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
> re
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
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
> resis
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 m
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 othe
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 b
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.
> >
> >
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
> resistanc
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 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,
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 t
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, a
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
hones
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 way
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, a
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
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 07:03:24AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> 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 coul
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
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
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
> >
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
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
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 o
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
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
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, an
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
