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 in mine

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

--

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?



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?

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.

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

From: John Smith on Aug 4, 2:20 pm


N2EY:

My gawd man, must you apply antique analogies to everything which is
attempting to break archaic methods to attempt to obfuscate anything you
don't like and/or agree with?

John, he MUST. It's an obsessive compulsion. :-)

That's Jimmie for sure, the Nun of the Above. Predictable.


Technology has passed you by man, the reins
have passed, what you are holding in your hands are the ashes of
yesteryear... don't embarrass yourself and others about you... speak on
things you understand, or not at all...

Oh, oh, Jimmie will now remark on his TWO degrees in EE and his
years-as-a-ham (like he spent 8 hours a day, 7 days a week in
pounding his brass on the ham bands). :-)

The Order of Luddism is upon Jimmie and EVERYTHING must be done
manually in communications! Just like in the 20s and 30s during
the pioneering days of radio. Jimmie bravely carries his cross
for them (provided Kellie doesn't shoot the bear).

He segues to music (morse is "music" to his ears...and years).
He probably hasn't heard a good musician at work on a synthesizer
keyboard producing the enjoyable sound of an entire band...in any
style of music you like. Down here there's dozens and dozens of
them...busy working.

You say that RTTY is "dead" but it hasn't "died" yet since it
carries on with the TORs (Teleprinter Over Radio) such as AMTOR.
The FCC, nor any of its three predecessors, NEVER had a manual
teleprinter test for radio amateur license applicants. They've
"always" had one for manual telegraphy. That's the REAL
subject of WT Docket 05-235.

Just leave Jimmie alone with his abacus/soroban and he can do
all his Eigenvalues by hand plus a table of elliptic integrals.
Very basic calculator. However, beyond the four functions it
gets cranky...forget simple square-roots, for example. A Taylor
Series for a correct Sine or Cosine is going to take a lonnnnng
while to finish on his buttons-on-wires soroban/abacus. :-)

insert small bg tape of "she ain't got no yo-yo" song...

sin cos

Dee:

Some would argue Latin is not dead, churches and doctors still use it...

It is dead, both cw and morse, some may live to see the proof, some
may not have long enough. This is the digital age.

Here in this newsgroup you can find many who try to form religious
doctrine over out dated specs, faqs and past limitations of the net. This
type of behavior is seen in many groups of individuals, the "control
freaks" are here on the web too.

There is a real cult which has formed around CW, they have their
church, high priests, hierarchy and devoted following, you might refer to
them as "CW Groupies" if CW was the name of a rock band.

The data transmission protocols which could be used on amateur radio as we
speak here are mind numbing. However, phone and cw do server hobby uses
here. But, data transmission of binaries, graphics, movies, etc. are not
suited to either. Two bursts of encrypted/compressed packets happening a
a blink of an eye can fill your screen with enough text to keep you
reading for two minutes. Or, an IM protocol could be employed in "text
chat" with one freq serving as a party line and only grabbing packets they
are interested in... possibilities are endless...

No, no one would pause at a simple cw reader, you would allow two machines
to chat together, no human needs to tap a key, it is far below what the
human mind was meant to do, it is akin to pounding on a skin covered drum,
however, if MadMax ever happens, I will grant you it may have a use,
"God" forbid that ever occurs... but then, if it does, there will be tons
of CB radios out there which will be pressed into use... they will be
able to be found in almost any diesel truck on the highway, and base
stations in the smallest of towns, alternators removed from cars and
driven by small gas engines off lawn mowers, etc.

I don't think there is going to be that many hams with a key in their hand
saving the human race... and you will not likely know the heroes until
the event happens... the greatest plans of mice and men...and all that...

But, hey, the dreams of men are what keeps them going, and there is always
only a problem when they attempt to force their dreams on
others--especially when the dreams become decades old... become brittle
and turn to dust in the face of harsh reality...

John


John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:47:53 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Len:

It is not even close...

The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when
efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send
let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as
CW...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote:


Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is
dead. One just has more choices than in the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

.... in the above "cw and morse" should be "cw and rtty" ...

Mainly I am explaining for the brain dead males here, they seem to go into
utter states of confusion if words are not spelled exactly correct, or
typo are encountered...

Just between you and me, I know the women seldom suffer such devastating
limitations and disabilities...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:58:23 -0700, John Smith wrote:

Dee:

Some would argue Latin is not dead, churches and doctors still use it...

It is dead, both cw and morse, some may live to see the proof, some
may not have long enough. This is the digital age.

Here in this newsgroup you can find many who try to form religious
doctrine over out dated specs, faqs and past limitations of the net. This
type of behavior is seen in many groups of individuals, the "control
freaks" are here on the web too.

There is a real cult which has formed around CW, they have their
church, high priests, hierarchy and devoted following, you might refer to
them as "CW Groupies" if CW was the name of a rock band.

The data transmission protocols which could be used on amateur radio as we
speak here are mind numbing. However, phone and cw do server hobby uses
here. But, data transmission of binaries, graphics, movies, etc. are not
suited to either. Two bursts of encrypted/compressed packets happening a
a blink of an eye can fill your screen with enough text to keep you
reading for two minutes. Or, an IM protocol could be employed in "text
chat" with one freq serving as a party line and only grabbing packets they
are interested in... possibilities are endless...

No, no one would pause at a simple cw reader, you would allow two machines
to chat together, no human needs to tap a key, it is far below what the
human mind was meant to do, it is akin to pounding on a skin covered drum,
however, if MadMax ever happens, I will grant you it may have a use,
"God" forbid that ever occurs... but then, if it does, there will be tons
of CB radios out there which will be pressed into use... they will be
able to be found in almost any diesel truck on the highway, and base
stations in the smallest of towns, alternators removed from cars and
driven by small gas engines off lawn mowers, etc.

I don't think there is going to be that many hams with a key in their hand
saving the human race... and you will not likely know the heroes until
the event happens... the greatest plans of mice and men...and all that...

But, hey, the dreams of men are what keeps them going, and there is always
only a problem when they attempt to force their dreams on
others--especially when the dreams become decades old... become brittle
and turn to dust in the face of harsh reality...

John


John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:47:53 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Len:

It is not even close...

The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when
efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send
let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as
CW...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote:


Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is
dead. One just has more choices than in the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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".

so to answer your title I doubt I could pass the test phoenetic test
you describe, unless it was realy slow, and certainly not with any test
anxeity

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".

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".

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,

That's been proved to be untrue. If manual Morse by another operator
makes it possible for you to work that operator with an automated
system, that makes the mode useful to you.

Doesn't mean it must be tested.

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

It's pretty clear you won't 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

Not you personally.

I also support written tests. There are folks I know who have
repeatedly flunked the written tests - something about "math
trouble" - "never been good with numbers and rote memorization"

Why should they have to learn all that stuff?

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

ADA is about rights. A ham radio license is a privilege.

Have you ever asked the VEs for any accomodations?

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.

Can't or won't?

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

For some the written tests are trivial, for others they are not.
Shall they be eliminated because some people can't seem to pass them?

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

If someone buys a rig and sets up an antenna, does that give them the
right to demand a license?

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

So? Doesn't change the fact that a tool that is with someone always is
the most useful.

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

I am supporting Morse Code testing. Also written testing. It's not
about you personally.

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"

"A tool that is with someone always is the most useful."? Has nothing
to do with what you are saying.

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

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

Doesn't fit.

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

Maybe not. Nobody knows exactly which questions are on the written
test.

Code testing is deferent nothing else in Ham radio has that
status so your staement is simply not true

The point is that you still have to learn stuff you'll probably never
use just to pass the written test.


--

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

We see that all the time here.


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

Often what you write here is very unclear or even incomprehensible.

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

Which one - the verbal one?

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

Why did you capitalize "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)

Would you accept the same argument about the written tests? Some people
just can't seem to pass those.


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

an old friend wrote:
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

One last comment.

Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers at the behest of a now-dead
King wanting a favor from then-president Bush. FCC waived the 13 and 20
wpm Morse Code tests if the applicant could show a doctor's letter.

Canada has recently made the Morse Code test part of the overall
scoring
rather than a stand alone test.

More than 5 years ago, I proposed here a "Chinese menu" form of license
testing that would allow much greater flexibility in testing.

But the near-unanimous reply from NCTAs has always been that the Morse
Code test must be completely eliminated - no compromises, no more
waivers, no score-blending, etc.

In fact, some NCTAs and their organizations, like NCVEC and NCI, went
a step further and pushed for lower *written* test standards such as
free
license upgrades and a "Communicator" license.

What's next?