In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Jim.... of all the people here I thought for sure you would see where I
was
going with that.......

Of course.

I was hoping so.... you are, at least IMHO, one of the stable "anchors" of
this newsgroup.

Thanks!

it goes well beyond the "dirty words" and could
extend to any speech undesireable by others that could be deemed
offensive and therefor punishable.

I still believe in common sense and good taste, old-fashioned as that may
seem.
Discussing one's gastrointestinal problems in detail on the air may be
legal but that doesn't make it acceptable....

Perhaps a better term would be "appropriate"

I would agree for the most part. Now..... can you cite specific rules that
state what might be "old fashioned" in exact examples not just speaking of
generalities???

Specific rules? Not really, because the wording of the regulations is so vague.

But here's a general guideline:

Imagine that your transmissions are recorded and transcribed.

Would you be proud or embarrassed to have them replayedto, or read by, your
spouse/SO/person you'd like to have in that role? Children? Parents?
Employer/employees? Clergyperson? Neighbors? FCC? WRC committees? Enemies of
amateur radio?

Unless you can answer "proud" or at least "not embarrassed" in all cases,
there's something inappropriate going on. Because you never know who is
listening - or recording. Just my opinion.

I never hear that sort of stuff in CW ragchews, btw.

Just had to get that CW jab in there eh?

No jab, just fact.

Heck, we have organizations in the US already
trying that..... not a small step to extend to ham radio!

You mean like folks who say the press is "liberally biased" or "beholden
to big business" when it reports things they don't like?

No, actually, the opposite.

Those two *are* opposites! Some "conservatives" say the media has a liberal
bias, while some "liberals" say it is beholden to big business too much.

The right-wingers who want to control others
thoughts, what they read, what they believe in, what people should do to
their bodies and put in their bodies, and make it damn near a profession of
forcing this on others.

There are left wingers who do exactly the same things, too. Me, I try to stay
"middle of the bird" (Pat Paulsen said it first, though).

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been corrupted to the point that
they are almost useless today. Perhaps a better way to look at things in that
area is whether someone wants to restrict what an individual or small group can
do, vs. restricting what a large group/institution can do. Or has to do.

Hmmm.... Rush Limbaugh, our nation's largest
hypocrite, is a prime example. (do as I say, not do as I do mentality)

You mean about drug abuse?

Hmmm.... Pat Buchanan was a Republicrat, and also, if Hitler was alive and
well today, and living in the US, he most likely would have been a
Republican/Republicrat.

You're awful close to Godwin's Law there, Ryan!

Actually Hitler was neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in the American sense.
He was a fascist, wanting the state to have absolute power in all areas, with
no checks or balances, nor individual rights, nor institutional rights. Only
government power, and concentrated in a single leader.

Like I said.... look beyond the cuss words, and there is a ton of things
that some radical freaks could oppose.

Sure. But limiting what can be said on the amateur bands is not an
incursion
into free speech, because the amateur bands are public property.

Actually, if one is truly a person that believes in the most of limiting
government intrusions of our lives etc., then that person should actually be
against all licensing of radio waves.

Not at all!

Really, when you get to the point of
it, NO ONE actually OWNS the airwaves.

Just the opposite - Everyone owns them. They're public property. And as such,
government has the role of regulating and divvying up the spectrum so that the
owners (that's all of us) get the maximum benefit from a limited, shared
resource.

That's fundamental radio law, (insert standard I'm-not-a-lawyer disclaimer
here). The rest is details.

But in reality, there is a need for
some type of regulation otherwise the chaos that would be there if it wasn't
would be tremendous.

And the result would be that the resource would not be used for the public
benefit.

I personally believe, if the acronym is correct, the
ECPA should be deemed illegal. (refernce the ban on cell phone recption.)

Which ban? You mean the one where it's illegal to listen in, or the one where
private property owners can require that cell phones be turned off?

73 de Jim, N2EY