I am quite sure that they all got their tickets with CW
required. And the problem stations on 75 are quite the same. Which
also proves nothing either way.

it does prove that CW testing is at best poor proof of screening out
bad ops

There's no test for one important ham skill: typing. I didn't appreciate
how important it is until I learned that one of my pro-Morse buddies does
all of his sending with a computer. (He can send with a key but doesn't
know where his is.) He says he copies with the computer, too, although he
can follow along with the audio.

I asked around and found this practice is far from rare; I'm not sure
"common" is the right word, though.

We also might want to test for basic language skills, including punctuation.
While it's not always true, the disagreeable transmissions (and NG posts)
often make the speakers/writers sound pretty ignorant.

Sal M. Onella wrote:
I am quite sure that they all got their tickets with CW
required. And the problem stations on 75 are quite the same. Which
also proves nothing either way.

it does prove that CW testing is at best poor proof of screening out
bad ops

There's no test for one important ham skill: typing.
I asked around and found this practice is far from rare; I'm not sure
"common" is the right word, though.

We also might want to test for basic language skills, including punctuation.
why?

why do do we want to restrict the numer of hams in that manner

While it's not always true, the disagreeable transmissions (and NG posts)
often make the speakers/writers sound pretty ignorant.

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

We also might want to test for basic language skills, including
punctuation.
why?

why do do we want to restrict the numer of hams in that manner


That's a persuasive argument and you've definitely brought some clarity to
the issue. Thanks so much.

Sal M. Onella wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

We also might want to test for basic language skills, including
punctuation.
why?

why do do we want to restrict the numer of hams in that manner


That's a persuasive argument and you've definitely brought some clarity to
the issue. Thanks so much.
meaning of course you have no answer answer as well no name

On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:15:39 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:




I am quite sure that they all got their tickets with CW
required. And the problem stations on 75 are quite the same. Which
also proves nothing either way.

it does prove that CW testing is at best poor proof of screening out
bad ops

There's no test for one important ham skill: typing. I didn't appreciate
how important it is until I learned that one of my pro-Morse buddies does
all of his sending with a computer. (He can send with a key but doesn't
know where his is.) He says he copies with the computer, too, although he
can follow along with the audio.

I asked around and found this practice is far from rare; I'm not sure
"common" is the right word, though.

We also might want to test for basic language skills, including punctuation.
While it's not always true, the disagreeable transmissions (and NG posts)
often make the speakers/writers sound pretty ignorant.

In that case how about testing for personality traits as well as
anti-social and anti-authoritarian behavior? :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Which "Roger" are you?



"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:15:39 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:




I am quite sure that they all got their tickets with CW
required. And the problem stations on 75 are quite the same. Which
also proves nothing either way.

it does prove that CW testing is at best poor proof of screening out
bad ops

There's no test for one important ham skill: typing. I didn't appreciate
how important it is until I learned that one of my pro-Morse buddies does
all of his sending with a computer. (He can send with a key but doesn't
know where his is.) He says he copies with the computer, too, although he
can follow along with the audio.

I asked around and found this practice is far from rare; I'm not sure
"common" is the right word, though.

We also might want to test for basic language skills, including
punctuation.
While it's not always true, the disagreeable transmissions (and NG posts)
often make the speakers/writers sound pretty ignorant.

In that case how about testing for personality traits as well as
anti-social and anti-authoritarian behavior? :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

I love it!! You guys will never change. Glad you got to see me..73 and
all that. K5MDM Murray

On Sun, 21 May 2006 19:30:37 -0400, "Lloyd"
wrote:

Which "Roger" are you?

The K8RI Roger.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 May 2006 15:15:39 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
snip

I asked around and found this practice is far from rare; I'm not sure
"common" is the right word, though.

You really need to type if you run cw over about 60wpm
or so.. That was about my limit as far as sending fairly clean
with a paddle. I never liked to type, so 55-60 wpm pretty much was
the limit for me. Most all the high speed people used a keyboard
to send. But I'd say the majority listened with their ears instead
of using a reader. The brain is a better reader than most puter CW
programs. Most don't handle noise very well. Once I hit 55-60 wpm
on a paddle, I was stretching the limits. Past that, and it was pretty
dang ugly... Slopsville. The keyboards could kick back and type
about any CW speed with perfect sending. A decent typist can go
over 100 wpm+.
MK

On 21 May 2006 23:36:10 -0700, wrote:

I asked around and found this practice is far from rare; I'm not sure
"common" is the right word, though.

You really need to type if you run cw over about 60wpm

There aren't many who can type 60 wpm, but then again, maybe most of
them are on high speed CW. :-))

or so.. That was about my limit as far as sending fairly clean
with a paddle. I never liked to type, so 55-60 wpm pretty much was

I "touch type" and back when I was a grad student could type a bit
over 60. Now days I have to make too many corrections to maintain
that.

the limit for me. Most all the high speed people used a keyboard
to send. But I'd say the majority listened with their ears instead
of using a reader. The brain is a better reader than most puter CW

Once you reach the point of copying subconsciously it's just like
talking.

programs. Most don't handle noise very well. Once I hit 55-60 wpm
on a paddle, I was stretching the limits. Past that, and it was pretty

I made 40 but never higher than that. OTOH back then I was spending
one to two hours a day on CW.

dang ugly... Slopsville. The keyboards could kick back and type
about any CW speed with perfect sending. A decent typist can go
over 100 wpm+.

There are few people who can type that fast. However on CW you type
your response while listening to the other station so the transmission
speed can be well above your typing speed.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I've met
in school and industry who could even approach that 100 wpm.
The old electric portables used to jam the keys at much over 60 while
the "selectric" could go a fair amount faster. When in college my
daughter wore out one of those and she could out type it.

I shouldn't count the college classes when I was a GA teaching the
intro to CS, out of 195 students I only had about 10 that could type
and none that could keep up with me.

Unfortunately, age is catching up and I've had to slow down with the
keyer and I'm not nearly as fast with the keyboard as I was. I can
probably still type at 40 wpm after mistakes are taken out. 60 if I
don't go back and correct.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

MK