And ever so slowly we creep up on the *actual* point....

pick a freq, pick a mode, pick a language, pick a moment in time.
*Nothing* is perfect and CW or no CW, it's about circumstance, not code.
Then again, you can back it up one more and acknowledge the foolishness of
the whole CW argument.
As it stands, hams are so crazy they somehow think they are the only hope
for mankind.
I pray that farce never becomes fact!

Everything has it's place.
Ham radio is a novelty. CW is a novelty within the same. That's all....
As long as there are 40wpm ops out there that can't program a radio, it's
just a bunch of
ding-dongs arguing amongst each other, looking like a bunch of ding-dongs.
And it goes both ways.... no reason to ditch CW but this "my tapper is
faster than your tapper"
stupidity is just phallic and pathetic. Which finally brings us to the
overall problem...
As usual, the last word in any hammy hashing is the same.
Control freaks needing to feel in control, and the subject matters not.
That's why these goofy threads carry on forever.

rb

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"Woody" wrote in news:1o2Hg.19713$Te.3938@trnddc07:


"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"Woody" wrote in
news:%RJGg.27319$uV.13889@trnddc08:

Did someone drop you on your head at birth? The reason 50wpm can
save lives is probably a bit complex for you to get both your
functioning neurons around, but believe me, having done CW for a
living for some decades I do know that it can save lives. And if
you're faster than the average bear at it, you can tell someone on
the scene things they need to know all that much faster.


Possibly, because try as I might, I can't really remember much about
that day.... I had pyloric stenosis, if that counts?

So apparently YOUR answer to this question is that you couldn't send
your name if your own life depended on it.

Now that's true... I'd require a CW setup of some kind in order to
send my name; or anything else for that matter.
Or as previously pointed out, hack up a headphone jack and tippy tap
the wires together. Either way, I don't see my life depending on it at
any time, so I'll just let my CW skills continue to rust.
However; your argument does make me wonder how non-hams even have a
chance at life in this world... ??


Believe me, I get it. I don't think CW ought to be mandatory and it
isn't where I live. I do think people who intend to use it should
learn how to use it properly, though. For CW to be effective, both
operators must be competent. IF they are, they can often transcend
barriers of language that only digital modes can get over. In my own
case, the fact that I could read CW and read written Spanish a bit
once enabled me to render aid to a burning fishing boat. (There were
other more routine examples of where the language barrier was crossed
by CW--many messages I copied were not in English at all, but were
readable by their end recipients).

OK.... so by your own words, CW still didn't save a life... CW mixed
with bad Spanish passed a message. So now we'll have to add a Spanish
test. Thanks a lot.

My point is, my bad Spanish might not have recognized the word "fuego" if
it was spoken fast among a lot of other words. But on CW it came across
loud and clear.

As for the language thing.... I can copy voice language and hand it
off to another native just as easy and they'll figure it out too.
No CW necessary.

Except you'll be a lot slower because you'll need phonetic spellings for
everything. Believe me, I know. I've done this. For a living for many
years.

BTW, I noticed you conveniently left out the specific year in which
said burning boat was offshore with an obsolete CW outfit, and how
your CW expertise put out a fire.... but I'm guessing we're talking
many a year ago, so again, a moot point.

Not that long ago, really. Early 1990's if I remember.

Actually,
The boat thing in general is really killing me... If these numb-nuts
are offshore and not on the correct USCG freqs and/or unaware of how
to properly tune their radios in an emergency, then it isn't CW saving
lives, it's the grace of God that somebody happened to be on their
freq at that time. But again, what boats are out there with a CW
rig???? That's crazy, bubba. :-) rb

This was on 500khz (and 484). CW was the mode of operation on those
frequencies until well into the 90's. Cheap SSB radios were plentiful.
So were some SITOR lashups. But what finally killed it was INMARSAT.

So now, instead of getting nailed by solar flares on HF, you get nailed
by them on INMARSAT and have to wait 6 to 9 months for a new launch.
Meanwhile you're limping along on SSB using a phonetic alphabet to send
traffic at a SLOWER rate.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Well... no, I got the point just fine. I can't imagine being surrounded by
Spanish-speaking people needing a code interp, or being on a CW freq anyway,
while some emergency happens to be taking place. And yeah, I'm elite like
that... I have a gift for gab... just like a monkey can be trained to tap
out a code of communication, I can parrot what I hear. It [or 50wpm CW]
isn't intelligence in any way, it's just a stupid circus trick. Once
again..... this wasn't or isn't the issue anyway... No one said there were
no pros to the mode, just that the whole "save a life" thing is laughable.
This argument jumps from an issue of speed, then to the generation gap, then
to simple name-calling banter. It's quite humorous and totally stupid. Kudos
to the OP troll! LOL
rb



"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:54:37 GMT, "Woody" wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
. 159...
For CW to be effective, both operators
must be competent. IF they are, they can often transcend barriers of
language that only digital modes can get over. In my own case, the fact
that I could read CW and read written Spanish a bit once enabled me to
render aid to a burning fishing boat. (There were other more routine
examples of where the language barrier was crossed by CW--many messages
I
copied were not in English at all, but were readable by their end
recipients).

OK.... so by your own words, CW still didn't save a life... CW mixed with
bad Spanish passed a message. So now we'll have to add a Spanish test.
Thanks a lot.

I think you missed the point. Even if you didn't know "ola" from
"adios", you can copy Spanish in CW and hand it to the recipient, who
can read it. Try that with a mic.

As for the language thing.... I can copy voice language and hand it off to
another native just as easy and they'll figure it out too.
No CW necessary.

Really? You can write a spoken language you don't understand well
enough to be read by someone who understands it? Maybe. Maybe not.
In CW, you can.

Thank you.
rb

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Al Klein wrote:
Really? You can write a spoken language you don't understand well
enough to be read by someone who understands it? Maybe. Maybe not.
In CW, you can.

Spanish words are easy to write even if one doesn't
understand them. In general, unlike English, there
is usually only one possible way to pronounce and to
spell a Spanish word. You hear "a-di-os". You write
a-d-i-o-s. You don't need to know what it means.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

And for the millionth time, all you control/speed freaks just don't get
it...... If I could take down a message in CW at 200wpm in High German,
guess what? It'll take me hours to locate a German to translate it. SO.....
shot down yet again, a big burning ball of fire falling from the sky beepin'
SOS till ya hit the water right next to a burning boat...

Let's get back on point please. The question was if you had to use CW to
save a life, would that person die?
The answer is simple. If the person in question knows CW, then no, and if
the person in question doesn't know CW, then yes.
How hard is that? Why can't everyone keep to the issue?
rb




"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:32:01 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Really? You can write a spoken language you don't understand well
enough to be read by someone who understands it? Maybe. Maybe not.
In CW, you can.

Spanish words are easy to write even if one doesn't
understand them.

Ever try taking dictation at 100wpm spoken speed in a foreign
language? I have. Even in one I understand, it's difficult. In one
I don't understand it's impossible. Maybe you're better than I am.

In general, unlike English, there
is usually only one possible way to pronounce and to
spell a Spanish word. You hear "a-di-os". You write
a-d-i-o-s. You don't need to know what it means.

When it's spoken very quickly and in a panic, it's more like
"adhyose". Understandable, if weird looking, to a Spaniard. Try some
other languages, though - those you've never heard spoken before. See
how well you do. Then see how well you do in CW ... oh, you already
know that, don't you? -.-. is the same, whether it's hard, soft or
unpronounced. Whether you put a cedilla on it or not, a Spaniard will
understand it. So will a Turk, even though it sounds more like - -.-.
But would you write "Con" for something that sounds like Tchonn?

Murderer!
rb

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
Al Klein wrote:
Ever try taking dictation at 100wpm spoken speed in a foreign
language? I have. Even in one I understand, it's difficult. In one
I don't understand it's impossible. Maybe you're better than I am.

I can certainly write down Spanish spoken at my CW
speed of 13 wpm which is the whole point. If one speaks
faster, I may not be able to copy it. If one sends CW
to me faster than 13 wpm, for sure I cannot copy it even
in English.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Hi-quality Maui Wowie bud, bra.... you know, da kine Mary-Jane....
rb

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:52:28 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Ever try taking dictation at 100wpm spoken speed in a foreign
language? I have. Even in one I understand, it's difficult. In one
I don't understand it's impossible. Maybe you're better than I am.

I can certainly write down Spanish spoken at my CW
speed of 13 wpm

Really? You listen to people speaking at 13 wpm? What are they on?
It sounds like good stuff.

Ok.... you just ruined your whole argument.... you're now comparing
commercial and professional ops to amateur ops.
What is your point? The issue here is hobby radio operated by hobbyists.

The dark question has yet to be asked anyway... "Should amateur radio ops be
held to professional standards?"
Or maybe it's something about saving a life with CW... it's kinda muddy at
this point....

rb

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:06:47 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I can certainly write down Spanish spoken at my CW
speed of 13 wpm

Really? You listen to people speaking at 13 wpm? What are they on?
It sounds like good stuff.

Your objection was that I cannot write Spanish at 100 wpm.
I admit that but I know how to say "despacio" until they
slow down so I can write it down.

As I said in another post, try that in Turkish. Or Latvian. Or any
other language you don't know a single word of.

But in CW, it doesn't matter - you write the letters as they come,
whether you know what they mean or not. In the Navy, we had to read
what we had copied to know what it said - the CW came in your ear and
went out your fingers, you didn't pay attention to it. English? Who
knew, until you read it?

Excuse me? If you are going to operate on a worldwide basis, you should be
well versed on world languages so you don't have that problem. Ask any
hi-speed op and they should agree.
The funny part being most all foreign ops know English and most US natives
are small appliance bulbs in a world of Xenon driving lights.
rb

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:06:47 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I can certainly write down Spanish spoken at my CW
speed of 13 wpm

Really? You listen to people speaking at 13 wpm? What are they on?
It sounds like good stuff.

Your objection was that I cannot write Spanish at 100 wpm.
I admit that but I know how to say "despacio" until they
slow down so I can write it down.

As I said in another post, try that in Turkish. Or Latvian. Or any
other language you don't know a single word of.


But in CW, it doesn't matter - you write the letters as they come,
whether you know what they mean or not. In the Navy, we had to read
what we had copied to know what it said - the CW came in your ear and
went out your fingers, you didn't pay attention to it. English? Who
knew, until you read it?
if you get a message in turkish in most of the USA you still have a
useless message since where are yo going to find some that read the
lang

Git'em Cecil....

I'm still wondering why he thinks we'd be in the CW band in the first place.
I've killed millions with my lax attitude towards
listening in, and figure I'll be guilty of genocide before I'm done!
rb

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
Al Klein wrote:
As I said in another post, try that in Turkish. Or Latvian. Or any
other language you don't know a single word of.

Sorry, you first challenged me to do that in Spanish.
I have proved beyond any doubt that I can do that.
Your need to suddenly change languages on me speaks
volumes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

LOL.... I assume you think you've made a point at any time?

It's a simple yes or no question....
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Stay on point please.

Sheesh, why would we be in the CW band in the first place, and then why
taking down code or voice in a foreign language we don't understand?
That Mister, *must* be the epitome of ham....

You know, there are children starving in South America, Babies being
slaughtered at birth in India, and you
think some stupid ham op parked in a chair in poshville USA has a clue about
anything that really matters?
Oh! I know CW, I know CW! I passed a message once and saved the world! And
for the next 30 years I bumbled
around in my back yard drinking beer, eating donuts and doing nothing for
anyone except my own self.

Arrogant Americans lost in space.
That's thick.

rb

"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:12:14 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

About your lack of content, yes.