[Elecraft] CW Program

[paule@sfu.ca]

Leaving the issue of your tone asside, those who rely on cw readers
have to be careful they don't become like too many these days that
cannot do simple math without a calculator...

cheers, Paul

On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 19:39:32 -0500 (EST) k4wtf@ENTERZONE.NET wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 paule@sfu.ca wrote:
> 
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > At the risk of speaking for Vic, I am sure, any competent cw person
> > would suggest you put the pen/pencil away, and learn to copy in your
> > head, just like one of the best cw ops I know, who happens to be
blind...
> >
> > cheers, Paul - VA7NT
> 
> Paul, Vic, et all:
> 
> I sumbit that operating CW, SANS computer, may qualify some person as more

> qualified to operate "CW only", at speed, than someone who uses a
> computer.
> 
> At the same time, I submit that CW is a PURE DIGITAL MODE!  It's either
> signal or no-signal.	One or Zero.  What more appropriate mode do we have
> to bridge the gap between the "Computers are of the devil" generation and
> the "How did you survive without computers" generation?
> 
> Perhaps some poople don't understand how a computer assisted CW operator
> could enjoy the QSO because they are "cheating" by using a computer and
> not using their "brain" to decode.  I submit that many folks who can copy
> 40+ WPM in their head would have a nervous breakdown trying to design and
> assemble a modern computer.  (I'm not talking about connecting a computer
> that you ordered ready-made computer over the phone/net, or better yet,
> had your computer (but not CW) literate sun/daughter/friend/contractor
> connect, but rather designing, building, loading the operating system
> and appropriate programs and THEN connecting that "built by you" computer
> to your "built by you" K1/K2 to enjoy operating CW.
> 
> Just a side note:  Since so many people seem to detest, to the point of
> (supposedly) using "countermeasures" AGAINST, computer *assisted* CW
> OPERATORS, how mant of you have considered the fact that *any* "keyer"
> that uses an IC in its design is a computer?	I'm guessing that since it
> AIDS your ability to copy the code sent by the operator sending using the
> device, you don't have any problems with it.	I personally am very happy
> to encounter someone using a keyer on the air.	While not perfect,
their
> code is at least CONSISTANT!	If a straight key or bug is so much
> superior, why is it that you don't see them used NEAR as often as a keyer
> or computer?
> 
> I'm wondering, if there is such a distinction between computer
> assisted CW and "manual" CW, why hasn't the ARRL differentiated between
> the two when it comes to awards?
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> 
> And for those of you who think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable
> for having the nerve to challenge the "old guard" on this topic, know
> this: I don't pull punches for ANYONE.	It's notihng against any one

> person or group.  If I feel someone is wrong, I will point it out.  I make

> no concession for the young, old, blind, deaf or lame.	Wrong is
wrong.
> 
> 73 de John - K4WTF


cheers, Paul - VA7NT ex VE7CQK - email: paule@sfu.ca
"Those who hear not the music. . . think the dancers mad."