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. 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?

Dwight:

I was born Oct. 31, 1952, which makes me 51 years young. I don't feel
a day over 30, however!

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?

The suffix of Kim's call sign spells out a word which is commonly
regarded as a vulgar reference to a woman's breasts. Therefore,
her call sign is very inappropriate for a family-oriented activity such
as the amateur radio service.

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.

The "vulgarity" of Kim's call sign would be open to the perceptions of
other hams. Riley Hollingsworth said it best when he said that a parent,
grandparent, uncle or aunt of a young person who was also a prospective
ham would likely be put off by her call, and choose a more appropriate
activity for that young person to pursue. Thus, it has the potential to
bring the ARS "…one step closer to extinction." I won't presume to
speak for Kim, but I, for one, wouldn't want that hanging over my head!

73 de Larry, K3LT