"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Let's take a ignorant but intelligent bystander who sees
the words "No Code International".

Without a person or written material to pursuade him
that it really means No Code Test International, Tell
me the assumption that he is going to make.

Can you with a straight face, tell me that the person is
going to assume that it means elimination of the test?


I can tell you with a perfectly straight face that an uninvolved bystander
probably wouldn't think anything, simply because the issue doesn't mean
anything to him. As far as I can see, only an involved ham would have any
interest in NCI at all, and that type of person would surely know what the
debate is all about.

However, the words you quoted had nothing to do with NCI. They were
intended to address Jim's desire that everyone opposed to the code test must
specifically use the words "code test" during any discussion of the issue.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Let's take a ignorant but intelligent bystander who sees
the words "No Code International".

Without a person or written material to pursuade him
that it really means No Code Test International, Tell
me the assumption that he is going to make.

Can you with a straight face, tell me that the person is
going to assume that it means elimination of the test?



I can tell you with a perfectly straight face that an uninvolved bystander
probably wouldn't think anything, simply because the issue doesn't mean
anything to him. As far as I can see, only an involved ham would have any
interest in NCI at all, and that type of person would surely know what the
debate is all about.

But you can't say that No-Code International just by looking at the
name means No Code test International, deflection attempts aside.



However, the words you quoted had nothing to do with NCI. They were
intended to address Jim's desire that everyone opposed to the code test must
specifically use the words "code test" during any discussion of the issue.

Doesn't hurt! You assume everyone has an in depth grasp of an issue?

Argue as you will, Dwight. I'm just saying in your desire to be "right"
you are taking a tack that to at least some of us looks a bit silly. If
some one told me I was being imprecise, Id apologize and be more precise
with them. YMMV.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote:

Of course. But in this case dropping the word "test" changes
the meaning tremendously.


Not when the two parties are participating in a conversation specifically
about dropping the code test, which is the current debate throughout the ham
radio community, Jim. Therefore, anyone who wants to change the debate to
focus on code itself, instead of the code test, would have the burdon of
being more specific to have his or her intent fully understood.

In reality, requiring specifics with each message posted in an existing
debate would tend to stiffle that debate, which I suspect is the underlying
goal of some of those demanding specific words and phrases from their
opposition in this debate.


I don't drop words that are needed for clarity. (snip)


Clarity of what - explicitness, focus, intent, meaning, unambiguity, or
all of these? There are many types of clarity, Jim. Without specifics, I
cannot be certain exactly what you mean. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Let's take a ignorant but intelligent bystander who sees
the words "No Code International".

Without a person or written material to pursuade him
that it really means No Code Test International, Tell
me the assumption that he is going to make.

Can you with a straight face, tell me that the person is
going to assume that it means elimination of the test?

I can tell you with a perfectly straight face that an uninvolved bystander
probably wouldn't think anything, simply because the issue doesn't mean
anything to him. As far as I can see, only an involved ham would have any
interest in NCI at all, and that type of person would surely know what the
debate is all about.

But you can't say that No-Code International just by looking at the
name means No Code test International, deflection attempts aside.

Keep on trolling for arguments, Mike, sooner or later someone will
bite on your bait. Try to avoid leaning too far over the gunwales or
something big will bite you.

Try to remember that No Code International was started by Bruce
Perens, long before an Amateur Extra tested at 20 WPM.

However, the words you quoted had nothing to do with NCI. They were
intended to address Jim's desire that everyone opposed to the code test must
specifically use the words "code test" during any discussion of the issue.

Doesn't hurt! You assume everyone has an in depth grasp of an issue?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Over-exaggeration again on the adjectives of
"in depth grasp."

You are already quite biased and rather adamant about it,
often going out of your way to pick a fight about code testing.

Argue as you will, Dwight. I'm just saying in your desire to be "right"

you are taking a tack that to at least some of us looks a bit silly. If
some one told me I was being imprecise, Id apologize and be more precise
with them. YMMV.

If someone told you that you are being overly aggressive about your
desire to pick a fight over word-quibbling, I'm sure you would be very
aggressive to them and want to start a fight about that... :-)

LHA

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Doesn't hurt! You assume everyone has an in depth
grasp of an issue?


Not everyone, Mike. Just the ham operators who visit this newsgroup and
eventually participate in the code testing debate.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dick Carroll" wrote:

Dwight will tell you any number of things but don't scare
him with "straight".


Now trying to live up to your name, Dick?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

--


"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Bill, while you like to bring out this argument when discussing
Elimination of Morse code, I'd like to suggest you imagine some
situation where something you like about the ARS is going away.


*sigh*

It's code TESTING, not CODE, that is being pushed out the door.
ad nauseum, this must be explained. Why is that?



Since you ask Clint...I'll try and explain it to you.

It is because you and your ilk are attacking those that enjoy the mode.
See how simple that is.

BZZZZZZT !!!

Once again the logic buzzer goes off on you "and those of your ilk"

I have never attacked those who enjoy the code BECAUSE they
enjoy the code. I have attacked them via debate and conversation NOT
thier use of code but stance on the morse code TEST. You have proven
my point *exactly* that you guys REFUSE to seperate the two issues.
I like to use morse code and don't attack it. If there are hams in here
attacking
the use of morse code on the air as a means of communication, that is a
seperate issue and I am not one of them. If you "and those of your ilk"
cannot differentiate the two you have a problem.

however, via example I thank you for making my point *perfectly*.
I happen to honestly and genuinely believe that you "and those of your lik"
are purposefully doing this, that you, for various reasons, well not
seperate
the two. Among these reasons is that, like a poverty pimp in politics
throwing
around the race card incorrectly and illegitimately, you are trying to bring
others to your side of the fight when originally they may not have had
an interest in it; furthermore, I believe you know that, left standing on
it's
own without falsely creating allies, the code TEST debate is heavily
out of balance in the favor of those *against*.



Now one more simple thing.....if you and your ilk would stop attacking
those
that enjoy using Morse Code on the air, then perhaps the debate would be
more simple.

AND, if you would quit trying to make it personal (one of the greatest flaws
in debate procedure there IS!), and trying to make it an attack against
those
enjoying morse code instead of just an attack on morse code, the debate
WOULD be more simpler, there is no "perhaps" about it. You won't do this,
though, because the pro code test types will lose even more quickly and
with a greater margin than otherwise.

As I said before, thanks for proving my point via example.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--


"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...


It's important for certain segments of our society to always be
offended and outraged.

BINGO!!!!
You are exactly right. I explained this in another form in this thread,
but you captured the essence of the argument perfectly.

As in politics, often a very weak stand or concept must be artificially
supported by, as you said, creating an offence or outrage that didn't
really exist. Certain political figures frequently take entire races
and try to bring them into the argument when there isn't an honest case
for what they are claiming.

Clint

Clint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

(N2EY) wrote in message

...



It's important for certain segments of our society to always be
offended and outraged.


BINGO!!!!
You are exactly right. I explained this in another form in this thread,
but you captured the essence of the argument perfectly.

BINGO!!!!

And You kind sir, are proof of that. Your tone in almost all your posts
indicates great offense and outrage. Deal with it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

WA8ULX wrote:

Do you guys dream about morse code tests?





Look lid you still dont get it, I am well aware the CW test is gone, my
complaint still is the Give away Written.


So why are we all not extras, then? If the writtens are so easy?