On 4 Sep 2003 16:33:17 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:

On 4 Sep 2003 13:46:33 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



Brian wrote:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
S. Hanrahan wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:38:36 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

The exam does not exclude anyone who cares to make the effort to learn.
And
Farnsworth IS Morse since it relates a letter directly to a sound
without
counting dots and dashes.

Actually the Farnsworth method is Morse Code

It is not.

Only at 20 WPM does Farnsworth and Morse use the same character and word
rate.

Nowhere is there a definition that says the character rate and word rate
MUST be the same for it to be Morse.

Then it's not Morse Code.

There is standard spacing and
Farnsworth spacing and the variety of spacing that you hear on the air.
There are some really fine operators who have near perfect standard spacing
but the rest of us vary. That doesn't mean we aren't sending Morse.

It means that we are desparately trying to, except in the case of
DICK/W0EX who purposely sends poor code in order to thwart the
computer code readers.

Google it up, youi lying sack. I said it's entirely possible to foil computer copy that way. So you convert that
to what you wish I had said, as you so often do.

Why would you want to foil computer copy? For you to do the test to
make sure that it works and then advocate it's use, you can't really
say that wasn't your intention.

I can't? Who are you to say even what the subject was? The allegation had been made that a computer does a perfectly
acceptable job of copying Morse code which is of course very inaccurate. My remark was one of many possible reasons
for that fact.

Stuff it, Brock. You'r as ignorant as Brian.

If you send code bad enough, no one can copy it. Your petty attacks
on me go unnoticed. I've been here too long for that petty stuff to
work.