Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CW Code Reader recommendation
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. |
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 |