wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.
indeed we are
Glad you agree
Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another issue. It is certainly not a "better way".
that does depend on the goal, and the operator.
True enough.
Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute)
It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility
of
human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming
virtues?) of Morse Code.
IYO
not in mine
it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others
That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way.
One more tool in the toolbox.
and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all
My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish
to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool
It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC
If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either
station.
agreed but so what
this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to
help the pcles staion
Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)
In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better",
just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle.
I have never said it was
it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is
always better which just isn't so
so where your beef?
The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.
and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better
it is not your cup of tea sure fine
Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.
Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.
Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.
With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.
break
all depends on what you want, to listen or to play
Point is, there's a big difference.
which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune
and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune?