"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

That's correct ... I am NOT against the use of the mode. Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ... that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ... only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")


This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

See above ...

For example, EME can be done, with proper modulation and coding
with much less power/antenna gain than with OOK Morse ...

Have you actually DONE it, Carl? Not just a paper design - an actual
station,
and actual QSOs?

No, I personally haven't ... yet ... I've been working on other things. But
the fact that *I* haven't personally done it yet doesn't mean it's not
factual.
(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Why does it bother you if some unnamed folks don't see things your way? If
you
can do "better", go ahead.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

Carl - wk3c