Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
Opus- wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:40:15 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:46:40 GMT, Opus- wrote: You also have to believe that a bunch of beeps on the speaker is real exciting. Or that a bunch of lit pixels on the screen is. Nice strawman. The pixels form a full complete picture. Beeps are just beeps. One dimensional. That they form a recognizable pattern does not make them more. Humans are highly visual creatures. I have listened to code for years. Being able to make out a few letters does nothing for me. It's just plain dull. Then do what most people do with dull stuff. They blow it off! Say good night, Gracie. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:18:30 -0400, Dave wrote:
[piggybacking] Opus- wrote: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:40:15 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:46:40 GMT, Opus- wrote: You also have to believe that a bunch of beeps on the speaker is real exciting. Or that a bunch of lit pixels on the screen is. Nice strawman. The pixels form a full complete picture. Beeps are just beeps. And speech is just noise if you don't understand it. 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.) 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. Your insularity is showing. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
Al Klein wrote: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:18:30 -0400, Dave wrote: [piggybacking] Opus- wrote: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:40:15 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:46:40 GMT, Opus- wrote: You also have to believe that a bunch of beeps on the speaker is real exciting. Or that a bunch of lit pixels on the screen is. Nice strawman. The pixels form a full complete picture. Beeps are just beeps. And speech is just noise if you don't understand it. your point? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:57:18 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:18:30 -0400, Dave wrote: [piggybacking] Opus- wrote: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:40:15 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:46:40 GMT, Opus- wrote: You also have to believe that a bunch of beeps on the speaker is real exciting. Or that a bunch of lit pixels on the screen is. 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. 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. 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. 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 don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother was mad at me. Your insularity is showing. Not insularity...humanity. -- (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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? | Policy | |||
05-235 - Any new procode test arguments? | Policy | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | Policy | |||
FS MFJ 462B Code Reader | Swap | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |