"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"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.
Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.
Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...
Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".
OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).
Does that satisfy you?
that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...
Yet you wrote:
"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."
There is nothing "magical" about Morse ... with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of physics.)
and
"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."
I maintain that the statement is true. Note I said "so many hams" ... not
ALL hams.
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.")
There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.
I know you're a hard-core Morse enthusiast, but you're not as narrow-minded
about it as SOME (I did limit the comment to SOME) ... and I don't see you
as having a "religious zeal" or "I'm superior" attitude ... to your credit.
Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."
Take me at my word ... I was talking about fanatical attitudes, not the
norm.
[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]
(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.)
Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".
1) I believe I am right. YMMV
2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.
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)
That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.
I've attempted to define "better" better above :-)
Carl - wk3c
|