John Smith I wrote:

AaronJ wrote:
they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they
suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and
poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me.

They (those guys with the brass taps on, doing a tap dance here) truly
show their ignorance if that is their claim. They get away with that
chit because few have professional programming experience...

The programming experience of most hams has little to do with their ability to
work computer CW. Virtually everybody I work (who admits to) using a computer on
CW is using either a *commercial* multimode decoding box or *commercial*
computer software and an interface.

If the ear can tell the difference between a di and a dah, the computer
sure as heck will not be fooled!

IMO the ear still beats computer copy in *real life*. I've played with a lot of
multimodes and software over the years and none has ever come close to ear copy
under poor signal conditions and/or someone with a poor fist.

This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software...

My computer screen might read NNTTA when the op was really sending CQ. The
computer saw five letters when there were really two because the op had poor
letter spacing. My ear picked up the CQ easily, but the computer read gibberish.
When I contact him I will still be able to understand him while the computer
continues to spit out gibberish. Your program is going to need to understand
English grammar and Q signals along with timing to solve this
type of problem...

Any software engineer who possesses a bachelors degree will support
this, even if they know NOTHING about amateur radio and ONLY that there
will ALWAYS be a difference in length between a di and a dah and these
length differences are (or may be) of a constantly variable nature.

It may be possible to write such a *perfect* CW program, but so far I haven't
found one. Maybe someone else here has. So for our victim who is using currently
available software it's certainly possible for the jerks to screw up his copy
with poor sending. But lets hope they were just spouting off in the post.

BTW Some advantages of computer CW:
It's fun to have a 80 or 100+ WPM QSO.
It's a great way to get your code speed up. Watch the screen while you listen to
the code at just above your speed. After awhile turn the screen away and you
will be copying in your head at the new speed.

A disadvantage of using computer CW:
During a QSO you can't turn up the speaker and leave the room
to take a leak...