Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!bungia!com50!n0atp!barry
From: barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose!
Summary: YOU MISSED THE POINT.....
Keywords: The NET need not die...
Message-ID: <22@n0atp.UUCP>
Date: 20 Jun 88 13:48:12 GMT
References: <5816@cup.portal.com> <581@picuxa.UUCP> <13@n0atp.UUCP> <2744@ttrdc.UUCP> <974@ucsd.EDU> <14@n0atp.UUCP> <10288@ncc.Nexus.CA> <
Reply-To: barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg)
Organization: N0ATP, Amateur Radio Packet Gateway, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 51

In article <10289@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>In article <21@n0atp.UUCP> barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) writes:
>>In article <10288@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:

>>The discussion about content, distribution, etc., is not relevent. The
>>one section of the rules governing amateur radio that wipes this entire
>>concept out is this:

 to which I replied and which he ignored....
>   In any case whatever the transmission media, the initial point of this
>   posting was that of obscenities.  We don't need them, and you insult
>   more than the person you are flaming with them.  One advantage of 
>   having people use common sense and restraint is that there may be 
>   advantages as well for performing in a civil manner.  Which was for
>   example, low cost bandwidth.

   [ boring discussion as to why ham radio won't work...]

READ MY LIPS... from the parts you refused to quote the topic is on the
foul and obscene language used which does not add to the content of the
message in any way, form, or manner.  The reason this was posted to news.admin
and NOT the rec.ham* was to start a discussion as to what could be done about
the foul language.  READ the subject line ... it does not say ham radio is
a neat thing.... I was trying to use an example of benefits...also hams have
a very good record of for the most part of controling abuses by social pressure
Just saying hey...we don't do that here! has been very effective.

reality check time?....ok, back to the subject....

A couple of people mentioned the ability to scan for obscene language, and
kick the posting back.  I think this is could be a good idea, if not carried 
to far.  One use of the f-word should not do it, but maybe some sort of word 
count and evaluative total like a diction reader (writer) level threshold 
to pass would not be too bad.  We bounce postings if there are too many lines 
in the signature, and if the reply doesn't contain more reply than inclusion. 
   (how do I know...I got caught that how !!! :-) )
Maybe we should bounce the posting because of bad language.  

I don't think that there is a technical solution.  Maybe we as admins...
just mail a pink slip to the offender's home machine admin, and if that
administrator gets in their opinion enough of them, she/he has a talk with
the offender.  This would handle the no dirty words in the message, but
the context was obscene problem.  I know its a lot of trouble, but I think
we need to set a level of community standards here.  

again...discussion??
-- 
Barry S. Berg                  	  DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG
N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway        UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry
"Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann
"Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.