[CW] ?"Morse Therapy"

[David Ring]

K4KYV brings up an excellent point perhaps accidentally.  How many
people these days have poor comprehension of spoken conversation?
They do what the current acceptable thinking in Morse code reception
is:  They fill in the blanks with what they believe to be the meaning.

While art may be a pleasurable experience where the receiver may
determine the meaning, communications on the other hand is the
accurate transmission of meaning from the sender to the receiver.
Otherwise it is art.

Certainly the art and communications can dance between the meanings.
Suggestive belly dancing can be interpreted as communication, but
unless you are object of the woman's desire, you quickly find out that
it was only "art".

In Morse as well as other communication, we first must accurately
perceive the content, then we must interpret it so that we can
understand it.  Without accurate listening we are doomed to never
understand - except by happy guesses - the intent of the sender of the
communications.

In message traffic - this can be according to the seriousness of the
traffic - very very important.  The professional communicator has
rightly prided himself on relaying communications without changing it.
 Guessing might change it and will change it as guessing continues.

73

DR

David Ring, N1EA
=30=

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:44 AM, D. Chester <k4kyv at charter.net> wrote:
> If you are handling message traffic or working as a professional telegrapher
> (how many of those are still employed to-day?), I can see the point of
> perfect copy on paper, but nowadays most of us just use CW for  ham radio
> communication.  When we work phone, we don't attempt to write down what the
> other person says, or record every QSO verbatim.  So for a normal ragchew
> type of QSO why would we bother to write down every letter?