Jack Ricci wrote:
.... .. _ _. ...

Jack, what does "HIGS" mean? Is that a name for
Hams who are pIGS? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Jack Ricci wrote:
.... .. _ _. ...

Jack, what does "HIGS" mean? Is that a name for
Hams who are pIGS? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


....Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the last "
h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " . Just testing
to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to catch
that...Proved my point, I guess

Jack

Jack Ricci wrote:
...Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the last "
h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " . Just testing
to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to catch
that...Proved my point, I guess

CW is my favorite mode. I'm a member of FISTS (8741).
Strange that I helped design the 8741 at Intel, huh?

Vanilla Bean ice cream is my favorite ice cream. But
I wouldn't dream of forcing my favorite ice cream on
anyone else, including my fellow amateur radio
operators. QSL?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:

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

So is speech. So is writing. Communication between beings is raw
data. It only conveys meaning to those who understand it.

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.

All communication is the exchange of raw data.

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

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

You are wrong.

I would have been ... if you hadn't been acting childish.

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.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code. Many people can't
see any merit in knowing the laws or in having any technical
knowledge, so why not eliminate testing altogether?

Because you want your views to determine what's done. No other cogent
reason.

Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

Yes, it is. They want everything done the way they want it - just
like you.

You want to get on the air code-free, use the no code bands - CB. You
want to get on frequencies that allow code? Pass a code test. It's
not rocket science.

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.

To you. Why should that matter to the FCC? As I said, you're not
qualified to discuss something you have absolutely no understanding of
- let alone make decisions about it for others.

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

You can use your voice on voice bands - called CB. That's what CB is
for - communications for those who don't want to pass a ham test
(which includes CW). Like you.

"Jack Ricci" wrote in :


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Jack Ricci wrote:
.... .. _ _. ...

Jack, what does "HIGS" mean? Is that a name for
Hams who are pIGS? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


...Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the
last " h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " .
Just testing to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to
catch that...Proved my point, I guess

Jack


I don't think you proved anything. But keep trying.

SC

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:54:16 GMT, Opus- wrote:

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.

Try to stick to one argument at a time. You were arguing for voice -
now you're arguing against it. Or is just any argument that might
possibly be construed to make CW look bad?

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.

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.)

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.

And you don't want to use it - but you do want to use Usenet.
Inconsistent.

Didn't say that it was a bad thing,
just not a full, complete way to engage in human discourse.

Neither is voice.

It should also not be a barrier to the use of amateur radio.

It's not a barrier to USING radio - it's a barrier to one particular
hobby, which incorporates CW as part of itself. You want to ride a
bike as a hobby but not use wheels?

Code - ham.
No code - CB.

If that's too complicated for you to grasp, maybe you should take up
grass-watching as a hobby.

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.

So if she screamed at you, in Ukrainian, with her face all screwed up,
"You were so good!", you'd get the proper information, that she was
about to take you to the wood shed for the terrible thing you'd done.
Right?

I can convey as much emotion in CW as your grandmother could in
Ukrainian. You don't understand CW, so you can't understand how that
could be true - which is why you're not qualified to discuss the
matter.

My job is like describing the difference between red-orange and
orange-red to someone who's been blind from birth. "Red-orange is
redder than orange-red." "But ..." No buts - it is. Someone who's
never seen just can't understand.

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.

Raw data is all that's available for communication.

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.

There's much more to human interaction than lexical communications,
yes - but we're talking about lexical communications here, so anything
else is totally irrelevant. You can't have any more than lexical
communication by radio.

But tell bees that their dancing is just raw data. Then translate a
bee dance for me, blind man.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 10:19:25 -0400, "Jack Ricci"
wrote:

"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.

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

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



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


Some may be but not mine. I'm cool as an unpowered CPU. (CW wasn't
meant to be read in visual form. Give me 20 or 30 in my ears any
time.)

Oh - _. _ _ _ _..._ _ _ _._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _.
.... ._. _._. _ _ _ ._.. ._._._

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:52:12 -0400, "Jack Ricci"
wrote:

...Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the last "
h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " . Just testing
to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to catch
that...Proved my point, I guess

Maybe the point was that a lot of us who can read CW should wear their
glasses when reading it on a screen. I swear I saw it as an H. Even
the second time, after I read this post. (That's what astigmatism
will do to you.)

From: Al Klein on Sun, Oct 1 2006 3:25 pm

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly:

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code.

No, there are thousands and thousands of us who want to
eliminate the US amateur radio code test for any
license. It isn't confined to Jim-"Opus".

Go read ALL the comments to last year's NPRM from the
FCC. I did. Can you?

If you look real close you will see that the FCC doesn't
think that the code test is necessary for their needs
in determining which amateur applicant should get a
license. It didn't in 1990, it didn't in 1998, it
didn't in 2004.

The rewrite of Radio Regulation S25 at WRC-03 eliminated
the international need for all administrations to test for
radiotelegraphy for privileges below 30 MHz. It is
optional to include or exclude by all administrations.
The International Amateur Radio Union wanted that rewrite.
The ARRL did NOT. The IARU won.

Many people can't
see any merit in knowing the laws or in having any technical
knowledge, so why not eliminate testing altogether?

Illogical, incosistent reasoning. The discussion is about
the radiotelegraphy test, a stand-alone test solely for
manual radiotelegraphy. It is NOT about the written test
elements so why mention them? [rhetorical question]

You MUST mention the writtens as somehow "related" but
it never was. It's a common ploy by pro-coders but
still irrelevant.

Because you want your views to determine what's done. No other cogent
reason.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Insulting insinuation there. Bad form.

Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

Yes, it is. They want everything done the way they want it - just
like you.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, more insulting insinuation of alleged
"bad conduct." :-)

You want to get on the air code-free, use the no code bands - CB.

There is only one "CB band." It requires NO TEST at
all. Never has. :-)

You want to get on frequencies that allow code?

I've been on many, many "frequencies" that didn't require
radiotelegraphy, either in use or to obtain a license to
operate. Got one of those licenses in 1956.

Pass a code test. It's not rocket science.

It's unnecessary and certainly NOT a "science." :-)

The only agency in the USA that grants amateur radio
licenses is the FCC and they don't think the code test
proves anything to them insofar as granting any amateur
radio license.

Why should that matter to the FCC?

Ahem, the FCC is the ONLY agency that grants amateur radio
licenses in the USA.

As I said, you're not
qualified to discuss something you have absolutely no understanding of
- let alone make decisions about it for others.

Klein, you are now violating the general to-be rules of
moderation.

Jim-"Opus" is a Canadian. He is licensed under the jurisdiction
of Industry Canada, NOT the FCC. That is his ONLY "qualification
for exemption" in any discussions about what the FCC does or may
do.

YOU, on the other hand, NOT being IN the FCC, cannot legally
"make decisions about (the code test) it for others." That
decision is up the FCC.

What YOU seem to want to do is force everyone current and
future to take that code test...because you had to take a
code test...and you want to "get even." :-)


You can use your voice on voice bands - called CB.

Incorrect. There is the Maritime Radio Service. There is the
Aeronautical Radio Service. There is the Private Land Mobile
Radio Service. There is the little Citizens Band Radio
Service. All have bands below 30 MHz and all allow voice.
[I've been on all of them] It isn't restricted to just CB.

That's what CB is
for - communications for those who don't want to pass a ham test
(which includes CW). Like you.

Now, now, lets not get testy there old timer. Citizens Band
Radio Service was established in the USA in 1958, 46 years
ago...as a general-purpose, short-range communications band
that would suit the general citizenry. It required NO test
whatsoever back then, still doesn't require any test. CB
has changed, enlarged in the following 46 years and the
number of users outnumber all licensed USA radio amateurs by
at least 4:1. [with no licensing for decades, only gross
numbers of unsers are possible through sales records such
as EIA reports]

I believe that Canada has their own CB. Many countries do.
That is irrelevant to the retention or elimination to the
radiotelegraphy test for USA radio amateurs.

Now be nice and behave in here or the moderator team to be
might make you sit in the corner.

Shalom,

Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:54:16 GMT, Opus- wrote:

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:


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.)

Nonsense. ALL cats (especially domesticated ones) have POOR
vision. They are scent-oriented.

If you've had cats at all you would realize this.

Now why are you gabbling about biological subjects in an amateur
radio policy newsgroup?


But tell bees that their dancing is just raw data. Then translate a
bee dance for me, blind man.

Now why are you gabbling about biological subjects in an amateur
radio policy newsgroup?

Did you get stung while exiting a cat house?

Be nice Klein or the moderator team to be may make you sit in
the corner.