What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

It seems to me they want to eliminate all testing.

That's what happens when no-codes and nickle hams start running
things. Or is that ruining things?

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
It seems to me they want to eliminate all testing.

That's what happens when no-codes and nickle hams start running
things. Or is that ruining things?


Naw, ARRL isn't trying to do that. I haven't seen anything in their
current goals that would lead me to believe that they are trying to
send the rest of our spectrum the way of 11 meters. I may be wrong, but
I don't think the FCC would do that again (if any of the current
commissioners are students of FCC history that is) even if the ARRL
suggested it.

The numbers of Hams out there and how it's been dropping though the
more recent years is an alarming trend. With the age of the average ham
creeping higher, this hobby is set to all but die out in the USA within
a generation unless something changes.

Surely you see the problem that the ARRL is trying to address. You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?

-= Bob =-

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

-= bob =-

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.
not that isn't fair BB there is No valid reasoning for the Code test
any more

the cllosest is boils down to "Tradition" and is fine as far as it goes
but they all fall down toin todays world

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.

not that isn't fair BB there is No valid reasoning for the Code test
any more

That's why I like to see them try to justify it.

the cllosest is boils down to "Tradition" and is fine as far as it goes
but they all fall down toin todays world

Good Grief! It's as if the US Navy really does control the ARS, just
like they wanted to do in the early days. With the Navy, its all about
tradition.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

the cllosest is boils down to "Tradition" and is fine as far as it goes
but they all fall down toin todays world

Good Grief! It's as if the US Navy really does control the ARS, just
like they wanted to do in the early days. With the Navy, its all about
tradition.
I was thinking of jews esp east european jews ala fiddler on the roof

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:

the cllosest is boils down to "Tradition" and is fine as far as it goes
but they all fall down toin todays world

Good Grief! It's as if the US Navy really does control the ARS, just
like they wanted to do in the early days. With the Navy, its all about
tradition.

I was thinking of jews esp east european jews ala fiddler on the roof

I don't know much about them. Do they oppress their own people?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that
we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.
If he and I wanted to have sex I'd invite him over, for that matter if
Brian Burke is in the nighboorhood he is invited to drop by for a blow job
two



http://www.marksspamblog.blogspot.com/



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

In article .net,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.


You see no value in being effective communicators,

The most effective communication is plain english!

73

Chris

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!




On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:41:18 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

wrote in
roups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.


Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like you
and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to be
real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators, therefore
you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW to save a
life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to use a
microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the being
entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice class again.
Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem to
sing the same tune.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:45:49 -0500, john wrote:
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!

Let Slow Code post, and "john" comes stumbling in while stepping on
his crank, with both cap guns blazing.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.

Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like you
and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to be
real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators, therefore
you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW to save a
life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to use a
microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the being
entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice class again.
Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem to
sing the same tune.

SC

Why do you say I'm a low-life?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
On 17 Oct 2006 17:39:19 -0700, wrote:


Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree
that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code with
any valid reasoning.

Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like you
and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to be
real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators, therefore
you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW to save a
life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to use a
microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the being
entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice class again.
Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem to
sing the same tune.

SC

Why do you say I'm a low-life?

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie

That's really sad.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
It seems to me they want to eliminate all testing.

That's what happens when no-codes and nickle hams start running
things. Or is that ruining things?


Naw, ARRL isn't trying to do that. I haven't seen anything in their
current goals that would lead me to believe that they are trying to
send the rest of our spectrum the way of 11 meters. I may be wrong, but
I don't think the FCC would do that again (if any of the current
commissioners are students of FCC history that is) even if the ARRL
suggested it.

The numbers of Hams out there and how it's been dropping though the
more recent years is an alarming trend. With the age of the average ham
creeping higher, this hobby is set to all but die out in the USA within
a generation unless something changes.

indeed

What an inciteful response (No...I didn't mispell that...Pun
intended...)

Surely you see the problem that the ARRL is trying to address.
honestly I don't think he does
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to agree that
we have a problem. Right?

notice you have gotten no reply

He didn't get a response because :

(a) His comments were concise, well written and in proper
English...Traits that make it difficult for YOU to understand or
"respond" to.

(b) Accurate and able to stand on their own merits.

Steve, K4YZ

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article .net,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to
agree that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code
with any valid reasoning.


You see no value in being effective communicators,

The most effective communication is plain english!

73

Chris


Yes you're right, unless you're trying to pass a message through someone
that doesn't know how to speak english.

CW is a wonderful thing. Real communicators know CW and know how to use
it.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.



On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:13:24 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

Papa Dog wrote in
:

In article .net,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to
agree that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code
with any valid reasoning.


You see no value in being effective communicators,

The most effective communication is plain english!

73

Chris


Yes you're right, unless you're trying to pass a message through someone
that doesn't know how to speak english.

CW is a wonderful thing. Real communicators know CW and know how to use
it.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.



On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:13:41 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

wrote in
ups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:
wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006 07:59:20 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
You may
not agree with their suggested solutions, but you'd have to
agree that we have a problem. Right?
notice you have gotten no reply


Having waited almost a week for a reasonable response...

The silence is telling. I believe you are right, he doesn't care..

indeed and it gets worse I am sure he believes the solution is worse
than the problem because it does not promote cw forever

Slow Code is only here to troll. He's a fan of CW, but not a big
enough fan to actually defent the continued testing of Morse Code
with any valid reasoning.

Here's a valid reason for continued CW testing: To keep lowlifes like
you and Markie out of ham radio and off HF. You're too lazy to try to
be real hams. You see no value in being effective communicators,
therefore you're both worthless to the service and if you had to use CW
to save a life that person would die. You're both probably too lazy to
use a microphone to help save anyone too.

I'd like to see the No-code Tech class go away with a 5 wpm Tech the
being entry level to the service, or bring back a code only Novice
class again. Require 13 wpm code test for general and 20 wpm an Extra
again.

People that don't like it should stay on CB. Ten-Four? This should
provide you and Markie a lot to stroke each other with. You both seem
to sing the same tune.

SC

Why do you say I'm a low-life?


Did I say low-life? I meant to say lazy.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a
lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

"Slow Code" could
be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him. Ditto
Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who "appears" to
be absent from RRAP.

Why don't you build up your CW skills and quit worrying about who everyone
is.

73
de Slow Code

OK, Len. I'll stop worrying.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

'Mark in the Dark' wrote in
:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:33:30 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

wrote in
groups.com:


wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a
lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

"Slow Code" could
be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.
Ditto Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who
"appears" to be absent from RRAP.


Why don't you build up your CW skills and quit worrying about who
everyone is.

whjy should he He has passed the test and hold a general class license


Mark in the Dark.

He can keep building his code skills to make himself a better operator.

Why does everyone only want to do the minimum and not improve. It's
because they're lazy. They don't care to be good communicators, all they
want is a hand-out license that doesn't require skill or knowledge. If
that's what they want they should have stayed on CB.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
'Mark in the Dark' wrote in
:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:33:30 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

wrote in
groups.com:


wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a
lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

"Slow Code" could
be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.
Ditto Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who
"appears" to be absent from RRAP.


Why don't you build up your CW skills and quit worrying about who
everyone is.

whjy should he He has passed the test and hold a general class license

Mark in the Dark.

He can keep building his code skills to make himself a better operator.

Again, the pro-coders only equate code speed with being a good
operator. Amateur radio has only a single dimension for them - CW on
HF. Their attitude is bankrupting amateur radio.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dr.Ace wrote:
"john" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!

I doubt that SC even has a call sign .
Ace - WH2T
you may be right But honestly I don't think so I beleive that SC is a
older hams who moved to some retirement village, did not read the fine
print, and so can't go on the air anymore and having put his saving in
it is just plain screwed andf unable to move and not driving much can't
go HF mobile even

and he come on here and takes it out on us

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 04:04:07 -0700, wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
'Mark in the Dark' wrote in
:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:33:30 GMT, Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
groups.com:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a
lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

"Slow Code" could
be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.
Ditto Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who
"appears" to be absent from RRAP.

Why don't you build up your CW skills and quit worrying about who
everyone is.

whjy should he He has passed the test and hold a general class license

Mark in the Dark.

He can keep building his code skills to make himself a better operator.

Again, the pro-coders only equate code speed with being a good
operator. Amateur radio has only a single dimension for them - CW on
HF. Their attitude is bankrupting amateur radio.

be fair they equate Code and some even promote code acuratcy

The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so
poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in
order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on
him.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with
cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat
Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW
that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes,
inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"john" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!

I doubt that SC even has a call sign .
Ace - WH2T

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Thats Right_ 20wpm" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


Probably because he doesn't have an amateur radio license .
Ace - WH2T

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:


"Thats Right_ 20wpm" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


Probably because he doesn't have an amateur radio license .
Ace - WH2T




Tnx, 73, good luck in the contest.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:

"john" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!

I doubt that SC even has a call sign .
Ace - WH2T


Tnx, 73, Good luck in the contest.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...


[snip]



The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so
poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in
order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on
him.


That was plain stupid. There's no need to try to send deliberately bad
code. Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with
cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat
Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW
that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes,
inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing.


The "Banana Boat Swing" and "unique fist" existed long, long before
computers came along. These were simply operators with poor sending skills.
And they are a pain in the ear and brain to copy. I usually move on rather
than respond to them.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.


I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.


You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it. As I said while it is the best that is available, it is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator. I've tried it under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.


I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.


You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it. As I said while it is the best that is available, it is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator. I've tried it under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in

The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so
poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in
order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on
him.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with
cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat
Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW
that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes,
inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing.

I miss W0EX.

SC

In a way, so do I.

I wished he wouldn't get so upset and accept that he wasn't going to
change my mind.

At least a difference of opinion with Dick didn't make someone a liar.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:

Improving your skills doesn't make you a better operator? Sheeesh.

Mike, skill. Singular. There is no skill test for any other mode.

You can still have your microphone, but you should have to pass a code
test before you're allowed to use it. I like 5 WPM for Tech, 13 for
General, and 20wpm for Extra, but then, I'm not lazy.

SC

You may not be lazy, but you're fully prepared to kill off amateur
radio with archaic requirements. I guess if you can't have the amateur
radio the way you want it, to hell with it all.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand
key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very
good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy
it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.


I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while
it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.


You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it. As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator. I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).



Unrelated to my comments.

No one has said all CW signals are good. If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages. The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE