|Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse|
|Robert Bonomi (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:00:50 -0000
In article <email@example.com>,|
mc <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And telegraph operators can spell also. No silly abbreviations.
Yup. Like almost everyone else of that 'day and age', they had been
On the other hand, telegraphers, and later radio-telegraphers, *did*
As one example, consider the antecedents of the radio-telegraphy
Or the infamous "Q-codes".
> U R SO RITE ! :)
Anybody else remember:
A B C D Goldfish?
L M N O Goldfish!
Entire illustrated _books_ full of of this nonsense.
> Seriously ... my high-school daughter tells me there is now a
> Accompaying this is an inability to think about language. At one
'context' and 'frame of reference' are _everything_.
e.g., a pre-occupied graphics-programmer friend was going down the
And, as a youngster, I was _firmly_convinced_ that coyotes could fly.
What I _heard_:
What was _in_print_:
Lastly, please consider the difference between 'unionized', and "unionized".
What? You don't see any difference?
But, the first word describes the presence of a collective bargaining unit,
|Post Followup Article||Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply|
|Go to Next message: Wesrock@aol.com: "Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse"|
|Go to Previous message: Tony P.: "Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse"|
|May be in reply to: Colin: "Texting is Slower Than Morse"|
|Next in thread: Wesrock@aol.com: "Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse"|
|TELECOM Digest: Home Page|