On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:39:41 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

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?

Try to keep up. 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. Again, try to
keep up.

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.)

Never had a cat, did you? I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.

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.

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.
Text on usenet is easily saved for future consideration. Is CW saved
on a radio server for others to listen to and reply to at their
leisure?

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.

Code - long range but only for a few that can pass an archaic test.

No code - CB.

No code - short range.

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?

Don't be so obtuse. I NEVER said that I would get the proper
information. I said "SOME" information..look above. If I understood
Ukrainian then I would get the full message. If she spoke the same
words in monotone English then I would not likely grasp the degree of
anger at what I had or had not done.

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.

Can you say the same words 10 different ways on CW? Let me guess, you
beep harder when you are agitated.

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.

Not a good analogy. I can still hear the CW. I just don't know the
meaning. Your analogy is more like trying to describe CW to a deaf
person.

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.

With CW, yes. Raw data plus inflection conveys a fuller conversation.

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.

Oh bull! You get less than you can in person, true, but much more with
an angry or happy voice than with code.

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

This is relevant how?

Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.
--

(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.

wrote:
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".

Funny. I haven't followed this thread, but "Opus" would be a screen
name that Jim would choose. I'll have to go read this "Opus" character.

On 1 Oct 2006 18:17:52 -0700, spake
thusly:


wrote:
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".

Funny. I haven't followed this thread, but "Opus" would be a screen
name that Jim would choose. I'll have to go read this "Opus" character.

Oh I am just your ordinary, average insecure penguin.
--

(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.

Opus- wrote:
Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.

I haven't heard any information being conveyed on 75m
phone in years. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:37:56 GMT, Cecil Moore
spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.

I haven't heard any information being conveyed on 75m
phone in years. :-)

I could say that about a few people I have spoken to in person ;-)
--

(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 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.

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.

When you blather on about something you know nothing about you lose
track of what you said a few days ago.

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.

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.

So which is it? Is the fact that voice conveys more than X an
argument against X or not?

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.

plonk

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.

Opus- wrote:
On 1 Oct 2006 18:17:52 -0700, spake
thusly:


wrote:
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".

Funny. I haven't followed this thread, but "Opus" would be a screen
name that Jim would choose. I'll have to go read this "Opus" character.

Oh I am just your ordinary, average insecure penguin.

Archived.

--

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

BWHAHAHAHAHA a retard begeting a retard! BWHAHAHAHA!


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

Mad magazine is about the extent of your literary tastses, Penquin boy?

On 3 Oct 2006 04:39:27 -0700, "Andy the Perv Timberlake"
spake thusly:

snip the usual stupidity

plonk
--

(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.

Penquin boy Opus- wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 04:39:27 -0700, "Andy the Perv Timberlake"
spake thusly:

Mad magazine is about the extent of your literary tastes, Penquin boy?


snip the usual stupidity

SPANK! BWHAHAHAHAHA!