On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
Since I can fully communicate using "emotionless beeps", no.

In the other thread, I explained how your beeps are just a trade of
raw data.

So is speech. So is writing. Communication between beings is raw
data. It only conveys meaning to those who understand it.

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.

You're the one who used the term pixels like they are just an exchange
of raw data.

All communication is the exchange of raw data.

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

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

You are wrong.

I would have been ... if you hadn't been acting childish.

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.

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code. Many people can't
see any merit in knowing the laws or in having any technical
knowledge, so why not eliminate testing altogether?

Because you want your views to determine what's done. No other cogent
reason.

Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

Yes, it is. They want everything done the way they want it - just
like you.

You want to get on the air code-free, use the no code bands - CB. You
want to get on frequencies that allow code? Pass a code test. It's
not rocket science.

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?

I have already pointed out that you can get much information beyond
just data. And, no matter what you say, beeps are just data.

To you. Why should that matter to the FCC? As I said, you're not
qualified to discuss something you have absolutely no understanding of
- let alone make decisions about it for others.

Keep on using it then. But don't tell me that I must know it in order
to use my voice on the radio.

You can use your voice on voice bands - called CB. That's what CB is
for - communications for those who don't want to pass a ham test
(which includes CW). Like you.