| |
G4EBT > VKREGS 03.04.03 11:12l 74 Lines 2990 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : C90916G4EBT
Read: GUEST DB0FHN
Subj: Re: Grossly offensive?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0ZWI<DB0HOT<DB0ERF<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<GB7FCR
Sent: 030403/0606Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:53889 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:C90916G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : VKREGS@WW
Kevin, VK4VKX wrote:-
> G4EBT TRUE
> > "ANYONE WHO WOULD CQ ON70cm must have sh*t for brains!"
> I thought most Sysops had filters on the BBS's to filter certain words
> and block the bulletin or message. I did receive a similar message a
> few years back however all his mail was blocked on the BBS when I
> notified the SYSOP. I think this could be the way to deal with this
> type of behavior.
I'm not quite sure what Ken means by "G4EBT TRUE", followed by the one
sentence which follwed it, clipped from a bulletin 6k long that I sent on
the topic of Regs in both VK and UK. When taken out of context, it could
appear from the clipped text above that I had expressed the sentiment
contained therein. IE:
"ANYONE WHO etc etc".
For the avoidance of doubt, that text was by Ian, G0TEZ, and had been sent
to him in an offensive SP from a VK4. I had neither made that statement,
nor do I endorse it. The offending word contained in the sentence had
originally flowed freely round the WW packet network without the * in it.
I inserted the * not simply to get around the (seemingly non-existent)
filtering, but that I'd rather not include such words in full, even if
I'm not the originator of such words.
I hope that clarifies the position, and that when taken in context, at
least someone out there found the rest of my bulletin of interest.
I've always been of the view that sysops have quite enough on their plates
running a BBS without having to vet other people's output. The originator
should be held to account for his output, (always assuming it can be
proven to have originated from him - not from an imposter), but of course,
the sysop is re-transmitting the message, so he too is culpable.
However, the same could be said of internet ISP's, and telephone
companies, whose networks are used to transmit all sorts of obscene
material, never mind about "grossly offensive", but they aren't held to
account for the misdemeanours of the users of their services.
As to the regulatory bodies taking any enforcement action on packet radio
- forget it. Packet is a tiny and declining aspect of a hobby that is
running on empty the world over. Radio amateurs are part of the problem -
they're unlikely to be part of the solution, even if there were one.
In Ian's case, I suggested he e-mail the ACA with the text of the message
he received purporting to be from the VK4. If it was indeed from the real
VK4 - even if he denied it and the ACA didn't pursue it, he might at least
think twice before engaging in that sort of conduct again, as his "card
would be marked".
On the other hand, if it was from an imposter, it would alert the genuine
VK4 amateur to the fact that someone is taking his name in vain. Either
way, it seems unlikely that much will come of it.
Regards to all,
TTFN,
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Message timed: 23:57 on 2003-Apr-02
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
