View Single Post
  #55   Report Post  
Old August 6th 05, 04:44 PM
Alun L. Palmer
Posts: n/a

"an old friend" wrote in

an old friend wrote:
an old friend 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.


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?

because it is useless to me, simple fact, and i will never know wether
it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I
believe them

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.

and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the
field at all

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.

which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that
law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a
code reader

based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it

However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that
I can't use.

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.

becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and
for some it is

and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is
able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847
satelite rig which is also HF cappable

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.

The above noted for later reference as "A"

but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some
accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use

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.

but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm

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

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally
"better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a

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?

in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it
survies above as noted as "A"

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?

at A

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.

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.

no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a
license Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that
status so your staement is simply not true


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.....Indi

you would write down



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?

I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia,
I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer
from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am
changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a
decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test
seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first
leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find
myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen

Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about

All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific
sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short

What is so impossible about that?

get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of
times Jim

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.

In My case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have
varies abilities
when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to
the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I
may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not
get even that "a" to the paper right

I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e"
but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye
position of "e" of course)

Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or "don't
want to".

so to answer your title I doubt I could pass the test phoenetic test
you describe, unless it was realy slow, and certainly not with any test

I agree with you, but you won't get very far with Jim.

I especially liked the bit about using a code reader as a handicap
accomodation for the Morse test! I am a VE and never thought of that! Can
you imagine if we had tried to get that past the ARRL VEC - they would have
flipped for sure, but I think it may well meet the rules.

It's all academic now, or will be soon. The NPRM abolishes the code test,
and the R&O will do the same. The pro-code test side have lost the war.
Roll on VC Day (Victory over the Code Day, LOL!).

73 de Alun, N3KIP

(A 20wpm Extra who wasted years learning Morse code that I will probably
never use)