked, I used to take showers with my kids
(sons) when they were little, stopped probably when they were--oh I don't
know--3 or 4.

Why?

Was that, in your opinion, vulgar?!

Kim - have I ever described *anything* here as vulgar?

I would say that for an adult to shower with children of the opposite sex - at
any age - is very inappropriate.

Good grief, I hope not.

Ask the experts.

But, as I said, have it your way. And, why *is* it OK for nudity when one
is, presumably, an infant or toddler and then, just as they are probably
quite comfortable with the nude body--we suddenly decide "OHMYGAWD...you
can't see me *THAT* way!!!" Whaddup wid dat?

Who says nudity for infants and toddlers is "OK"? Not me. It's necessary when
changing diapers and such - but not after they're toilet trained.

Why?

Those body parts are to be spoken of, not hidden in some closet because
they are horrible.

They're not "horrible". They're PRIVATE.

Maybe to you.

To a lot of people. One can go to jail for hauling them out at an inappropriate
time or place.

And that's your right to believe like that. But, don't make
a judgement call--and you have--about someone who thinks it differently than
you.

When you tell me not to make a judgement call, *you* are making a judgement
call. What gives you the right to make a judgement call, but not me?

And, by the way...leaving my callsign off the list has nothing (for me
anyway) to do with how you think of my callsign.

The what's your beef?

Either leave me off
altogether, as you could have done; or put it up with the same import as
each and every other ham.

You're not on the list anymore - by your own request. Didn't you see that?

And, by the way, I am pretty much going to quit
debating the topic because it's pretty darned obvious that we
disagree--wholeheartedly--on this. You've turned it into a debate about my
callsign. The issue isn't *why*, it is that you did and that you could have
handled it differently.

Of course I could have handled it differently. But that would have compromised
my standards. Which I would not do. Period.

Don't whine about, "but you are trying to tell me I
have to use a callsign I find objectionable...wa wa wa."

Where's the whining? I'm pointing out facts. Look at the posts where I was told
what I should do, should have done, should post, should not post. Lotta
judgement calls from others about what *I* should do.

The point is you could have left my name
completely *off* the list.

And then you would have whined and moaned about how you weren't included.

"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.

Why? It's the same action, isn't it? The same beautiful body parts
that you say must be spoken of, right?

Hey! Now you're talking!

Exactly. So why will I get arrested if I do it in most public places?

Could it be that what may be appropriate in the doctor's office is not
usually appropriate in public?

Well, there may be patients who wouldn't mind exams in public...I would,
though.

Why? You said you have no problem with "nudity in general". Can't get
any more "general" than at high noon on Main Street.

73 de Jim, N2EY