Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: FEELING that something is true or false doesn't make it so. You have made an assertion that you claim to be fact therefore it IS up to you, even in a casual discussion to back it up with data. (snip) Nonsense. I've never seen anybody asked to provide statistical data in a casual discussion. Unless you have statistical data on this, your statement is an OPINION and nothing more. No kidding!!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along? Lacking any evidence either way, it is my opinion that it is fact. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion that it is a fact does not make it so. And even in casual discussions, I've seen many statements challenged and the proponent asked to prove it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote: You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion that it is a fact does not make it so. And you're being deliberately disputatious. I've never said it did make it so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: You are being deliberately obtuse. Your opinion that it is a fact does not make it so. And you're being deliberately disputatious. I've never said it did make it so. The phrasing used in your posts attempt to make it so. Thus naturally I will dispute the contention that you are trying to make it a fact without any supporting data. Not only are you trying to call it a fact but attempting to make others believe it, again without supporting data. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
The phrasing used in your posts attempt to make it so. Thus naturally I will dispute the contention that you are trying to make it a fact without any supporting data. Not only are you trying to call it a fact but attempting to make others believe it, again without supporting data. You're not going to let it go, are you, Dee? I said what I believe to be fact. Lacking any real data, that is all I could possibly do. I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most people in this country today know about Morse code. They may not know what it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person would not know at least something about it. That is especially true for anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so on). You haven't provided anything beyond your own opinion to dispute any of that. Instead, you assault my choice of words and then insist, even if true, that is not enough - that one must have practical experience to truly make a choice. Of course, that's nonsense. One does not have to murder someone to know that murder is not something one would particularly like to do. Indeed, we make choices in our lives each day without personal experience to back it up. Your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability to make their own choices. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: The phrasing used in your posts attempt to make it so. Thus naturally I will dispute the contention that you are trying to make it a fact without any supporting data. Not only are you trying to call it a fact but attempting to make others believe it, again without supporting data. You're not going to let it go, are you, Dee? I said what I believe to be fact. Lacking any real data, that is all I could possibly do. I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most people in this country today know about Morse code. They may not know what it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person would not know at least something about it. That is especially true for anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so on). You haven't provided anything beyond your own opinion to dispute any of that. Instead, you assault my choice of words and then insist, even if true, that is not enough - that one must have practical experience to truly make a choice. Of course, that's nonsense. One does not have to murder someone to know that murder is not something one would particularly like to do. Indeed, we make choices in our lives each day without personal experience to back it up. Your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability to make their own choices. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Dwight... If you don't mind, lemmee see if this works for you. Here's a post I'll use for an example: :::::::::: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Alun writes: I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get _phone_ subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the beginning. Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold much water today: In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get phone subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway. The code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF privileges or should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when one earns HF privileges. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE :::::::::: Now to counter Dee on the point that she made, where she essentially states to you that you presented something as fact (which isn't exactly clear that you did...by the way; she *interpreted* something you said as fact), then there's a lot to be said for her needing to present "statistical data" to show that anyone--*anyone*--who took the code test...was to get HF privileges. Now, in defense of her statement, she did qualify that statement with the phrase, "or should have been." But, the qualifier does not negate that she emphatically states "anyone who thinks they took the code tests to get phone subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway." The implication between the conclusion that is derived from the two combined statements is that Dee is--we could say, as she has done with you--stating that it is a fact that anyone who takes the code test did so to get HF privileges. Period. Where's *that* statistical data? This could be done over and over. So, in true debate form--at least as far as I see it--the counter would be to fight fire with fire. Fact is, though, you did open yourself up with the statement, "Few people today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around with it, at some point in their lives." I mean, after all, you have to see that such a statement would tend to be disagreed with. I would disagree with it, wholeheartedly, if I was inclined to nitpick--or if I was inclined to feel like I had nothing else to argue. It's a statement that is quite arguable. There are not many people who have "learned code" as you say. That's, uh, not a fact by the way. Kim W5TIT |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
(snip) Fact is, though, you did open yourself up with the statement, "Few people today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around with it, at some point in their lives." (snip) Is that sentence what this is all about, Kim (and Dee)? If so, lets forget about debate rules and discuss how to write instead. I wrote a paragraph which contained a lead, supposition or hypothesis, and a conclusion. The "fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph is in the conclusion of that paragraph, not in any single sentence leading up to that conclusion. The sentence quoted above is supposition leading to the conclusion. The conclusion of that paragraph, and the "fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph, is, "...most adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any real interest in it." Based on what I wrote in that paragraph, and in subsequent messages, I do believe that conclusion to be fact. And the conclusion of this message is, if that sentence is indeed the root Dee's objection, we've spent several days arguing over two entirely different things - that sentence in Dee's case and the overall conclusion in my case. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: (snip) Fact is, though, you did open yourself up with the statement, "Few people today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around with it, at some point in their lives." (snip) Is that sentence what this is all about, Kim (and Dee)? If so, lets forget about debate rules and discuss how to write instead. I wrote a paragraph which contained a lead, supposition or hypothesis, and a conclusion. The "fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph is in the conclusion of that paragraph, not in any single sentence leading up to that conclusion. The sentence quoted above is supposition leading to the conclusion. The conclusion of that paragraph, and the "fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph, is, "...most adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any real interest in it." Based on what I wrote in that paragraph, and in subsequent messages, I do believe that conclusion to be fact. And the conclusion of this message is, if that sentence is indeed the root Dee's objection, we've spent several days arguing over two entirely different things - that sentence in Dee's case and the overall conclusion in my case. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Well, I am actually *supposing* that is what it is that Dee is basing the major part of the discussion on. Dee? (PS--it doesn't matter a whoot for me, I think I'm not so driven by statements as I am concepts). Kim W5TIT |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most people in this country today know about Morse code. Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA don't really know what Morse code is. btw, the 1997 James Cameron film had no significant Morse code in it at all. Nor any real mention of the role played by radio. You have to see the 1956 flick "A Night To Remember" for that. They may not know what it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person would not know at least something about it. If they do't even know what it's called, they can hardly make an informed judgement about it. That is especially true for anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so on). Not from what I've seen whenever I've demonstrated Morse code. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in movies... (snip) Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA don't really know what Morse code is. How can you say that, Jim? As I said, Morse code has been shown in some form or another in perhaps several hundred movies, television shows, and news broadcasts, over the last forty or fifty years. One would almost have to live in a cave without electric power to have not heard code at least several times and not know it is sent with a key (telegraph or other). Because of that, I think it is absurd to suggest that most don't know what Morse code is. They may not know the details, but they most certainly do know what it is. If they do't even know what it's called, they can hardly make an informed judgement about it. Why do they have to know what something is called to make an informed judgement about it? I may not know what a certain crane is called (or how it works), but can still make an informed judgement not to stand under any load that crane may be moving. That is especially true for anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so on). Not from what I've seen whenever I've demonstrated Morse code. What are you basing that conclusion on? I don't doubt that those people didn't know how to send code, but you'll never convince me that they didn't even know what Morse code was. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA don't really know what Morse code is. I suppose that depends on what 'is' really is. If I walk up to 100 random people over the age of 10 in a shopping mall and ask them "what is the Morse code", I'm sure every one them would give me an answer. You'd get answers like: "The alphabet in dots and dashes". "Those clicks they used to send telegrams in the cowboy movies." "SOS" "Those beeps and boops I used to hear on my SW receiver." "A barrier to entry into HF amateur radio." [The devil made me say that.] etc., etc., etc. My point is that most people in the USA have at least a passing familiarity with *what* Morse code is, even if they can't recite the code for each letter/numeral. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |