an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
cut
You miss the point, Mark. Nobody can read some of the stuff
you post.
Any literate person can read it. Making sense out of it is
another matter.
Jim I have been coutesous to on this but you are straining my
ability to do so
"Coutesous to on this"??
Did you mean "courteous to you on this"?
If so, why didn't you write it that way the first time?
Courtesy means you would at least *try* using a spellchecker,
and some capitalization, and some punctuation. But you
steadfastly refuse to do any of that.
How can you use CW a medium completely without
error correction and be
unable to work the meaning of simple text
with the leasure of time and
the abilty to look at the context
You obviously don't understand "error correction".
The purpose of error correction is to
identify and correct errors that occur
in the transmission medium - assuming the
message is sent correctly in the first place!
What you expect is for readers of your stuff
to translate it into readable English. And if
they have difficulty, you say it's *their*
problem.
That's not how CW/Morse Code works at all.
People can follow my typing the first
draft with no polishing
turned
into CW on air and yet you claim you can't follow it in text
I don't think you've ever used CW on the air.
How is that possible?
Do you have an exaplintion why The level of
difficulties for people in
reading my stuff here in this newsgroup
declines as support for code
testing increases, indeedanywhere I post
it seem that the abilty to
read and understands declines with the
degree of their agreement
I frankly suspect that what the problem is, is simply that
people like
Dave and it seems you don't want to understand and therefore
seize on any excuse not to do so
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
If you dispense with spelling, capitalization
and punctuation, why post at all?
Here's a theory, Dave: It's done to antagonize the reader. As a
way for the writer to insult the reader, by saying the reader
is unworthy of the effort required to write understandably.
close Jim it is a reflection of the author opinion of the value of the
medium, usenet is unworthy of the effort, but I have said that before
"Usenet is unworthy of the effort"? That's a cop-out.
What you're really saying is that the *people who read Usenet*
aren't worthy of *your* effort.
That's what it boils down to.
Who wants to read the ramblings of an illiterate?
The point is that you and others bother to read the gibberish
and comment on it at length.
and that is an intersting point
So here's my final point:
The hardware and software of Usenet don't care if you post
clear prose or complete gibberish. Only the readers care.
So you are saying the readers aren't worth it.
That works both ways. Your posts aren't worth the effort
it takes to read and decipher them, let alone answer them.
So I won't.