On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:15:42 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:17:43 GMT, Opus- wrote:
Try to keep up.
That's actually good - if you can't defend, attack. Even if your
attack is nonsense.
Asking you to keep up is not an attack. Telling me to grow up
certainly is and you have done that several times.
I have been quite consistent. You have not being
paying attention. I made no argument against voice at all. I made the
argument that a live voice conveys more than just words.
You claimed that we humans communicate visually more than by words.
You're contradicting yourself here.
This shows that you have not kept up. I did not say that we
*communicate* visually more, I said that we are get the most
information from our environment visually than by any other sense. Our
other senses help us much less than they do for most other higher
animals.
When you blather on about something you know nothing about you lose
track of what you said a few days ago.
Yet again you attack.
Deaf-blind dogs and cats don't normally walk around the streets
without aid. (Domesticated cats, btw, aren't scent-oriented, they're
vision-oriented.)
Never had a cat, did you?
She's 7 years old now, and sleeping on my bed. Got her when her
mother died - she was still nursing - so, yes, I currently have a cat.
Have had some canine or feline pet since before I can remember -
usually more than 1.
I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.
They use it - about as much as we do - they don't depend on it.
Each olfactory cell in a cat has about 40 cilia while a human cell has
only about 6 to 8. A cat has approximately 60 to 80 million olfactory
cells while a human has about 5 to 20 million. Dogs put us all to
shame.
Are we on the radio right now? Your apples and oranges arguments are
getting tiresome. Here in Usenet, the text is preserved. CW is not.
You're arguing for the visual now? Voice conveys more than CW, which
is your argument against CW. Voice conveys more than Usenet, which
ISN'T an argument against Usenet.
How many times do I have to tell you that I am not arguing against CW?
It has it's place but I am arguing against CW as a requirement for
full access to ARS. I ask what is so great about CW and all I seem to
get is a rather patronizing "You wouldn't understand".
So which is it? Is the fact that voice conveys more than X an
argument against X or not?
This again shows how you have not been keeping up. Not an attack, an
observation.
I'm getting tired of your "I have to argue just so that I can win"
stance, so figure out how to get back to me when you grow up.
Explain how I have to "grow up" and, while you are at it, explain how
you are qualified to make such a statement. You have insulted me in
such a manner several times yet I have said nothing of the sort to
you. You patronize me while I give legitimate arguments. You don't
like my arguments and try to deflect by misquoting.
Of all the pro-coders here, I had the most respect for your view. I
didn't agree but at least you made a point without the typical insults
of others here. Now you seem to be joining their ilk.
Sad.
--
(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.