On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:38:24 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:55:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:55:48 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.

And pixels show emotion?

This is an strawman. You know full well what I mean.

Since I can fully communicate using "emotionless beeps", no.

In the other thread, I explained how your beeps are just a trade of
raw data.

I'll tell my daughter's occupational therapist to quit using a monitor
screen to teach her how to recognize emotions of people's faces
pictured on the screen. After all, I have just been told that you
can't view a persons mood by the look on his face if it is composed of
pixels on a screen.

No you haven't, but you're being told that if you're not being
deliberately facetious, you're appearing to be pretty stupid.

You're the one who used the term pixels like they are just an exchange
of raw data. Technically, the are. But they are much more than the sum
of their parts.

When you actually get into high school, let us know.

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

You are wrong.

Your arguments are based on a
false premise that I and other want to ban the use of CW or that it is
useless.

The original discussion was about requiring it, not banning it. My
attention span's not that short.

We're only opposed to it being required to pass a test.

So be opposed to testing altogether. Oh, there's already a way to get
on the air without a test. You just don't like that way. Now that's
being childish.

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.
Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

I question those who say it's as good as a human voice.

How can you question a language you don't even begin to understand?

I have already pointed out that you can get much information beyond
just data. And, no matter what you say, beeps are just data.

It isn't and you can't say otherwise.

Sure I can - I understand and use it - you don't, so you can't
intelligently discuss what it is or isn't at all.

Keep on using it then. But don't tell me that I must know it in order
to use my voice on the radio.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.