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