On 14 Jul 2003 11:56:26 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:29 -0500, "Kim"
wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

You are not a
CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered.

You are not a cow, Larry, therefore you are not even qualified to
judge whether McDonald's or Wendy's makes better cheeseburgers.

You may not be too fond of CW, and CW ops, but contrary to rumor we do
not eat each other.

I'm not all that fond of CW, insofar as it's not one of the things I
personally enjoy doing. CW ops, like any other fellow ham, are welcome
around here any time. As for not eating each other, someone else's
comment about CQ WPX seems to be as good or better a retort than I can
think of at the moment.

Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air
experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their
satisfaction,

Hitler had the collective guilt of Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and
homosexuals proven to his satisfaction, too.

Usenet 101: First person to call their opposition "nazis" or compare
them to Hitler loses the argument. (Godwin's Law)

The comparison was valid to the extent that Hitler was wrong, but was
blinded by zeal and therefore unable to see past the end of his nose,
so to speak. Larry is wrong, but is blinded by zeal and therefore
unable to see past the end of his straight key. That is where the
similarity ends, as I have already explained to Larry in another post.

but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they
have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an
agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome.

Incorrect. They could always accept the evidence presented by an
experienced CW operator.

Larry posted that, I didn't - however, I have not disputed that CW is
a useful communications skill. Any communications skill is useful in a
communications hobby, and any technical skill is useful in a technical
hobby. For me to claim otherwise would be illogical. What I am
disputing is the notion put forth by K3LT that one needs to have
acquired CW proficiency in order to form an opinion as to whether one
wishes to pursue that aspect of the hobby or not...an assertion which
I find equally illogical.

Actually, all that's really required is a receiver.

With an antenna.

Although on occasion I have managed to receive signals with a radio
that had no antenna connected to it - and have actually even found it
very useful indeed to try to do so - I'll concede that one gets a much
better handle on current conditions on an HF band by listening to a
receiver that has at least a reasonable facsimile of an antenna
connected to it.

If there are a few
dozen CW QSOs going on at the bottom of the band, but nobody in the
phone portion of the band...

How about if there are more CW QSOs going on than 'phone?

To use a phrase that I have always found oxymoronic: same difference.

well, why would you think that would
happen, unless there's a CW contest going on?

Coupla possible reasons:

1) Propagation isn't so hot. (CW really does have an advantage over
all commonly-used forms of analog 'phone in this regard)

....which was exactly my point...

2) There's a 'phone contest going on, and most of the 'phone ops are
working the contest - on another band.

....where conditions are apparently better since they support phone on
that band? Then why haven't the CW guys moved there as well, to take
advantage of the better band conditions? After all, they have the
bottom part of that band to themselves too...

3) The 'phone bands become obnoxious enough that folks go to CW just
to have a decent QSO.

Well, if we're going to clutch at straws here, then we might as well
also include:

4) One has tuned to the 30 meter band, where phone is not permitted.


You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY
made. An excellent example, I might add.

Thanks - there are more. Like the student in Grenada during the
invasion/revolution (1983?) whose mike broke.

Again, the material you quoted there was posted by Larry.

And, apparently you have no
proof--only your rhetorical blathering idiocy, as usual.

Somehow I doubt that such rhetoric will convince the loyal opposition.

....which is another point I have been trying to make - again, you
quoted Larry's material rather than mine.

Larry gets rather emotional over the topic, whereas Jim looks at
things a bit more objectively. But then, I think you noticed that.

Just "a bit more"? ;-)

Just call me the master of understatement. ;-)

When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its tremendous
cabability, get back to us, won't you?

There are plenty of examples which prove the point of CW/Morse's
usefulness. Whether those examples constiute "proof" of the necessity
of a TEST is a matter of opinion.

I agree. Larry, whose material is quoted here, doesn't.

Knowing them and being able to articulate them in this forum are two
different things.

If someone "knows" something but cannot articulate to someone who
doesn't, does the first person really "know" it?

I believe so. I know how to get to a certain hamfest from my house. I
doubt that I could give someone directions that would allow them to
arrive at that hamfest without getting further directions from someone
else. I may not be able to articulate how to get there, but I "know"
how to get there, and will prove it this Sept. 27 when I again hop
into my van and drive there, just as I have every year since getting
my ham license (it's only a three-hour ride).

Kinda like the old
saying "if you have a thing 'someplace', but you can't find it when
you need it, then you don't really have it, do you?"

No, you don't. However, what we're discussing here isn't a material
thing, but rather, an idea. How does one manage to misplace an idea?
"Sunuvagun, it was right here in my cerebellum a minute ago!" :-)

73 DE John, KC2HMZ