AOF:

Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you
look closely...

First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is
useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW
alive no matter what...

Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep
inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they
realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in
my best estimate.)

Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but
if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your intellect...

It is all pretty clear, think about it...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:01:33 -0700, an old friend wrote:


wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Glad you agree

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator.

True enough.

Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute)

It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility
of
human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming
virtues?) of Morse Code.

IYO

Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an
objective fact.

Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any
more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet
means it must be tested.

not in mine

it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others

If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual
Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that
manula Morse Code be useless to you?

because it is useless to me, simple fact, and i will never know wether
it is usefull to any other particular person, unless they tell me and I
believe them


That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way.

One more tool in the toolbox.

and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all

That's simply not true!

All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests.

and you spport the Morse code test and therefore you opose me on the
field at all


VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the
tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse
Code *sending* test can be substituted.

which doesn't meet the ADA standards of accomodation at all, since that
law allows me anything that will in fact work, my choice would be a
code reader

based my expeences in the past that is about all that would do it


However that aside you insist I develope some varraint of a skill that
I can't use.

My station is at least one if not several such tool but you
don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

becuase you think Morse code is just a trival bit of work to learn, and
for some it is

and lacking that skill you would choose to sideline my station which is
able right now to work HF (I have up a G5RV conected to my ft 847
satelite rig which is also HF cappable


It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station.

agreed but so what

A tool that is with someone always is the most useful.

The above noted for later reference as "A"

but only if it is ever with that person. even if through some
accomdated test I passed it I would not have a tool to use


this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my
sation to help the pcles staion

No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code.

but you are supporting not allowing me access to specturm


Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better",
just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle.

I have never said it was

it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so

Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better?

in the post I am replying to you make a statement to that effect it
survies above as noted as "A"


so where your beef?

The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.

and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better

*Where* have *I* said that?

at A


it is not your cup of tea sure fine

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

break
all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

Point is, there's a big difference.

which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune

and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune?

The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn.

no becuase I blow everything On AM or on SSB or FM and still get a
license Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that
status so your staement is simply not true


--

Suppose you were given the following test:

You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of
speaker or headphones.

Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and
clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so.

All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word.

The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too.

So if you heard:

"Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel"

you would write down

"START WITH..."

etc.

The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct
to pass the test.

Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in
English, and who is literate in that language, who could not
pass such a test?

I might well not be able to, that is the meaning of Dyslexiod Aphasia,
I would hear the S in might write Y it all but certain I would suffer
from one of these occurances if a minute was 27 letters, any time I am
changing media there is high chance for making such errors, there is a
decent chance if I am just coping writen text, indeed to take your test
seeing the writen word one at a time and trying to copy them first
leters I can make such errors I fequenly do in the newsgroup find
myself unable to copy corectly a word on the screen

Does not mean I can't read text and understand it and tell you about
later



All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific
sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short
beeps.

What is so impossible about that?

get it though your head, I have failed exactly that test a number of
times Jim

I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem,
they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible
that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the
second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them.

In My case it is a set of learning disablities, varies people have
varies abilities
when you add morseyou have tranlating . to "e" which might make it to
the page as "y" when you sart with letters .- which I think is "a" I
may hear -. think "a" (becuase dyslexics reverse stuff) and might not
get even that "a" to the paper right

I do better with keyboards where I am tring to learn not the . is "e"
but is the trhid finger of left hand up one key (the touch tpye
position of "e" of course)


Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or
"don't want to".

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you
look closely...

First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is
useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW
alive no matter what...


I've seen no one say that people will "flock to use it". However there is
reason to think that enough people will choose to use it to keep this as an
active mode.

Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep
inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they
realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in
my best estimate.)


I'd expect avid QRP enthusiasts and contesters to have quite a bit of
interest.

However, I agree that "Joe Average" may not pursue it unfortunately if not
required to learn a very minimal, basic level of performance. Due to all
the activities of those trying to eliminate the test, he may falsely believe
it to be beyond his abilities. We may end up with only the very elite
operators, i.e. those who learn easily and progress to lightning speeds.
The casual ragchewer (i.e. the person who operates at around 13wpm or so)
may find slim pickings.

Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but
if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your
intellect...

It is all pretty clear, think about it...

John

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

"Joe BelowAverage", "Joe SixPack", his bother-in-law "Joe Geriatric", his
cousins, "Joe CW-ReligiousFreak", "Joe Control-Freak", etc are already
amateurs... in amongst them are a few, currently active and current
hardware techs (but not many these days)...

"Joe ComputerSavvy" will be working on other protocols for data xfer on
HF... and running a computer wan on HF... probably actively petitioning
for changes to allow such...

And, of course, we all expect "Joe ChickenBander" to be there... as much
a BS'er as any you can now find on 160-80-75-and-on-up...

And, "Joe RepeaterUser" will probably continue to dwindle, repeaters pale
the most when compared to the internet, their only possible use for local
lan/wan...

I am hoping all radio will go digital audio packet (for all phone)--one
freq can be used for multiple QSOs' at a time, with no interfearence
between, no ear will be of use anymore (packets are decoded and sent
though the sound card), the computer becomes the "shack gear"... and hams
are forced to update... some are already playing with this in the Ghz...

John

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:38:48 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

Look, they pose the most excellent argument, to their own argument, if you
look closely...

First, they say there that CW is a useful current protocol, and that it is
useful, then they say people are going to flock to use it and keep CW
alive no matter what...


I've seen no one say that people will "flock to use it". However there is
reason to think that enough people will choose to use it to keep this as an
active mode.

Then, they turn around and argue to keep the test, why? Because deep
inside their brain, at the center where the denial does not exist, they
realize without forcing people to learn morse, not many will (darn few in
my best estimate.)


I'd expect avid QRP enthusiasts and contesters to have quite a bit of
interest.

However, I agree that "Joe Average" may not pursue it unfortunately if not
required to learn a very minimal, basic level of performance. Due to all
the activities of those trying to eliminate the test, he may falsely believe
it to be beyond his abilities. We may end up with only the very elite
operators, i.e. those who learn easily and progress to lightning speeds.
The casual ragchewer (i.e. the person who operates at around 13wpm or so)
may find slim pickings.

Isn't it quite obvious? They fool themselves (else they are liars), but
if they fool you, think how others will judge the weight of your
intellect...

It is all pretty clear, think about it...

John

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE