Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. Sacrificing long term gains for short term pleasures, perhaps, rather than *always* taking the path of least resistance. -- Chris. == Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:49 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. Isn't it also a social lubricant to avoid blaming the people you're trying to communicate with for dooming the entire world, merely by how they act on some random mailing list? You are *absolutely* correct. Mea culpa. I'll go flagellate myself now... Cheers, aj, wondering if good grammar helps the world run more smoothly too Sure, since it *assists* clarity of communication, which helps to transmit information clearly and diminish misunderstandings. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA You don't lead by hitting people over the head--that's assault, not leadership. Dwight David Eisenhower -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 15:41 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. Being polite and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA HELP: The feature that assists in generating more questions. When the Help feature is used correctly, users are able to navigate through a series of Help screens and end up where they started from without learning a damn thing. Computer Definitions -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:49:25AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 15:41 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. Being polite and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. That would depend on your beliefs. 'Honesty', for example. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Hamish Moffatt wrote: FWIW, there's no such restriction in the Australian regulations, as far as I can see. I concur, that's generally correct. The ACA has relaxed the profane language requirements somewhat since they were tested in court (by a commercial broadcast radio operator) some time back.. my recollection is that a judge declared some of the most profane of words to be in common use and therefore unreasonable to prohibit. I would say that it's up to the packet radio gateway to edit/discard posts that don't meet the regulations, since their requirements are stricter than the Internet's. In Australia it has always been the case that the responsibility for traffic transmitted by an amateur station lies with the operator of the transmitting station, not with the original source of the content. I operated an Internet/packet radio gateway in Australia for many years and we became finely tuned to the sensibilities of the legal requirements balanced against a sense of the reasonable. In my opinion given the mixed legal requirements the appropriate action is people to decide on an individual basis whether to gateway internet mailing lists over radio or not. I believe that, generally, it is unreasonable to have a majority constrained by the requirements of a minority. regards Terry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Ron Johnson wrote: With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'd have thought the most polite action in the scenario you present is to acknowledge that others are different and to judge the person delivering the message on the semantic of the message rather than the appearance of the deliverer or delivery method of the message. Terry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 10:30 +1100, Terry Dawson wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'd have thought the most polite action in the scenario you present is to acknowledge I've already been reminded that my own reply lacked politeness... that others are different and to judge the person delivering the message on the semantic of the message rather than the appearance of the deliverer or delivery method of the message. That *is* the ideal which I strive for. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. Being polite on this list is hardly the path of least resistance. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 02:00 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 03:41:09PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. I'm pretty sure that people who always take the path of least resistance are *precisely* how the world got so fucked up in the first place. Being polite on this list is hardly the path of least resistance. I think he's referring to people who go along to get along. AKA don't do anything to break the rice bowl. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA Never hate your enemies...it will cloud your thinking. Michael Corleon, Godfather III -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:13:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 19:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Miles Bader wrote: [snip] I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which the message is conveyed. The way the message is conveyed *is* part of the message. Yes. When somebody puts on a smart suit and tells you, in 'polite' and clipped tones, that everything you believe in is wrong and that you should instead do things *his* way, then you know that not only is he a self-obsessed bigot, he's dishonest about it too, and furthermore that he thinks you're stupid enough to believe that he's being nice to you. At least if he didn't *pretend* to be polite then there would be a certain amount of integrity in his actions, and probably less actual insult. Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 07:03:24AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: slightly extreme example The UK authorities can take away my amateur licence and fine me (and potentially put me in jail) for wilfully breaking the terms of my licence. My hobby is governed by an international agreement - so the ITU in Berne could also get involved. /slightly extreme example FWIW, there's no such restriction in the Australian regulations, as far as I can see. I would say that it's up to the packet radio gateway to edit/discard posts that don't meet the regulations, since their requirements are stricter than the Internet's. Hamish, VK3SB -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:03:33AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: How exactly do IP packets get transmitted via packet radio? Morse code, with binary files uuencoded? Is that a serious question? Packet radio IS the layer 1/2, which clearly rules out Morse code. In fact, IP is encapsulated into AX.25, which is layer 1/2 for packet radio. But who said anything about IP? Packet radio can carry messages in other layer 3/4/5 protocols than IP/TCP/SMTP. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 09:28 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:13:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 19:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Miles Bader wrote: [snip] I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which the message is conveyed. The way the message is conveyed *is* part of the message. Yes. When somebody puts on a smart suit and tells you, in 'polite' and [snip] being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. I said it was *part* of the message. Not the whole message. Even geeks are social creatures. Thus, even though we can and should try, we can't totally divorce the message from the medium. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA Everyone is always in favour of general economy and particular expenditure. Anthony Eden, British prime minister -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 20:52 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:03:33AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: How exactly do IP packets get transmitted via packet radio? Morse code, with binary files uuencoded? Is that a serious question? Totally serious, since the only ways that I know that ham operators can xmit are voice and codes like Morse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code Morse code is the only digital modulation mode designed to be easily read by humans without a computer, making it appropriate for sending automated digital data in voice channels. Packet radio IS the layer 1/2, which clearly rules out Morse code. In fact, IP is encapsulated into AX.25, which is layer 1/2 for packet radio. But who said anything about IP? Packet radio can carry messages in other layer 3/4/5 protocols than IP/TCP/SMTP. Now that I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio I (think I) understand it better. The first amateur packet radio stations were constructed using surplus Bell 202 1,200 bit/s modems -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them? Bender, Futurama 4ACV06 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Andrew Suffield wrote: Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. It is possible to be nice to someone that you do not like, and to do so honestly and sincerely. I, personally, have seen many such examples. A lot of which are involved in professional settings, but I have also seen and experienced it in personal environments. -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 09:28 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:13:06AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 19:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Miles Bader wrote: [snip] I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which the message is conveyed. The way the message is conveyed *is* part of the message. Yes. When somebody puts on a smart suit and tells you, in 'polite' and clipped tones, that everything you believe in is wrong and that you should instead do things *his* way, then you know that not only is he a self-obsessed bigot, he's dishonest about it too, and furthermore that he thinks you're stupid enough to believe that he's being nice to you. At least if he didn't *pretend* to be polite then there would be a certain amount of integrity in his actions, and probably less actual insult. Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA Diplomats were invented simply to waste time. David Lloyd George, British prime minister -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:16PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Dishonesty is *not* an equivalent substitute for respect. If you're being nice to somebody even though you don't like them, that doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a liar. With beliefs like that, no wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Manners/politeness is social lubricant. It makes society run smoother and less violently. Isn't it also a social lubricant to avoid blaming the people you're trying to communicate with for dooming the entire world, merely by how they act on some random mailing list? Cheers, aj, wondering if good grammar helps the world run more smoothly too signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 09:02 +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: - Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal. This sentence surprised me in quite some ways: - besides: besides what? Do not swear, and apart from that, some people receive it over radio. There seems to be something missing. - Are there really people known to receive these lists over packet radio?? - Is swearing actually illegal on packet radio? What authority issues and enforces those rules? Yes, the FCC. See part 97 of the FCC rules (US CFR Title 47), specifically § 97.113(1) [0] - Is it actually true that when sending encoded data over this medium, it's illegal when it can be decoded in some way into a foul word? Yes. And actually, it wouldn't be sent encoded that much (unless it's base64 encoded server to server or something), it'd be an ASCII transmission. Since I know virtually nothing about packet radio, I'd really appreciate some light shed on these things :) Glad to help. 73, Benjamin, KI4CXN Thijs [0] http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfrview=textnode=47:5.0.1.1.6idno=47#47:5.0.1.1.6.2.155.7 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Yes, the FCC. See part 97 of the FCC rules (US CFR Title 47), specifically § 97.113(1) [0] Err, sorry, I meant § 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. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Err, sorry, I meant § 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? 0.1%? 0.001%? 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.
Re: Packet radio and foul language
Miles Bader wrote: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Err, sorry, I meant § 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? 0.1%? 0.001%? Probably a bit higher (not too much), given that radio waves propagate, and anyone in a large area could see them, but you're right it's very low. However it's also a fact of professionalism. Do you tolerate bugs in your software? What about policy violations in your packages? Even if no one sees them, you still avoid them, because you agreed to the rules, and consider yourself bound to them as a matter of course. 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. FCC has specific rules about what's obscene, although they're not in part 97. Think George Carlin's Words you can't say on the radio. 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. That's a matter for the list managers to decide, and I won't speak on this issue, as I have no opinion. The debian-ham mailing list (of which I am not a part) might however, you could try asking them. Regardless, I think the rules are based on common courtesy; in that one should curb their language on any publicly distributed medium such as this. Think of the 80 year old grandmother rule (Would someone's 80 year old grandmother be offended by what you say?) It's just being polite and courteous to others. This is my interpretation of the listmaster's rules, I'm not taking a position on them, although I will say that I think that people sound more reasoned when they make an arguement with ideas rather than profanity or namecalling. 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. The FCC would actually send a letter of notice, and possibly a fine (which can get quite high, especially if actions are repeated). Anyway, I'm not arguing for or against the rules, just giving some references and explanations to someone who asked them. 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. I think this is a reasonable arguement, but I think there are reasonable arguements on both sides. -Miles I just want to add something. I don't know why, but at my high school, which has fairly restrictive internet filters, lists.debian.org is blocked. The strage part is that it's under the catagory Abortion/Abortion Advocacy Groups. This is done by SonicWall, which is a very large provider of filter technologies. Even if it's miscatagorized, one wonders if foul language could cause other filtering groups to block it as obscene. Just food for thought. 73, Benjamin, KI4CXN signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Miles Bader wrote: So what's the likelihood that this is actually a problem? 0.1%? 0.001%? Probably a bit higher (not too much), given that radio waves propagate, and anyone in a large area could see them, but you're right it's very low. Considering the occasional bits of spam that get shuttled through lists about obtaining engorged members and the various methods of employing them, anyone who is using packet radio has likely fallen afoul of this section on multiple occasions. However it's also a fact of professionalism. It's a facet of your standard of professionalism; it may not be a facet that is shared by anyone (or everyone) else. If specific individuals persist in using language that you feel is innapropriate, confer with them privately about it, then killfile them if they persist. I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which the message is conveyed. Don Armstrong -- Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence Point. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 08:25:11PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what's the likelihood that this is actually a problem? 0.1%? 0.001%? Small, but real. 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. slightly extreme example The UK authorities can take away my amateur licence and fine me (and potentially put me in jail) for wilfully breaking the terms of my licence. My hobby is governed by an international agreement - so the ITU in Berne could also get involved. /slightly extreme example A schoolfriend and colleague of mine was warned as a teenager: he swore over the air as he witnessed his friend being run over in a traffic accident :( You may be held to a higher standard of conduct than is otherwise normal in more general Real Life when you've got a microphone in your hand. 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. No: the 'Net standard language is not always the world's standard language. Bad language and poor conduct on mailing lists always happens at some point - that's a given, but you don't have to rebroadcast it (and shouldn't do so over amateur channels). It also doesn't help understanding: being able to disagree without abuse helps people reading what you're writing. For many of us, English is a second/third/other ranked language and extraneous stuff gets in the way of understanding. 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. Personal views and understanding don't come into it: there's a blanket ban on profanity, just as there is on broadcasting music of any kind. -Miles -- Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 20:25 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Err, sorry, I meant § 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? 0.1%? 0.001%? 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. 1. Well, Ed Meese does... :) 2. Ed Meese??? Geez, did you have to tip-toe when you were young? (Because the earth hadn't cooled yet?) 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; How exactly do IP packets get transmitted via packet radio? Morse code, with binary files uuencoded? -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA Man, I'm pretty. Hoo Hah! Johnny Bravo
Re: Packet radio and foul language
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 19:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 09 Jan 2006, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Miles Bader wrote: [snip] I, for one, am far more interested in the message than the way which the message is conveyed. The way the message is conveyed *is* part of the message. If you don't believe that, imagine a man giving a reasoned argument against Affirmative Action. In one scenario, he's wearing a suit- and-tie, has good grammar and has a pleasant accent. In the other scenario, his head is shaven, he's covered in tattoos, is wearing only jeans, is slightly drunk, uses profanity constantly and has horrible grammar. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA A great many open minds should be closed for repairs. Toledo Blade Newspaper -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
