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?

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You can say the same sentence 10 different ways
and it can have 10 different meanings depending on the emotion invoked
in the speech. You know....the HUMAN element.

ANY communication you don't understand, including CW, is like that.

wrong again klien and the rest becomes GIGO

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:57:18 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:18:30 -0400, Dave wrote:

Nice strawman. The pixels form a full complete picture. Beeps are just
beeps.

And speech is just noise if you don't understand it.

Speech has infection.

Not if you keep your saliva to yourself.

My bad. Was supposed to be "inflection". Aren't spell checkers
supposed to read your mind?? ;-)

You can say the same sentence 10 different ways
and it can have 10 different meanings depending on the emotion invoked
in the speech. You know....the HUMAN element.

ANY communication you don't understand, including CW, is like that.
You can't tell us what candy tastes like if you're standing on the
street looking through the window of the store.

One dimensional. That they form a recognizable pattern does not
make them more. Humans are highly visual creatures.

Which is why it was said, for many centuries, I suppose, that it's
speech that separates us from the animals. (We're a lot less visually
oriented than a lot of other species.)

See above.

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense. Now, that's NOT to say that we have
the best vision in the animal kingdom. Our vision is refined and
depended on at the expense of our other senses. Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

I have listened to
code for years. Being able to make out a few letters does nothing for
me.

I have listened to Turkish for years. Being able to make out a few
words does nothing for me.

But there are a lot of Turks who feel otherwise.

Bet you can easily tell what kind of a mood the speaker is in just by
his tone.

I can tell that on the air too - in CW. I can't tell it here, so I
guess you'll be leaving Usenet.

Why would I want to leave usenet? You're not making any sense. Want to
use CW? Go right ahead, you have that right. Nobody has ever said that
you shouldn't be able to.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words. Usent is text, by the way, not
visual.

Or you just don't know what you're talking about.

Your insularity is showing.

Not insularity...humanity.

Which has nothing to do with communication, which every life form
participates in - even those who have no analog of vision.

Not quite sure what point you are making here.
--

(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.

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.

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.

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

That was uncalled for and childish. Your arguments are based on a
false premise that I and other want to ban the use of CW or that it is
useless. We're only opposed to it being required to pass a test. I
question those who say it's as good as a human voice. It isn't and you
can't say otherwise. Romanticize it all you want. It is what it is.
Nothing more.
--

(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.

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense.

We gather more information from fellow humans by words than by any
other means. And words aren't processed in the visual cortex, not
even written words.

Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

Apples and oranges. Deaf-blind people get along pretty well too, if
they're given food, water and all the comforts of home by someone
else.

Why would I want to leave usenet?

You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words.

That's what this discussion is about, so I guess the grandmother story
is just a red herring.

Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.

Your insularity is showing.

Not insularity...humanity.

Which has nothing to do with communication, which every life form
participates in - even those who have no analog of vision.

Not quite sure what point you are making here.

The discussion was about communication. YOUR discussion. You started
it. Did you forget what you were talking about?

Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:


Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.
iondeed we all knew you were not reading the text of anybody Klenex

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.

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.

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

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

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.

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?

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.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:53:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense.

We gather more information from fellow humans by words than by any
other means. And words aren't processed in the visual cortex, not
even written words.

There is a lot more information in our environment than just raw data.

Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

Apples and oranges. Deaf-blind people get along pretty well too, if
they're given food, water and all the comforts of home by someone
else.

A blind person cannot sniff his way around as well as a dog or cat,
therefore a white cane is needed or an unchanging closed environment.

Why would I want to leave usenet?

You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

My turn to say apples and oranges then. Can you quote where I said
that I didn't like CW? Basically, I say that it's only good for
submitting raw data, like usenet. Didn't say that it was a bad thing,
just not a full, complete way to engage in human discourse. It should
also not be a barrier to the use of amateur radio.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words.

That's what this discussion is about, so I guess the grandmother story
is just a red herring.

No that was NOT my point. Let me be more precise: The inflection added
by actual voice results in a conversation that is much more than the
sum of it's parts, the parts being the words used. My grandmother
example simply showed that inflection adds so much more to a
conversation that it can, at times, convey some information on it's
own without words.

Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.

Raw data [text] is all that's needed for this conversation.

Your insularity is showing.

Not insularity...humanity.

Which has nothing to do with communication, which every life form
participates in - even those who have no analog of vision.

Not quite sure what point you are making here.

The discussion was about communication. YOUR discussion. You started
it. Did you forget what you were talking about?

You insist on reducing the term "communication" to just an exchange of
data. I am trying to point out that there is MUCH more to human
interactions than just data.
--

(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.

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.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

.... _ _ _ ... ... _ _ _ ... ... _ _ _ ...

.. _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _. ... . _ . .._ _. _. ..
_. _ _ . .... .. _ _. ...



.. _ _ _ ._ _._. _._







...
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense.

We gather more information from fellow humans by words than by any
other means. And words aren't processed in the visual cortex, not
even written words.

Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

Apples and oranges. Deaf-blind people get along pretty well too, if
they're given food, water and all the comforts of home by someone
else.

Why would I want to leave usenet?

You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words.

That's what this discussion is about, so I guess the grandmother story
is just a red herring.

Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.

Your insularity is showing.

Not insularity...humanity.

Which has nothing to do with communication, which every life form
participates in - even those who have no analog of vision.

Not quite sure what point you are making here.

The discussion was about communication. YOUR discussion. You started
it. Did you forget what you were talking about?