"N2EY" wrote:

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. (snip)


Really? Can you show even one example of someone who has kept their kid
out of Amateur Radio because of Kim's callsign, or any of the callsigns I've
listed over the last couple of days? I haven't seen one person of the child
rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup.
Instead, I see old men, some too old to even have young, impressionable,
grandkids, in a newsgroup acting like hearing the word "tit" was the shock
of their life. I'm not buying it, Jim. This whole debate has a ring of false
indignation around it. Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person
hearing it, makes it. I don't think tits are vulgar, and I hope kids don't
think that (if they do, someone certainly failed to educate them properly).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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. (snip)


Really? Can you show even one example of someone who has kept their kid
out of Amateur Radio because of Kim's callsign, or any of the callsigns I've
listed over the last couple of days?

Nope. I do know parents who would steer their kids away
if they knew, though.

haven't seen one person of the child
rearing age group voice a single complaint about this in this newsgroup.

Yes, you have.

Instead, I see old men, some too old to even have young, impressionable,
grandkids,

How do you know how old somebody's grandchildren or children are, Dwight?

How old are these "old men"?

in a newsgroup acting like hearing the word

[word deleted]

was the shock of their life.

Well, that leaves me out. I'm not shocked by it at all. Heard it plenty of
times.
In fact, years ago National Lampoon did a canonical list of the various slang
names for certain body parts. Ran to hundreds of words.

I simply say it's inappropriate for ham radio, that's all.

Do you think it's appropriate?

I'm not buying it, Jim. This whole debate has a ring of false
indignation around it. Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you, the person
hearing it, makes it.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?

I don't think

[word deleted]

are vulgar, and I hope kids don't
think that (if they do, someone certainly failed to educate them properly).

So your values have to be everyone else's?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
(snip) haven't seen one person of the
child rearing age group voice a single
complaint about this in this newsgroup.

Yes, you have.


Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group. How old are you
now? 49? How many young, impressionable, children do you have running
around your house? Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either.


How do you know how old somebody's
grandchildren or children are, Dwight?


Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country.


How old are these "old men"?


Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who
else?


I simply say it's inappropriate for
ham radio, that's all.

Do you think it's appropriate?


Kim's callsign or the word alone?


Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you,
the person hearing it, makes it.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?


And I didn't say you said it was vulgar.


So your values have to be everyone
else's?


Don't be silly. I never said that either.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
(snip) haven't seen one person of the
child rearing age group voice a single
complaint about this in this newsgroup.

Yes, you have.

Okay, how about in the "typical" child rearing age group.

What age group is that? I know people ranging in age from '20s to '50s who are
raising small children.

The days when the nests were all empty by the time Mom and Dad hit 50 are long
gone, Dwight. And that's in "typical" America.

How old are you now? 49?

Yup. My birthday is qrz.com.

How many young, impressionable, children do you have running
around your house?

Why does that matter? You may have noticed that I don't talk about my domestic
situation here.

Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5 children ranging in age from toddlers to
teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the point). Would you then say I was right
and Kim's call was inappropriate?

Larry is not exactly a young spring chicken either.

He's a little older. So what? And Larry and I are not the only ones.

People have all kids of family situations these days. Blended families,
"second" families, adoptions, people raising or helping to raise their
grandchildren, etc. etc. etc.

How do you know how old somebody's
grandchildren or children are, Dwight?

Speculation based on typical child birth trends in this country.

And your source is?

How old are these "old men"?

Lets see. You're about 49. Larry has to be pushing about 50. I'm 50. Who
else?

Do you consider that to be "old"? I don't. I consider it to be "middle aged".

I run 35-40 minutes every morning. Last week my running log shows 268 minutes
for the week. You know any "old men" who do that?

I simply say it's inappropriate for
ham radio, that's all.

Do you think it's appropriate?

Kim's callsign or the word alone?

Both. I say neither is appropriate.

Kim's callsign is only as vulgar as you,
the person hearing it, makes it.

Have I *ever* said it was vulgar?

And I didn't say you said it was vulgar.

You and Kim keep using the term "vukgar" rather than addressing whether it's
"appropriate".

So your values have to be everyone
else's?

Don't be silly. I never said that either.

It's implied by your statements.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

The days when the nests were all
empty by the time Mom and Dad
hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And
that's in "typical" America.


That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.


Why does that matter? You may have
noticed that I don't talk about my
domestic situation here.


It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age
group have young children.


Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5
children ranging in age from toddlers to
teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the
point). Would you then say I was right
and Kim's call was inappropriate?


Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her
callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that.


And your source is?


Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.


Do you consider that to be "old"?
I don't. I consider it to be "middle
aged".


Forty or fifty is certainly not young.


Both. I say neither is appropriate.


Appropriate for what? As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what is
appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas of
what is appropriate.


You and Kim keep using the term
"vukgar" rather than addressing
whether it's "appropriate".


I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

The days when the nests were all
empty by the time Mom and Dad
hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And
that's in "typical" America.

That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case,
I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.


I know one guy from work that has his granddaughter living with him. Whew!
Man, that would be hell on earth in my opinion! I have raised kids and it
ain't happenin' again--at least not unless there are extremely unusual
circumstances. And, if the parents think they're moving back in...pah!!!!

There's one gal I know, who might even be a couple of years older than me,
who has around a nine year old daughter. And, it was deliberate! But, even
of people who are just acquaintences, that's all I know.


Why does that matter? You may have
noticed that I don't talk about my
domestic situation here.

It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age
group have young children.

Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5
children ranging in age from toddlers to
teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the
point). Would you then say I was right
and Kim's call was inappropriate?

Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing
her
callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that.


I'd only answer that my callsign is not inappropriate under any
circumstance. The word tit is (for the air on the ARS); however, the word
tit is never used by me...and I've never heard it used by anyone else.


And your source is?


Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.


I've a feeling if it ain't issued from some form of almanac, governmental
statistic, or otherwise recorable device, it ain't acceptable as fact.


Do you consider that to be "old"?
I don't. I consider it to be "middle
aged".


Forty or fifty is certainly not young.


I don't think it's old, either, Dwight...and good heavens I certainly don't
act it!


Both. I say neither is appropriate.


Appropriate for what? As I said earlier, it's not my job to decide what
is
appropriate for others in this world, or demand they conform to my ideas
of
what is appropriate.


You and Kim keep using the term
"vukgar" rather than addressing
whether it's "appropriate".


I've addressed the issue of appropriateness several times.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last)
year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual time
for it to be dying down.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Forty or fifty is certainly not young.


I don't think it's old, either, Dwight...and
good heavens I certainly don't act it!


Amazing how our concepts of "old" changes as we age. Decades ago, all of
us thought 30 was old. Now "old" is something we're not. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Yeah, I'd lay odds that this thread was "awakened" again this (late last)
year by Larry, mid-Winter boredom or whatever, and it's about the usual time
for it to be dying down.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

That sounds like wishful thinking. However, you asked for it, and as long
as you've got it, you're gonna get it! This thread has a life of it's own, and
as long as I am a participant in this newsgroup, it will always pop up
whenever you least expect it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

The days when the nests were all
empty by the time Mom and Dad
hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And
that's in "typical" America.

That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case,
I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.

Depends on how you define "young." When I was 50 my yongest
daughter was only 8. More and more couples today are getting
married later and having kids later. When I was going to "back-to-school"
night for my youngest, some of the other parents could have been
my kids if my wife and I had married and had kids when we were
20. By the same tokenn, I was not the only "senior" parent there.

(SNIP)

Do you consider that to be "old"?
I don't. I consider it to be "middle
aged".

Forty or fifty is certainly not young.

Speak for yourself. These days 60 isn't
consider old in the same way it was years ago.

Cheers,
Bll K2UNK

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"N2EY" wrote:

The days when the nests were all
empty by the time Mom and Dad
hit 50 are long gone, Dwight. And
that's in "typical" America.



That may be typical in your world. However, I haven't met a single 40 or
50 year old recently with a young child. In fact, I only remember meeting
one in my entire life - a couple with an adopted child. Whatever the case, I
haven't seen it to be commonplace.

Depends on where you are at, I guess. Most people I know have postponed
having children until thier mid 30's. That puts them into their 50's
when the kids leave the nest. A few even wait until their 40's, although
they have found out that that doesn't work very well.

Hopefully people don't age too fast where you come from, Dwight, but
I'm 49 and don't feel the least bit old.

Why does that matter? You may have
noticed that I don't talk about my
domestic situation here.



It matters only in the context of the discussion - how many in our age
group have young children.



Suppose, just suppose, that I have 5
children ranging in age from toddlers to
teenagers. (I don't, but that's not the
point). Would you then say I was right
and Kim's call was inappropriate?



Have those supposed children also talked to Kim on the radio, hearing her
callsign and making something out of it? Lets not discuss hypothetical
situations, Jim. Anything can be justified or condemned using that.

Dwight, Take your average year old boy. He hears ANYTHING that can be
taken out of context, and he'll be all giggly for quite a while. That's
what they do. Anything gross or something that can be twisted in
meaning, they will do it.

And your source is?



Fifty years of life, meeting thousands in that period.



Do you consider that to be "old"?
I don't. I consider it to be "middle
aged".



Forty or fifty is certainly not young.

Middle aged is 60's. Congrat's Dwight, you've been moved down the scale
and are officially younger! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -