The majority of hams do not like the way Part 97 is interpreted then, as regards bad language. The lack of civility on ham radio no doubt began about the time when it was OK to do weird things on TV and in the movies and when the FCC came out with a list of words that are "approved" to be used by broadcast stations. Therefore, it is time to get a new interpretation of the acceptable language used on the ham bands so it does not "appear" to be gutter language. IF on the other hand, someone does not mind having the spouse or a visitor to the shack hear a cussin' contest coming from the speaker, then by all means make excuses for the FCC to enable it to continue. Should there be a discussion of morality or the lack of it being used on the ham bands? Or, what about saying that immorality is fine and dandy where it comes to listening to conversations on the radio? Now, of course, someone will opine that the definition of what is decent, moral and immoral is according to everyone's personal definition but when there is one or two on 7200 that are vile and contemptible and a good dozen who don't like it and probably many more who listen and wish it would go away, then this is a vote for it to cease. Sure, there are some who secretly smile when they hear the confusion but their passivity is not a vote for doing what is right. This discussion of what is defined in Part 97 reminds me of an old story: A man went to give a lecture at a distant location and stayed overnight with a man and his wife who had been married many years. The following morning, the man went down to the living room to study his lecture, to make sure it was good and proper. He heard the man of the house call down from the bedroom upstairs to his wife: "Honey, is this shirt on the end of the bed dirty?" The wife, preparing breakfast, replied, "If it's doubtful, it's dirty." Doesn't this pretty much define what is proper language to be used on the ham bands and not merely fall back on the old idea of "If it ain't defined in the Rules and Regulations, no reason not to do it." That is until there is a great cry for it to cease and the regulations are changed, that is. Meanwhile, why beat the dog when it messes on the carpet when beating it often makes the dog have less control? Equate that to ham radio and you see that most rule changes are reactive and not proactive. Tell a child to not do something and it will try it to see what happens. Define the language on 7200 and it is more smoke than fire when people ignore the mores of society. They don't even act that way on the sidewalk, do they? Why? Because it is against the law to do in public what is perceived to be immoral or asocial, in most cases, and only a crazy would try it. What is needed is both more socially acceptable rules and regulations AND enforcement. If there is no more penalty for bad actors than just receiving a letter telling them what they did, where is the incentive for the rascals to change their attitudes? THIS is what we are seeing on 7200. It's not all about the use of questionable language, by the way, it's also about maliciously interfering with ongoing communications or an attempt to communicate. Therefore, forget the language they are using if this is intended to shift the focus from illegal operation to what is going on when you tune in 7200 by just saying it's not in Part 97. Catcalls, replaying recordings and many other such things ARE in Part 97 where they are intended to interfere with ongoing communication. Therefore, complaints of interference would then be more productive. But to what end? Another letter merely because it is protocol? This only results in years of delay for doing what is right.