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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
