>The argument is pedantic. It may not be Morse, but it's definitely possible to communicate by tapping on the wall. IMO the article made a useful distinction.

>The argument is pedantic. It may not be Morse, but it's definitely possible to communicate by tapping on the wall. IMO the article made a useful distinction. The whole second half covers "tap code", as is used in prisons, etc. I've known Morse for decades but somehow hadn't bumped into tap code before.