[Qcwa] Re: Whatever happened to "da da di di da da"??

Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:39:40 -0500

Tom....theres still a few of us left........the old generation of hand
generator operators is dwindling however.

73    Norm   K1AA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Repstad" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Qcwa] Re: Whatever happened to "da da di di da da"??

> And let's not forget "shave and a haircut - two bits"  (dit .. dit dit ...
> dit.. dit.. , dit dit)
>
> The originating operator would start it, and the receiving op would add
the
> "two bits" ... and when standing watch at 3 or 4am, there would be the
> occasional "dit" war... ;o)
>
> --Tom
> K1VG
> (Previously NMF, NMAG, WN2WTQ, KB1CGA)
>
> p.s. How may ex-military radiomen do we have out there?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Norm Gertz" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Qcwa] Re: Whatever happened to "da da di di da da"??
>
>
> > Harvey.....we are faced with the conflict between man and machine....the
> > code readers are not as flexible as the human radio operators.....sorry
to
> > say.
> >
> > 73    Norm    K1AA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Harvey&Bessie" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Qcwa] Re: Whatever happened to "da da di di da da"??
> >
> >
> > > Naw! --..-- was the exclamation point, which was changed to the comma
at
> > the same time the
> > > previous comma, .-.-.- was changed to the period, leaving us without
an
> > exclamation point.
> > > Now most cw ops just send "WOW" where they formerly sent !. The former
> > period .. .. ..
> > > would be copied as iii on code readers and automatic electronic
copying
> > machines
> > > (forerunners of the modern computer). They also changed the "close
> > parenthesis" character
> > > to accommodate copying machines: we formerly used -.--.- for both
"open
> > parenthesis" and
> > > "close parenthesis," now ( is -.--.- and ) is -.--. This change seems
to
> > have escaped
> > > attention of most hams. Personally, I can't see the need for the @ as
a
> cw
> > character, I
> > > have been sending it as "at" and everybody seems to know what I mean.
> But,
> > of course,
> > > code-reading computers would just write the word "at."
> > > 73,
> > > Harvey/W4TG
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > QCWA mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > QCWA mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>