Fw: [CW] AR

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

For some reason only known to QTH.net Marshall Emm can't post, but does
receive CW messages via the reflector.

Here is his QTC:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marshall Emm" <mgemm@mtechnologies.com>
To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@arrl.net>; <CW@MAILMAN.QTH.NET>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] AR


> Hi, David--
>
> Not sure if this will get through to the list-- if not could you pass it
along
> please?
>
> >>We didn't use AR like the hams use, because we were telling the called
> station to "go ahead" - I have always found this "ham use" to be strange.
> <<
>
> I got my training in Australia where you had to take a sending test.  They
gave
> you text to send and you HAD to send the "commencing signal" CT and finish
with
> the "ending signal" AR.  We were also trained to use it as the last thing
sent
> before K or KN.  We were told that it could be used in message traffic,
but as
> an ending signal it went AFTER the call signs, and believe it or not there
was
> a reason--  it made it clear that the K was not part of the callsign.  To
this
> day,  serious CW contesters and DXers try not get stuck with a callsign
ending
> in K  For that reason.
>
> Anyhow, in the sending test you were allowed 7 uncorrected mistakes, and
> prosigns, numbers, and puncuation counted as 2.  If you sent what was on
the
> paper without CT and AR you were already down 4 points.  We used to joke
about
> the term "uncorrected mistake."  According to the book, if you make a
mistake,
> you send the error signal (8 dits) then go back to the beginning of the
last
> correctly sent word.  That was a proper "correction" and they gave you
extra
> time, which was handy if either the word you screwed up or the preceding
one
> happened to be 10 or 12 letters long [g]..  But nobody every said what
happened
> if you made another error while correcting the first one.
>
> It was really pretty rigorous, and guys did fail it from time to time.  I
wish
> the FCC had never dropped it here, because as WE all know there is a lot
more
> to sending than being able to "copy."  The idea that anyone who passed the
> receiving test would pass the sending test was a statistical
misconception.
> What the receiving test proved was that you could LEARN to send code, but
> without the sending test there is no incentive to do so.  You're almost
> entirely on your own.  The sending test was the ONE opportunity to have
someone
> authoritatively and accurately critique your sending.  Anybody who
remembers
> those days will I'm sure agree that there were fewer truly "bad fists" on
the
> air!
>
>
>
> 73
> Marshall Emm
> N1FN/VK5FN
> n1fn@MorseX.com
> Morse Express and Oak Hills Research
> "Everything for the Morse Enthusiast"
> http://www.MorseX.com
> http://www.ohr.com
> (303)752-3382
> --
>
>