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

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 > >

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

Processed: tagging 322762, tagging 322812

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.10 > tags 322762 - fixed Bug#322762: /usr/doc still exists (transition tracking bug) Tags were: fixed Tags removed: fixed > tags 322812 + fixed Bug#322812: finish /usr/doc transition Ther

<    1   2