RadioBanter - CW Code Reader recommendation

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - CW Code Reader recommendation (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/105674-cw-code-reader-recommendation.html)

CW Code Reader recommendation

From: Al Klein on Sun, Oct 1 2006 3:25 pm

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:05:15 GMT, Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:00:08 -0400, Al Klein spake thusly:

The fact that I fully support technical testing is well established.

But you're being inconsistent. You only want to eliminate code
testing because YOU can't see any merit in code.

No, there are thousands and thousands of us who want to
eliminate the US amateur radio code test for any
license. It isn't confined to Jim-"Opus".

Go read ALL the comments to last year's NPRM from the
FCC. I did. Can you?

If you look real close you will see that the FCC doesn't
think that the code test is necessary for their needs
in determining which amateur applicant should get a
license. It didn't in 1990, it didn't in 1998, it
didn't in 2004.

The rewrite of Radio Regulation S25 at WRC-03 eliminated
the international need for all administrations to test for
radiotelegraphy for privileges below 30 MHz. It is
optional to include or exclude by all administrations.
The International Amateur Radio Union wanted that rewrite.
The ARRL did NOT. The IARU won.

Many people can't
see any merit in knowing the laws or in having any technical
knowledge, so why not eliminate testing altogether?

Illogical, incosistent reasoning. The discussion is about
the radiotelegraphy test, a stand-alone test solely for
manual radiotelegraphy. It is NOT about the written test
elements so why mention them? [rhetorical question]

You MUST mention the writtens as somehow "related" but
it never was. It's a common ploy by pro-coders but
still irrelevant.

Because you want your views to determine what's done. No other cogent
reason.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Insulting insinuation there. Bad form.

Others who want to end code testing generally feel the same way. This
is well established.

Yes, it is. They want everything done the way they want it - just
like you.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, more insulting insinuation of alleged
"bad conduct." :-)

You want to get on the air code-free, use the no code bands - CB.

There is only one "CB band." It requires NO TEST at
all. Never has. :-)

You want to get on frequencies that allow code?

I've been on many, many "frequencies" that didn't require
radiotelegraphy, either in use or to obtain a license to
operate. Got one of those licenses in 1956.

Pass a code test. It's not rocket science.

It's unnecessary and certainly NOT a "science." :-)

The only agency in the USA that grants amateur radio
licenses is the FCC and they don't think the code test
proves anything to them insofar as granting any amateur
radio license.

Why should that matter to the FCC?

Ahem, the FCC is the ONLY agency that grants amateur radio
licenses in the USA.

As I said, you're not
qualified to discuss something you have absolutely no understanding of
- let alone make decisions about it for others.

Klein, you are now violating the general to-be rules of
moderation.

Jim-"Opus" is a Canadian. He is licensed under the jurisdiction
of Industry Canada, NOT the FCC. That is his ONLY "qualification
for exemption" in any discussions about what the FCC does or may
do.

YOU, on the other hand, NOT being IN the FCC, cannot legally
"make decisions about (the code test) it for others." That
decision is up the FCC.

What YOU seem to want to do is force everyone current and
future to take that code test...because you had to take a
code test...and you want to "get even." :-)

You can use your voice on voice bands - called CB.

Incorrect. There is the Maritime Radio Service. There is the
Aeronautical Radio Service. There is the Private Land Mobile
Radio Service. There is the little Citizens Band Radio
Service. All have bands below 30 MHz and all allow voice.
[I've been on all of them] It isn't restricted to just CB.

That's what CB is
for - communications for those who don't want to pass a ham test
(which includes CW). Like you.

Now, now, lets not get testy there old timer. Citizens Band
Radio Service was established in the USA in 1958, 46 years
ago...as a general-purpose, short-range communications band
that would suit the general citizenry. It required NO test
whatsoever back then, still doesn't require any test. CB
has changed, enlarged in the following 46 years and the
number of users outnumber all licensed USA radio amateurs by
at least 4:1. [with no licensing for decades, only gross
numbers of unsers are possible through sales records such
as EIA reports]

I believe that Canada has their own CB. Many countries do.
That is irrelevant to the retention or elimination to the
radiotelegraphy test for USA radio amateurs.

Now be nice and behave in here or the moderator team to be
might make you sit in the corner.

Shalom,

CW Code Reader recommendation

Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:54:16 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:53:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

Deaf-blind dogs and cats don't normally walk around the streets
without aid. (Domesticated cats, btw, aren't scent-oriented, they're
vision-oriented.)

Nonsense. ALL cats (especially domesticated ones) have POOR
vision. They are scent-oriented.

If you've had cats at all you would realize this.

Now why are you gabbling about biological subjects in an amateur
radio policy newsgroup?

But tell bees that their dancing is just raw data. Then translate a
bee dance for me, blind man.

Now why are you gabbling about biological subjects in an amateur
radio policy newsgroup?

Did you get stung while exiting a cat house?

Be nice Klein or the moderator team to be may make you sit in
the corner.

CW Code Reader recommendation

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:39:41 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:54:16 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:53:38 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:27:51 GMT, Opus- wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:54:46 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:54:33 GMT, Opus- wrote:

You're simply wrong. Humans are aural creatures. Argue with me when
you get enough education in the subject that you're qualified to
discuss it.

Are YOU qualified? We gather more information about our environment
from vision than any other sense.

We gather more information from fellow humans by words than by any
other means. And words aren't processed in the visual cortex, not
even written words.

There is a lot more information in our environment than just raw data.

Try to stick to one argument at a time. You were arguing for voice -
now you're arguing against it. Or is just any argument that might
possibly be construed to make CW look bad?

Try to keep up. I have been quite consistent. You have not being
paying attention. I made no argument against voice at all. I made the
argument that a live voice conveys more than just words. Again, try to
keep up.

Ever have a pet cat or
dog that was blind and deaf? I have and you would be surprised how
well then can adapt with just the sense of smell and touch alone.
Humans need some degree of assistance.

Apples and oranges. Deaf-blind people get along pretty well too, if
they're given food, water and all the comforts of home by someone
else.

A blind person cannot sniff his way around as well as a dog or cat,
therefore a white cane is needed or an unchanging closed environment.

Deaf-blind dogs and cats don't normally walk around the streets
without aid. (Domesticated cats, btw, aren't scent-oriented, they're
vision-oriented.)

Never had a cat, did you? I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.

Why would I want to leave usenet?

You don't like CW because you can't tell emotions on CW. Since you
can't tell emotions on Usenet, you evidently don't like Usenet. Or
you're being inconsistent.

My turn to say apples and oranges then. Can you quote where I said
that I didn't like CW? Basically, I say that it's only good for
submitting raw data, like usenet.

And you don't want to use it - but you do want to use Usenet.
Inconsistent.

Are we on the radio right now? Your apples and oranges arguments are
getting tiresome. Here in Usenet, the text is preserved. CW is not.
Text on usenet is easily saved for future consideration. Is CW saved
on a radio server for others to listen to and reply to at their
leisure?

Didn't say that it was a bad thing,
just not a full, complete way to engage in human discourse.

Neither is voice.

It should also not be a barrier to the use of amateur radio.

It's not a barrier to USING radio - it's a barrier to one particular
hobby, which incorporates CW as part of itself. You want to ride a
bike as a hobby but not use wheels?

Code - ham.

Code - long range but only for a few that can pass an archaic test.

No code - CB.

No code - short range.

If that's too complicated for you to grasp, maybe you should take up
grass-watching as a hobby.

I don't speak Ukrainian but I sure knew when my grandmother
was mad at me.

Not by her words, though, which is what you're claiming. So tell me,
what mood am I in at the moment? Evidently, since Usenet is a visual
medium, you can tell.

I never said I could tell by her words.

That's what this discussion is about, so I guess the grandmother story
is just a red herring.

No that was NOT my point. Let me be more precise: The inflection added
by actual voice results in a conversation that is much more than the
sum of it's parts, the parts being the words used. My grandmother
example simply showed that inflection adds so much more to a
conversation that it can, at times, convey some information on it's
own without words.

So if she screamed at you, in Ukrainian, with her face all screwed up,
"You were so good!", you'd get the proper information, that she was
about to take you to the wood shed for the terrible thing you'd done.
Right?

Don't be so obtuse. I NEVER said that I would get the proper
information. I said "SOME" information..look above. If I understood
Ukrainian then I would get the full message. If she spoke the same
words in monotone English then I would not likely grasp the degree of
anger at what I had or had not done.

I can convey as much emotion in CW as your grandmother could in
Ukrainian. You don't understand CW, so you can't understand how that
could be true - which is why you're not qualified to discuss the
matter.

Can you say the same words 10 different ways on CW? Let me guess, you
beep harder when you are agitated.

My job is like describing the difference between red-orange and
orange-red to someone who's been blind from birth. "Red-orange is
redder than orange-red." "But ..." No buts - it is. Someone who's
never seen just can't understand.

Not a good analogy. I can still hear the CW. I just don't know the
meaning. Your analogy is more like trying to describe CW to a deaf
person.

Usent is text, by the way, not visual.

I'll have to start using my ears to read your posts, then.

Raw data [text] is all that's needed for this conversation.

Raw data is all that's available for communication.

With CW, yes. Raw data plus inflection conveys a fuller conversation.

You insist on reducing the term "communication" to just an exchange of
data. I am trying to point out that there is MUCH more to human
interactions than just data.

There's much more to human interaction than lexical communications,
yes - but we're talking about lexical communications here, so anything
else is totally irrelevant. You can't have any more than lexical
communication by radio.

Oh bull! You get less than you can in person, true, but much more with
an angry or happy voice than with code.

But tell bees that their dancing is just raw data. Then translate a
bee dance for me, blind man.

This is relevant how?

Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

CW Code Reader recommendation

Opus- wrote:
Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.

I haven't heard any information being conveyed on 75m
phone in years. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

CW Code Reader recommendation

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:37:56 GMT, Cecil Moore
spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
Vocal communication is never just a conveyance of information but you
insist that's all that ham radio is.

I haven't heard any information being conveyed on 75m
phone in years. :-)

I could say that about a few people I have spoken to in person ;-)
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

CW Code Reader recommendation

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:17:43 GMT, Opus- wrote:

Try to keep up.

That's actually good - if you can't defend, attack. Even if your
attack is nonsense.

I have been quite consistent. You have not being
paying attention. I made no argument against voice at all. I made the
argument that a live voice conveys more than just words.

You claimed that we humans communicate visually more than by words.
You're contradicting yourself here.

When you blather on about something you know nothing about you lose
track of what you said a few days ago.

Deaf-blind dogs and cats don't normally walk around the streets
without aid. (Domesticated cats, btw, aren't scent-oriented, they're
vision-oriented.)

Never had a cat, did you?

She's 7 years old now, and sleeping on my bed. Got her when her
mother died - she was still nursing - so, yes, I currently have a cat.
Have had some canine or feline pet since before I can remember -
usually more than 1.

I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.

They use it - about as much as we do - they don't depend on it.

Are we on the radio right now? Your apples and oranges arguments are
getting tiresome. Here in Usenet, the text is preserved. CW is not.

You're arguing for the visual now? Voice conveys more than CW, which
is your argument against CW. Voice conveys more than Usenet, which
ISN'T an argument against Usenet.

So which is it? Is the fact that voice conveys more than X an
argument against X or not?

I'm getting tired of your "I have to argue just so that I can win"
stance, so figure out how to get back to me when you grow up.

plonk

CW Code Reader recommendation

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:15:42 -0400, Al Klein
spake thusly:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:17:43 GMT, Opus- wrote:

Try to keep up.

That's actually good - if you can't defend, attack. Even if your
attack is nonsense.

Asking you to keep up is not an attack. Telling me to grow up
certainly is and you have done that several times.

I have been quite consistent. You have not being
paying attention. I made no argument against voice at all. I made the
argument that a live voice conveys more than just words.

You claimed that we humans communicate visually more than by words.
You're contradicting yourself here.

This shows that you have not kept up. I did not say that we
*communicate* visually more, I said that we are get the most
information from our environment visually than by any other sense. Our
other senses help us much less than they do for most other higher
animals.

When you blather on about something you know nothing about you lose
track of what you said a few days ago.

Yet again you attack.

Deaf-blind dogs and cats don't normally walk around the streets
without aid. (Domesticated cats, btw, aren't scent-oriented, they're
vision-oriented.)

Never had a cat, did you?

She's 7 years old now, and sleeping on my bed. Got her when her
mother died - she was still nursing - so, yes, I currently have a cat.
Have had some canine or feline pet since before I can remember -
usually more than 1.

I grew up with them. They don't depend on
smell near as much as dogs but they depend on it just the same.

They use it - about as much as we do - they don't depend on it.

Each olfactory cell in a cat has about 40 cilia while a human cell has
only about 6 to 8. A cat has approximately 60 to 80 million olfactory
cells while a human has about 5 to 20 million. Dogs put us all to
shame.

Are we on the radio right now? Your apples and oranges arguments are
getting tiresome. Here in Usenet, the text is preserved. CW is not.

You're arguing for the visual now? Voice conveys more than CW, which
is your argument against CW. Voice conveys more than Usenet, which
ISN'T an argument against Usenet.

How many times do I have to tell you that I am not arguing against CW?
It has it's place but I am arguing against CW as a requirement for
full access to ARS. I ask what is so great about CW and all I seem to
get is a rather patronizing "You wouldn't understand".

So which is it? Is the fact that voice conveys more than X an
argument against X or not?

This again shows how you have not been keeping up. Not an attack, an
observation.

I'm getting tired of your "I have to argue just so that I can win"
stance, so figure out how to get back to me when you grow up.

Explain how I have to "grow up" and, while you are at it, explain how
you are qualified to make such a statement. You have insulted me in
such a manner several times yet I have said nothing of the sort to
you. You patronize me while I give legitimate arguments. You don't
like my arguments and try to deflect by misquoting.

Of all the pro-coders here, I had the most respect for your view. I
didn't agree but at least you made a point without the typical insults
of others here. Now you seem to be joining their ilk.

Sad.
--

(Jim, single dad to Lesleigh [Autistic] 04/20/94)

"What, Me Worry?" A. E. Newman

Please note: All unsolicited e-mail sent to me may, at
my discretion, be posted in this newsgroup verbatim.

CW Code Reader recommendation