"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