"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