Re: Packet radio and foul language
Benjamin Seidenberg <astronut@dlgeek.net> 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? 0.00001%?
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.
Reply to: