In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

Using PSK-31 is not exactly a great indication of experience.
DICK's experience with *only* CW, PSK-31 and other common modes
used on Amateur bands is an extreme restriction. And that is
exactly why he (and Larry Roll) should *not* be using themselves
as a yard stick for other hams.

Frostbite Floyd:

This newsgroup is about AMATEUR Radio. The experience that Dick and I
have with CW, PSK-31, and other modes "common" to AMATEUR Radio
is certainly not a "restriction," and is, indeed, a "yard stick" by which we
can
analyze other hams on the basis of their technical and operational activities.
The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade
technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do. What we do have is curiosity, and a
willingness to learn. We also have the operating authority to experiment with
modes such as PSK-31 and adapt them to effective communications in keeping
with the rules, regulations, and purpose of the AMATEUR Radio Service.

The whole point is that this business of DICK and Larry claiming
that what they can do, is what everyone else _must_ do, is
ridiculous on its face because there are many others we could
use as a standard that would put the two of them out the door as
well.

I won't presume to speak for Dick, but I consider myself to be a typical,
average AMATEUR radio operator who has pursued the art and science
of AMATEUR radio communications at a level which is considerably
above that of other hams who, for whatever reasons (excuses), fail to
pursue modes beyond those involving voice communications. Now, to
be fair, I don't include among that group those who tend to specialize in
more technical aspects of the hobby such as building and maintaining
repeater systems. I've known a lot of hams who do this, but are No-Code
Techs who don't have any interest in CW, or anything else on HF, for
that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs. However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs. They are even further diluted when you consider the fact that a
lot of the technical/repeater gurus are also CW-tested, CW-using, CW-
loving, and Morse code test supporting Pre-Restructuring Extra class
licensees.

DICK and Larry have dabbled at 2, 3, maybe 4 different kinds of
digital communications systems. Thrilling. Whether I or

Yup. "Dabbled" is just about what I'd call it myself. However, my
"dabbling" represents a level of technical involvement which I would
dare say places me in the top 5th percentile of just Extra-class hams,
not including all other license classes. Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

someone else has used or not used *any* of those, is not really
significant... if I or someone else has in fact used *dozens*
of other digital systems, including many of the more recent
ones. There is _nothing_ special about PSK-31, other than it
is just about the upper limit of DICK's lack of experience.

However low Dick's "upper level" of experience is compared to your
professional technical experience is irrelevant. This is a discussion of
the AMATEUR radio service, and the experiences of AMATEUR
radio operators is the only valid basis for the comparison of the relative
level of technical involvement among radio amateurs. Legitimate
"pros" like Len, Carl, and yourself do add considerable value to the
ARS as a whole, but you cannot in any sense of fairness use yourselves
as any kind of objective "yardstick" by which other hams are measured.

In fact *your* argument is the same bogus one that DICK and
Larry make! Because *they* use CW (or PSK-31), everyone else
either does, or is declared too dumb to license (or understand
how Shannon applies to PSK-31). That is invalid logic and leads
you to erroneous conclusions.

Fallacy. You are making apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is a
well known Usenet tactic, but one which always ultimately ends up
disqualifying the person using it.

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

And that tells us *nothing* about which is the more efficient or
effective mode of communications.

No, it doesn't. That would depend on a universally accepted
definition of the terms "efficient" and "effective" in the context
of the use of these modes within the ARS. To the extent that the
meaning of these terms are infinitely arguable, only those of us
with fairly extensive operating experience in each can even come
close to being qualified to render an objective opinion.

Can both of you
accept that fact?

I cannot accept something which isn't true.

DICK is the *only* one who has suggested otherwise. Everyone
else has told him his reasons for such claims are bogus. So
what is *your* point?

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on
his practical operating experience as a radio AMATEUR using
modes authorized in the AMATEUR radio service. The only thing
"bogus" around here is your futile attempt to discredit him.
__________________________________________________ ___

BTW, I do believe that Mr. Shannon's theory is relevant to Amateur
Radio. I believe that what Dick is doing is making observations
based on actual operating experience, rather than empirical theory.
This may be the cause of the confusion, but as I said earlier, I do
not presume to speak for Dick.

73 de Larry, K3LT