[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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? 0.00001%?
> >0.00000000001%?
>
> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: