Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Err, sorry, I meant ยง 97.113(a)(4). > > Also, my previous message applies to amateur operators in the US. > Amateurs in other nations are similiary regulated by their equivelent to > the FCC, with similar rules which are all based on ITU regulations.
So what's the likelihood that this is actually a problem? 0.00001%? 0.00000000001%? And by what bizarre standard is saying "foo sucks" really profane??? Ok, by the "wackos like ed meese" standard maybe -- but nobody cares about that. In the extremely unlikely event that it is a problem, why should it be up to list posters to deal with it? If some readers use a service governed by authorities that are prudish to an absurd degree, it seems like the onus is on them to try and deal with the probably technically; at the least it's up to them to demonstrate that it is a _real_ issue before asking people to modify their behavior based on this. I assume that in truth, you're not really worried about the FCC breaking down your door, but rather don't like the language you see, and are trying to come up with a less subjective reason to object to it. Probably most posters would agree that extreme torrents of abuse are annoying and (usually) out of place, but for many speakers mild "profanity" is a normal part of informal language; most people understand that (even if they don't like it), and deal with it. -Miles -- Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.