On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:17:43 GMT, Opus- wrote:

Try to keep up.

That's actually good - if you can't defend, attack. Even if your
attack is nonsense.

I have been quite consistent. You have not being
paying attention. I made no argument against voice at all. I made the
argument that a live voice conveys more than just words.

You claimed that we humans communicate visually more than by words.
You're contradicting yourself here.

When you blather on about something you know nothing about you lose
track of what you said a few days ago.

Deaf-blind dogs and cats don't normally walk around the streets
without aid. (Domesticated cats, btw, aren't scent-oriented, they're
vision-oriented.)

Never had a cat, did you?

She's 7 years old now, and sleeping on my bed. Got her when her
mother died - she was still nursing - so, yes, I currently have a cat.
Have had some canine or feline pet since before I can remember -
usually more than 1.

I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.

They use it - about as much as we do - they don't depend on it.

Are we on the radio right now? Your apples and oranges arguments are
getting tiresome. Here in Usenet, the text is preserved. CW is not.

You're arguing for the visual now? Voice conveys more than CW, which
is your argument against CW. Voice conveys more than Usenet, which
ISN'T an argument against Usenet.

So which is it? Is the fact that voice conveys more than X an
argument against X or not?

I'm getting tired of your "I have to argue just so that I can win"
stance, so figure out how to get back to me when you grow up.

plonk