[Fists] Re: QRS

[YoDoc at aol.com]

Tom:

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!  You are absolutely, categorically, WRONG!!!  

The FISTS Organization exists with it's PRIMARY function to engender the USE of CW on the bands.  This means making things COMFORTABLE for the NEWER, INEXPERIENCED operators.  The high-speed OM's and YL's are the natural losers in any discussion of who has priority in any given FISTS QSO -- the slower, less-capable "newbie" (even if they aren't so "new" any more) or the life-long CW operator who can click along at 35+ WPM without ever missing a letter!  

If you want the enjoyment and satisfaction of a high-speed CW QSO then, by all means, go for it.  However, when you are identifying yourself as a FISTS member on-the-air, and you encounter a station that wants you to toss out the anchor and slow down to his/her speed, then he/she takes priority, not you!  

I suggest that there be the possibility of "sanctioning" FISTS members who fail to QRS or who display other disagreeable operating traits simply because if FISTS is going to have any meaning beyond being an organization that makes up it's own awards programs for it's insular group of members, we need to ensure that newer, less experienced operators ALWAYS have an opportunity to successfully complete a QSO, regardless of the maximum speed capability of whomever they're working at the time.  Unless this condition is well known and always in place on the bands wherever FISTS operators happen to be, then FISTS has no purpose.  The new CW operator could care less about awards -- he or she simply wants to complete a QSO without having to feel as though 90-percent of it flew right over their head!  

FISTS started out right, as a CW-advocating society.  However, the "awards" element of the FISTS organization gained a life of it's own and became the overarching activity among FISTS members.  Now, if you ask someone to QRS while they're feverishly working some FISTS sprint or other operating event to rack up more numbers for their Plutonium Award, they seemingly double their speed just to get rid of you!  Some of the WORST CW QSO's I've had in the last 5 years have been with fellow FISTS members!  And it's not just high-speed, it's also stuff like lettersbeingallruntogethersoeverythingisonelongword,
failure to repeat critical information like name, QTH, etc., and a general impatience with operators who are obviously working a lot harder than they are just trying to complete a QSO.  

As a FISTS member, whenever I'm working a slower op, he or she is in total command of the QSO.  If they are sending 8 WPM, then so am I.  If they are repeating everything three times, so do I.  If they are keeping it short and sweet, and not going into painstaking detail of their life's work and leisure activities, then I follow suit.  I am into CW for the fun and challenge, not for frustration.  I figure that most other operators who are sending slow, well-spaced, and obviously not rushed code are looking for the same.  This is a hobby, it's supposed to be enjoyable.  It is also a means of developing a useful communications skill which can be exploited under emergency conditions.  We will not achieve these goals if all we encounter is increasing frustration.  When that happens, we risk the disinterest of the newer CW ops, who then plug in their microphones or go back to PSK-31.  

FISTS members need to reconsider the reason why their organization was founded in the first place.  We've already decided that we're not going to support the future of CW through "political action" to support code testing in the amateur radio licensing structure.  As a result, we're now getting the dumbed-down licensing requirements we apparently wanted.  Along with them, we're getting more people on-the-air who are almost totally uninvolved with the technical aspects of the hobby, and have had no operational incentive to achieve reasonable code speed.  We must therefore be more accommodating to them than ever before, if we are to encourage them to "KN0WCW" and use it.  

I think it's time for FISTS to hold the line on the "Element of the month" award and get back to some of the basic reasons for it's existence.  The signal "QRS" needs to be a sacrament in the "religion" of FISTS.  

73 de Larry, K3LT
FISTS 2008

>Message: 4
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:43:20 -0500
>From: "Tom - ARCI Contest Mgr" <wb5khc at 2hams.net>
>Subject: [Fists] PLS QRS or UR ARROGANT
>To: <fists at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <20040716154504.E3786859C03 at mailman.qth.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"
>
>I just read with dismay this letter from a fellow FISTS member that clashes
>with my beliefs!
>
>Every one of us is different! Some cw ops are comfortable at 35+ wpm and
>some cw ops will never attain 15 wpm (an immutable simple fact of life). If
>someone calls CQ at 30wpm please don't be offended if they choose not to
>respond to ur return at 8wpm asking for QRS. They are seeking another ham to
>have an enjoyable chat with AT 30 WPM, the speed they are sending. 
>
>Some people don't have the patience nor the desire to copy code at a slower
>speed (another immutable fact of life). It is NOT arrogance; it is an
>audible indication of years of practice, skill and knowledge.
>
>If the higher speed op does QRS perhaps a pleasant and enjoyable qso will
>result. But, in some instances where this happens, a qso results with the
>slower speed op getting new numbers and the higher speed op getting
>heartburn and leaving the qso unhappy. Ham radio is supposed to be fun. You
>should walk away from EVERY qso going, "Wow, that was nice! I enjoyed that."
>Why do some want to impose their speed limitation on the ops among us who
>KN0WCW proficiently?
>
>There is no justification in forcing a qso to occur. It is arrogance on the
>part of the slow op to think EVERYONE wants to talk to me at 8 wpm!
>
>An analogy would be to force a classical music lover to listen to 30 minutes
>of Guns and Roses or Big Dada! Won't ever happen - another immutable fact of
>life.  (Heartburn and headache GUARANTEED!)
>
>We are each a unique individual and not every pairing of two cw ops will
>result in an enjoyable qso. The simple solution is to turn the VFO and find
>someone else calling CQ at ur speed or call CQ at 8 wpm yourself (exactly
>what the high speed op was doing). The solution is NOT to force a QRS! 
>
>Even the op that caused me to respond to his message states, "People have
>different talents and desires.  Also, you have to operate where you are
>comfortable.  So, what is the matter with slowing down for someone?". The
>second sentence is the critical idea that he missed. YOU HAVE TO OPERATE
>WHERE YOU ARE COMFORTABLE. Not everyone is comfortable at 8 wpm!
>
>May your next qso be pleasant, at a comfortable speed and the numbers be
>NEW!
>
>Tom, WB5KHC
>Texan with 31+ years CW ONLY 
>
>Fists #7865, 
>Century #1026, 
>Platinum #194, 
>Platinum-250 #81, 
>Silver #192, 
>Gold #200,
>WAS-FISTS #123, 
>1X QRP #69,  
>2X QRP #7
>D I A M O N D #118
>FISTS USA Club Station Operator Award
>FIST USA Club Station Achievement Award
>Creator of the submission forms for all FISTS Awards
>
>QCWA #30641, QRP ARCI 10645, Flying Pig QRP 253, 10-10 #11080
>QRP ARCI Contest Manager 
>
>If it isn't CW; it's CB
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I just read with dismay the two articles in Keynote about FISTS members that
>did not want to QRS.  To the writers of the two letters, I apologize on
>behalf of all hams that will and/or know how to QRS.  Don't let a few
>arrogant types drive you away.  One of the best CW ops I know - solid at 65+
>will slow down for you.  But, there are a few that won't.  Fortunately, they
>do not represent all of us.
>
>Slow does not equate to bad in the same way that fast does not equate to
>good.  CW is just a form of speech.  Since when does fast speaking yield
>anything but poor relations?  If a person is solid at 65 WPM - super.  If a
>person is comfortable at 8 WPM, so be it.  People have different talents and
>desires.  Also, you have to operate where you are comfortable.  So, what is
>the matter with slowing down for someone?
>
>A FISTS member ought to not only know better than for be an arrogant CW op,
>a FISTS member should strive to set an example of what a good op is like.
>Perhaps a change in bylaws is in order.  How about if a set number of bad
>reports come in, dropping a member from FISTS?
>
>Think about this:  IF A NOMINATION FOR FISTS WERE REQUIRED, WOULD ANYONE
>NOMINATE YOU?
>
>A person shouldn't even have to ask for someone to slow down!  A good
>operator should do that automatically.  Arrogance (by refusing to slow down)
>is not the sign of a good operator.
>
>At least that is the view from Southeast Nebraska & 40+ years on CW
>
>
>73,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:45:38 +0100
>From: Dan Harriman <kc5gxl at sbcglobal.net>
>Subject: Re: [Fists] QRS
>To: fists at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID:
>    <6.0.1.1.1.20040716153452.02acf9a0 at pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Howdy all from Texas;
>
>Glad to see some activity here on this list.  I agree that a good CW 
>operator should slow down to the speed of the other op when asked to do so, 
>at least to say 73 and CUL, or some such.  However, I don't think that a CW 
>operator should slow down just because the other op gave a call.
>
>Let me elaborate a bit.
>
>I hear a QSO at 25 - 30 WPM.  When the QSO is over, I give one of the guys 
>a call at 10 WPM.  He comes back to me at the speed in which he just had 
>his QSO, because I apparently have copied good enough to get his call.  Why 
>should that op think that I can't copy at the speed he was sending if I 
>just gave him a call, no matter how fast my speed was?  Maybe he thinks 
>that I am trying to improve my speed and want a QSO from him at his speed. 
>If I can't copy him, then I should ask him to QRS, or maybe just listen and 
>try to copy his QSO to better my code speed.  Some folks just can't sent at 
>8 or 10 WPM. It throws them off rhythm and they start making mistakes. It 
>is not fun for them anymore.
>
>I am not a very fast CW operator, sending at about 10 - 15 WPM. I sometimes 
>will call someone who is sending a bit faster than me, but I understand 
>that he may not want to or maybe he can't slow down. If he can't, then we 
>say 73 and CUL.  No big deal.  That is true with CW operators who may or 
>may not be FISTS members.  To me, it is arragant for me, as a slow speed 
>operator to think that someone who is sending at 25 or more WPM should slow 
>down for me.  I would think that the other operator would think that I can 
>receive better than I send, so he should just keep sending at his original 
>speed, unless I ask him to QRS. He then has a choice to do so or end the QSO.
>
>On the other hand, if I am calling CQ at 8 - 10 WPM and someone comes back 
>to me, then that person should come back to me at the speed that I am 
>sending.  It is then arragance on the part of the other operator to think 
>that I will speed up to his speed when I have sent my CQ at a slower speed.
>
>Accuracy transcends speed.
>
>That is a great statement, but in my humble opinion, I believe that what it 
>means is this:  Don't send very far out of your comfort range. Send only as 
>fast as you can before making too many mistakes. If I find myself making 
>mistake after mistake, I will slow down.  My code speed will get better 
>with practice.  The more I send and receive, the better my ear and fist 
>get. Sooner or later, my speed will be up and I will have another comfort 
>zone to send and receive in.
>
>I don't think that the statement means that every operator should slow down 
>to my speed.  Most high speed ops won't even answer a slow CQ or call, 
>unless they are willing to slow down, if asked.  There is room in this 
>hobby for the speed demons and also for the slow pokes.  I will slow down 
>for anyone who asks me to. (Of course, I don't send very fast anyway), but 
>I don't hold it against someone who doesn't slow down. I just go to another 
>freq and call CQ or find someone who is sending CQ at a speed that I can 
>handle.
>
>72, 73, 88 around
>Dan Harriman  ARS  KC5GXL  FISTS # 1572
>Orange, Texas
>
>Someone wrote thusly:
>
> >
> >A person shouldn't even have to ask for someone to slow down!  A good
> >operator should do that automatically.  Arrogance (by refusing to slow down)
> >is not the sign of a good operator.
>
>Then someone else wrote:
>
> >Every one of us is different! Some cw ops are comfortable at 35+ wpm and
> >some cw ops will never attain 15 wpm (an immutable simple fact of life). If
> >someone calls CQ at 30wpm please don't be offended if they choose not to
> >respond to ur return at 8wpm asking for QRS. They are seeking another ham to
> >have an enjoyable chat with AT 30 WPM, the speed they are sending.
>
>======================================================================
>Proud member of QRP-ARCI # 9126; QRP-L # 431; ARS # 25; FISTS # 1572;
>QRPp-l # 702; 1010 Int.; FP # 555; SOC # 569; NETXQRP # 45; ARRL; ARRL-VE;
>AMQRP; RU-QRP # 43; MQFD # 5; grid  EM30cc
>-
>If at first you don't succeed, maybe you shouldn't try 
>sky-diving!         dit    dit
>======================================================================
>-------------- next part --------------
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 07/14/2004
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:01:57 -0400
>From: "Dan KB6NU" <kb6nu at w8pgw.org>
>Subject: Re: [Fists] QRS
>To: "Fists" <fists at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <046801c46b5e$fc562b60$6401a8c0 at D9J77B01>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Let's not go overboard. It's lamentable that there are bad operators on the
>air, but FISTS should in no way become the "CW cops." Putting these kinds of
>measures into place would be the downfall of FISTS, and not make the bad
>operator any better.
>
>If another operator won't slow down for you, simply sign off with him or her
>and go find someone else to chat with. If someone is hogging 14.058, call CQ
>FISTS on 14.056 instead.
>
>FISTS should continue to stand for good operating practice and lead by
>example. Being punitive is a waste of time and energy.
>
>73!
>
>Dan KB6NU
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org)
>ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator
>CW Geek (FISTS #9342)
>Read my ham radio blog at www.blurty.com/~kb6nu
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <YoDoc at aol.com>
>To: <fists at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 11:27 AM
>Subject: [Fists] QRS
>
>
>> Having just read the message quoted below, I recall many encounters
>on-the-air with CW operators, all FISTS members, who failed to QRS or QRS to
>my speed -- usually slowing down to twice the speed at which I was sending.
>Such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable for members of an organization
>which has, as it's motto -- "Accuracy transcends speed."  I cannot copy
>accurately when half the characters received fly by me at a rate way beyond
>my comprehension.
>>
>> I've been an avid CW operator throughout my ham "career," but am now
>primarily a digital mode operator.  I still enjoy CW QSO's, but due to the
>"diversity" of my amateur radio pursuits, I have not developed copying speed
>beyond 25 WPM, max.  I have had a lot of QSO's with OM's who started out
>clicking away at 50 WPM, but very gladly slowed to my speed, whatever it was
>at the time.  Lately, nobody seems to want to do that anymore.  I've had one
>OM try to explain it away be saying he is "pushing me to try to copy
>faster."  Thanks, OM, but I'll push myself be SENDING faster so the other OM
>I'm working can match MY speed, as should be the case.  The priority should
>always be given to the slowest operator, at least within the FISTS
>organization.
>>
>> I like the idea of setting up a system for booting people out of FISTS
>upon receipt of "x" number of complaints.  Of course, this would require at
>least two or more complaints on the same operator.  I'd also like to
>sanction other FISTS transgressions like "hogging" the .058 frequencies
>(especially 14.058) and run-together sending at ANY speed.
>>
>> I also like the idea of requiring future FISTS members to be "nominated"
>for membership.  This would require working on-the-air and receiving
>nominations from at least 3 FISTS members.  Let's see some more discussion
>of this concept.
>>
>> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>> FISTS 2008
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >A FISTS member ought to not only know better than for be an arrogant CW
>op,
>> >a FISTS member should strive to set an example of what a good op is like.
>> >Perhaps a change in bylaws is in order. How about if a set number of bad
>> >reports come in, dropping a member from FISTS?
>> >
>> >Think about this: IF A NOMINATION FOR FISTS WERE REQUIRED, WOULD ANYONE
>> >NOMINATE YOU?
>> >
>> >A person shouldn't even have to ask for someone to slow down! A good
>> >operator should do that automatically. Arrogance (by refusing to slow
>down)
>> >is not the sign of a good operator.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fists mailing list
>> Fists at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:42:16 -0400
>From: "Karl, KB1DSB" <kb1dsb at sover.net>
>Subject: [Fists] QRS
>To: "FISTS Reflector" <fists at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <JKEJJHJBMODNLOAGOLBJOEEFCIAA.kb1dsb at sover.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>A wise person told me to never respond with a knee jerk reaction to what
>people say, write or do.
>
>Someone also told me that to effectively communicate, all parties needed to
>be able to understand what the other was saying.
>
>I am a proud member of "The International Morse Preservation Society".
>
>I suffer from various and spurious degrees of tone perception deficit,
>better known as tone deafness.  I compensate by using various tricks and
>gadgets to copy CW and spoken words. Some days I can copy CW at 20-25 wpm
>and others I am lucky if I can copy 10 wpm.
>
>I use a "bug".  Its fun, and it looks cool on my desk.  But, I have it wired
>to work with an electronic keyer  Why???  So, I can send as nearly perfect
>CW, as I can, over a range of speeds.  I normally leave it adjusted to about
>20 wpm, but vary my character spacing according to the op I am chatting
>with.  That way they will get nice complete letter/character sounds.  This
>works great with new CW ops because they hear the sound of the
>letter/character.
>
>I have never forgotten my first few CW QSO's way back 5+ years ago.  I
>remember the patience of the ops on the other end to send at a speed
>comfortable for me to copy and my halting sending.
>
>I love chatting with CW friends new and old at a speed that is comfortable
>for us both.
>
>That being said----
>
>I propose that the FISTS website creates a link for listing QRQ ops and that
>Nancy periodically publishes a list of QRQ ops in the KeyNote.  The list can
>give the speed at or above which they will only QSO with someone.  This
>would be fair to everyone.  The QRQ operators would know other ops they can
>chat with without causing ill will. Other ops would have a list of calls
>they need not even bother to attempt to contact. Others may also aspire to
>one day have their call listed on the QRQ list.
>
>A fair and decent way to avoid bad feelings and prevent the old gastric
>reflux from acting up.
>
>
>Oh yes, the knee jerk reaction thing.  I would have already mailed
>everything in my possession associated with FISTS to Nancy with a letter of
>resignation from the club. Not going to happen.
>
>You QRS ops, call me if you hear me.  I would love to meet you and chat with
>you.  QRQ ops, sorry will not be able copy you.  No hard feelings from this
>end.  And, hope none on yours.
>
>"CW is the fun mode."
>
>VRY 73 DE Karl, KB1DSB
>BOMOSEEN, VT
>A Proud Member of:
>"The International Morse Preservation Society"
>FISTS # 6938
>kb1dsb at sover.net <mailto:kb1dsb at sover.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Fists mailing list
>Fists at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fists
>
>
>End of Fists Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6
>***********************************
>