an old friend wrote:
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 just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an
objective fact.
Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any
more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet
means it must be tested.
not in mine
it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others
If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual
Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that
manula Morse Code be useless to you?
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
That's simply not true!
All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests.
VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the
tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse
Code *sending* test can be substituted.
My station is at least one if not several such tool but you
don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
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
A tool that is with someone always is the most useful.
this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my
sation to help the pcles staion
No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code.
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
Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better?
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
*Where* have *I* said that?
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?
The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn.
--
Suppose you were given the following test:
You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of
speaker or headphones.
Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and
clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so.
All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word.
The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too.
So if you heard:
"Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel"
you would write down
"START WITH..."
etc.
The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct
to pass the test.
Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in
English, and who is literate in that language, who could not
pass such a test?
All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific
sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short
beeps.
What is so impossible about that?
I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem,
they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible
that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the
second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them.
Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or
"don't want to".