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?

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


Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.
iondeed we all knew you were not reading the text of anybody Klenex

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.

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.

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. Didn't say that it was a bad thing,
just not a full, complete way to engage in human discourse. It should
also not be a barrier to the use of amateur radio.

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.

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.

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?

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.
--

(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 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.

Al Klein wrote:
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:


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.)

Nonsense. ALL cats (especially domesticated ones) have POOR
vision. They are scent-oriented.

If you've had cats at all you would realize this.

Now why are you gabbling about biological subjects in an amateur
radio policy newsgroup?


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

Now why are you gabbling about biological subjects in an amateur
radio policy newsgroup?

Did you get stung while exiting a cat house?

Be nice Klein or the moderator team to be may make you sit in
the corner.

" wrote in
ps.com:


Al Klein wrote:
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:


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.)

Nonsense. ALL cats (especially domesticated ones) have POOR
vision. They are scent-oriented.


Lenny knows a lot about cats. When he was a kid he hated playing
in the sandbox because the cats kept trying to cover him up.

SC

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:39:41 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

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?

Try to keep up. 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. Again, try to
keep up.

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.)

Never had a cat, did you? I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.

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.

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.
Text on usenet is easily saved for future consideration. Is CW saved
on a radio server for others to listen to and reply to at their
leisure?

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.

Code - long range but only for a few that can pass an archaic test.

No code - CB.

No code - short range.

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?

Don't be so obtuse. I NEVER said that I would get the proper
information. I said "SOME" information..look above. If I understood
Ukrainian then I would get the full message. If she spoke the same
words in monotone English then I would not likely grasp the degree of
anger at what I had or had not done.

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.

Can you say the same words 10 different ways on CW? Let me guess, you
beep harder when you are agitated.

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.

Not a good analogy. I can still hear the CW. I just don't know the
meaning. Your analogy is more like trying to describe CW to a deaf
person.

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.

With CW, yes. Raw data plus inflection conveys a fuller conversation.

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.

Oh bull! You get less than you can in person, true, but much more with
an angry or happy voice than with code.

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

This is relevant how?

Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.
--

(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:
Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.

I haven't heard any information being conveyed on 75m
phone in years. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:37:56 GMT, Cecil Moore
spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.

I haven't heard any information being conveyed on 75m
phone in years. :-)

I could say that about a few people I have spoken to in person ;-)
--

(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 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