On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

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.

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

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. Technically, the are. But they are much more than the sum
of their parts.

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

That was uncalled for and childish.

It was completely called for.

You are wrong.

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.

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.
Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

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.

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.

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

(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.

"Al Klein" wrote in message
You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

.... _ _ _ ... ... _ _ _ ... ... _ _ _ ...

.. _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _. ... . _ . .._ _. _. ..
_. _ _ . .... .. _ _. ...



.. _ _ _ ._ _._. _._







...
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense.

We gather more information from fellow humans by words than by any
other means. And words aren't processed in the visual cortex, not
even written words.

Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

Apples and oranges. Deaf-blind people get along pretty well too, if
they're given food, water and all the comforts of home by someone
else.

Why would I want to leave usenet?

You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words.

That's what this discussion is about, so I guess the grandmother story
is just a red herring.

Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.

Your insularity is showing.

Not insularity...humanity.

Which has nothing to do with communication, which every life form
participates in - even those who have no analog of vision.

Not quite sure what point you are making here.

The discussion was about communication. YOUR discussion. You started
it. Did you forget what you were talking about?

Jack Ricci wrote:
.... .. _ _. ...

Jack, what does "HIGS" mean? Is that a name for
Hams who are pIGS? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Jack Ricci wrote:
.... .. _ _. ...

Jack, what does "HIGS" mean? Is that a name for
Hams who are pIGS? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


....Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the last "
h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " . Just testing
to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to catch
that...Proved my point, I guess

Jack

Jack Ricci wrote:
...Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the last "
h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " . Just testing
to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to catch
that...Proved my point, I guess

CW is my favorite mode. I'm a member of FISTS (8741).
Strange that I helped design the 8741 at Intel, huh?

Vanilla Bean ice cream is my favorite ice cream. But
I wouldn't dream of forcing my favorite ice cream on
anyone else, including my fellow amateur radio
operators. QSL?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

"Jack Ricci" wrote in :


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Jack Ricci wrote:
.... .. _ _. ...

Jack, what does "HIGS" mean? Is that a name for
Hams who are pIGS? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


...Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the
last " h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " .
Just testing to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to
catch that...Proved my point, I guess

Jack


I don't think you proved anything. But keep trying.

SC

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:54:16 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:53:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense.

We gather more information from fellow humans by words than by any
other means. And words aren't processed in the visual cortex, not
even written words.

There is a lot more information in our environment than just raw data.

Try to stick to one argument at a time. You were arguing for voice -
now you're arguing against it. Or is just any argument that might
possibly be construed to make CW look bad?

Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

Apples and oranges. Deaf-blind people get along pretty well too, if
they're given food, water and all the comforts of home by someone
else.

A blind person cannot sniff his way around as well as a dog or cat,
therefore a white cane is needed or an unchanging closed environment.

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.)

Why would I want to leave usenet?

You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

My turn to say apples and oranges then. Can you quote where I said
that I didn't like CW? Basically, I say that it's only good for
submitting raw data, like usenet.

And you don't want to use it - but you do want to use Usenet.
Inconsistent.

Didn't say that it was a bad thing,
just not a full, complete way to engage in human discourse.

Neither is voice.

It should also not be a barrier to the use of amateur radio.

It's not a barrier to USING radio - it's a barrier to one particular
hobby, which incorporates CW as part of itself. You want to ride a
bike as a hobby but not use wheels?

Code - ham.
No code - CB.

If that's too complicated for you to grasp, maybe you should take up
grass-watching as a hobby.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words.

That's what this discussion is about, so I guess the grandmother story
is just a red herring.

No that was NOT my point. Let me be more precise: The inflection added
by actual voice results in a conversation that is much more than the
sum of it's parts, the parts being the words used. My grandmother
example simply showed that inflection adds so much more to a
conversation that it can, at times, convey some information on it's
own without words.

So if she screamed at you, in Ukrainian, with her face all screwed up,
"You were so good!", you'd get the proper information, that she was
about to take you to the wood shed for the terrible thing you'd done.
Right?

I can convey as much emotion in CW as your grandmother could in
Ukrainian. You don't understand CW, so you can't understand how that
could be true - which is why you're not qualified to discuss the
matter.

My job is like describing the difference between red-orange and
orange-red to someone who's been blind from birth. "Red-orange is
redder than orange-red." "But ..." No buts - it is. Someone who's
never seen just can't understand.

Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.

Raw data [text] is all that's needed for this conversation.

Raw data is all that's available for communication.

You insist on reducing the term "communication" to just an exchange of
data. I am trying to point out that there is MUCH more to human
interactions than just data.

There's much more to human interaction than lexical communications,
yes - but we're talking about lexical communications here, so anything
else is totally irrelevant. You can't have any more than lexical
communication by radio.

But tell bees that their dancing is just raw data. Then translate a
bee dance for me, blind man.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 10:19:25 -0400, "Jack Ricci"
wrote:

"Al Klein" wrote in message
You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

... _ _ _ ... ... _ _ _ ... ... _ _ _ ...

. _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _. ... . _ . .._ _. _. ..
_. _ _ . .... .. _ _. ...



. _ _ _ ._ _._. _._


Some may be but not mine. I'm cool as an unpowered CPU. (CW wasn't
meant to be read in visual form. Give me 20 or 30 in my ears any
time.)

Oh - _. _ _ _ _..._ _ _ _._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _.
.... ._. _._. _ _ _ ._.. ._._._

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:52:12 -0400, "Jack Ricci"
wrote:

...Nope..." high " was the last word, and I left out a " dot " on the last "
h " to make it an " s " as in " higs " instead of " high " . Just testing
to see if anyone out there cared enough about CW at all to catch
that...Proved my point, I guess

Maybe the point was that a lot of us who can read CW should wear their
glasses when reading it on a screen. I swear I saw it as an H. Even
the second time, after I read this post. (That's what astigmatism
will do to you.)