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.

wrote in news
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:40:15 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

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.
back to lie some more AL no one (except pro coders) is suggesting we
need totest for digital modes
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Mark,
If ever there was proof of the dangers of dumbing down ham radio, you're
it.

SC

wrote in :

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:22:24 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



Mark,
If ever there was proof of the dangers of dumbing down ham radio, you're
it.
nope you are looking at the glare on pc you are dumbing down of ham
radio you and all those that worship cw


No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

SC

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in :

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:22:24 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



Mark,
If ever there was proof of the dangers of dumbing down ham radio, you're
it.
nope you are looking at the glare on pc you are dumbing down of ham
radio you and all those that worship cw


No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.
--

(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.

"Opus-" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

wrote in :

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:22:24 GMT, Slow Code wrote:



Mark,
If ever there was proof of the dangers of dumbing down ham radio, you're
it.
nope you are looking at the glare on pc you are dumbing down of ham
radio you and all those that worship cw


No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.
--

(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.

==

Opus, none of my concern, but I have a five dollar bill that says Mark will
somehow stick his unasked-for comments into this topic. Just as I did. But
rest assured I will post just this one comment whereas Mark will post ad
infinatum.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:55:48 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.

And pixels show emotion?

When you actually get into high school, let us know.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:55:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:55:48 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.

And pixels show emotion?

This is an strawman. You know full well what I mean.

I'll tell my daughter's occupational therapist to quit using a monitor
screen to teach her how to recognize emotions of people's faces
pictured on the screen. After all, I have just been told that you
can't view a persons mood by the look on his face if it is composed of
pixels on a screen.

When you actually get into high school, let us know.

That was uncalled for and childish. Your arguments are based on a
false premise that I and other want to ban the use of CW or that it is
useless. We're only opposed to it being required to pass a test. I
question those who say it's as good as a human voice. It isn't and you
can't say otherwise. Romanticize it all you want. It is what it is.
Nothing more.
--

(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.

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:38:24 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:55:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:55:48 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:29 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

No Markie, being able to communicate is good. Can you say, "is good"?

And communicating with human emotion as opposed to emotionless beeps
is better.

And pixels show emotion?

This is an strawman. You know full well what I mean.

Since I can fully communicate using "emotionless beeps", no.

I'll tell my daughter's occupational therapist to quit using a monitor
screen to teach her how to recognize emotions of people's faces
pictured on the screen. After all, I have just been told that you
can't view a persons mood by the look on his face if it is composed of
pixels on a screen.

No you haven't, but you're being told that if you're not being
deliberately facetious, you're appearing to be pretty stupid.

When you actually get into high school, let us know.

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

Your arguments are based on a
false premise that I and other want to ban the use of CW or that it is
useless.

The original discussion was about requiring it, not banning it. My
attention span's not that short.

We're only opposed to it being required to pass a test.

So be opposed to testing altogether. Oh, there's already a way to get
on the air without a test. You just don't like that way. Now that's
being childish.

I question those who say it's as good as a human voice.

How can you question a language you don't even begin to understand?

It isn't and you can't say otherwise.

Sure I can - I understand and use it - you don't, so you can't
intelligently discuss what it is or isn't at all.

wrote:

SNIPPED

you can't comuicate with CW there is no one to tlak to that way
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Please define "TLAK" so we can try to understand you. Is TLAK touching the
paddles on a keyer? Is TLAK using a J38? Does TLAK mean touching that mysterious
button titled CW on you radio?

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.
--

(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.