dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Jeffrey Herm » Sun, 11 Sep 1994 15:58:27


>dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dit di-di-dah-dah-di-dit

...  .-.  ..    ---  --    .... ...-    --.- ...  ---    ....  .-.

.--.  .-..  ...    --.-  ...  --.-    .  ...    -  -.  -..-

Jeff NH6IL

 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Cecil Moor » Sun, 11 Sep 1994 16:04:03


dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dit di-di-dah-dah-di-dit

(No English, please)


 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by prval » Sun, 11 Sep 1994 20:53:37


: >dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dit di-di-dah-dah-di-dit
:  

: ...  .-.  ..    ---  --    .... ...-    --.- ...  ---    ....  .-.

: .--.  .-..  ...    --.-  ...  --.-    .  ...    -  -.  -..-

Hmmm.... Am I the only person here that senses a "chirpy" signal above?
=paul= wb8zjl

 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by gregory bro » Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:02:03

: dah-dah-di-dah di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dit di-di-dah-dah-di-dit
:  
: (No English, please)
:  

Sorry, Cecil. English is my best language.  A spanish speaker might
understand that as "Quien es llamarse?" (my apologies to the
Spanish-speaking world...haven't taken Spanish since High School)

Are you saying that CW operators who don't speak English don't know
what that means???  You really _don't_ get it, do you? (not a flame,
seriously)

Gregory Brown
WB0RTK

 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Cecil A. Moore -FT » Mon, 12 Sep 1994 09:44:44

: ...  .-.  ..    ---  --    .... ...-    --.- ...  ---    ....  .-.

: .--.  .-..  ...    --.-  ...  --.-    .  ...    -  -.  -..-

Hi Jeff, I guess you just proved my point. I know CW but without additional
knowledge I have no idea what the above means. SRI? HV? QSQ? ES? What's the
'Q' signal for "wait while I look for my 'Q' signals book"? And I'm
supposed to do this with someone who doesn't speak English? ... think I'll
just stick with my broken Spanish and Japanese.


 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Cecil A. Moore -FT » Mon, 12 Sep 1994 10:31:19

: Are you saying that CW operators who don't speak English don't know
: what that means???  You really _don't_ get it, do you? (not a flame,
: seriously) : Gregory Brown : WB0RTK

Of course they know what it means. My point is that _I_ am not going to
be able to understand much of what _they_ say back to me unless it is
in English. I have had thousands of CW contacts. I have never had a
successful CW communications without the other ham speaking some English
or me speaking some Spanish or some Japanese. I have copied CW conversations
in languages foreign to mine and I really and truly _don't_ get it.


 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by gregory bro » Mon, 12 Sep 1994 14:34:10



: : Are you saying that CW operators who don't speak English don't know
: : what that means???  You really _don't_ get it, do you? (not a flame,
: : seriously) : Gregory Brown : WB0RTK

: Of course they know what it means. My point is that _I_ am not going to
: be able to understand much of what _they_ say back to me unless it is
: in English. I have had thousands of CW contacts. I have never had a
: successful CW communications without the other ham speaking some English
: or me speaking some Spanish or some Japanese. I have copied CW conversations
: in languages foreign to mine and I really and truly _don't_ get it.


You mean if a Japanese amateur sent "73 Cecil, tnx fer FB QSO.  CUL
OM. 73", you wouldn't know what he meant?  Of course, if you copy a
foreign language you don't know, you wouldn't understand.  That's not
what's being said. What if he also knows this shared CW (morse)
"language" of abbreviation (of course he does)...you could understand
that, right?  It is difficult to believe...but possible, I
suppose...that you haven't experienced this.  I've operated CW (mostly
DX) about 90 percent of the time in 20 years of hamming...I gaurantee
this is a very normal occurence amoung experienced CW operators.

This is not a flame nor a personal criticism...but I'm beginning to
understand why there are people here who consider CW (morse) obsolete,
irrelevant, and inefficient.  Operating CW is much more than simply
"knowing" morse.  I've always contended that the best way to improve
one's code speed is to _operate_, not listen to code tapes and computer
programs.  People do miss out on a lot when they just "learn the
code".  Hadn't really thought about that before.  My arguments
presumed that everyone really understood what CW operating was really
like.  

Guess one of the reasons that many (not all) of the arguments here get
out of hand is that there is no shared common experience.  One side is
talking about "morse code" and the other about "CW _operating_"...and
each thinks they are talking about the same thing.

Gregory Brown

 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Cecil_A_Mo.. » Mon, 12 Sep 1994 16:44:54

: You mean if a Japanese amateur sent "73 Cecil, tnx fer FB QSO.  CUL
: OM. 73", you wouldn't know what he meant?

Until Jeff posted the Phillips list, I really didn't know what CUL meant
and if I ever copied it before, I probably considered it an error.
If canned expressions are all you ever say you might as well set your
computer talking to the other ham's computer and get some sleep.
He says HR R U? I want to say, "My knee is really bothering me because
of torn ligaments". What 'Q' signal do I use for that? If I reply FB,
I'm being polite but I'm not communicating.

: This is not a flame nor a personal criticism...but I'm beginning to
: understand why there are people here who consider CW (morse) obsolete,
: irrelevant, and inefficient.  Operating CW is much more than simply
: "knowing" morse.  

Those shorthand tricks work on SSB just as well as on CW. Contrary to
some of the arguments presented here, operating SSB is much more than
simply knowing how to speak. Heck, my dog can speak.

My company has spent a lot of money setting up all-mode HF communications
between sites... wonder why not just CW?

: Guess one of the reasons that many (not all) of the arguments here get
: out of hand is that there is no shared common experience.  One side is
: talking about "morse code" and the other about "CW _operating_"...and
: each thinks they are talking about the same thing.

Bingo! No matter what kind of real HF operating one intends to do, one
must learn Morse code but don't expect the majority of hams to ever gain
"CW _operating_" proficiency or even like CW simply because you do.
I stand amazed in the presence of an accomplished CW operator but I
would never choose to be one. It just would not be fun for me.

Some people have gotten the impression that I am anti-CW. Len Winkler
invited me to be the anti-CW side of a debate. For the record, I am
not anti-CW. I believe it is a useful mode, one of many, and (IMHO)
should be treated as such.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC,  (Not speaking for Intel)
--
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Jim Bromley, W5G » Tue, 13 Sep 1994 13:03:12


>: ...  .-.  ..    ---  --    .... ...-    --.- ...  ---    ....  .-.
>: .--.  .-..  ...    --.-  ...  --.-    .  ...    -  -.  -..-



>Hmmm.... Am I the only person here that senses a "chirpy" signal above?
>=paul= wb8zjl

Naw, if Jeff had lousy regulation on his sweep-tube transmitter
it would have been:

cheepchurrppchurrppcheep  cheepchurrppcheepcheep  cheepcheepcheep
churrppchurrppcheepchurrpp  cheepcheepcheep  churrppchurrppcheepchurrpp
cheep  cheepcheepcheep    churrpp  churrppcheep  churrppcheepcheepchurrpp

;-)  (cheepcheepcheepcheep  cheepcheep)


 
 
 

dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah

Post by Dan Pickersgi » Wed, 14 Sep 1994 02:42:00


>Some people have gotten the impression that I am anti-CW. Len Winkler
>invited me to be the anti-CW side of a debate. For the record, I am
>not anti-CW. I believe it is a useful mode, one of many, and (IMHO)
>should be treated as such.

I could not have said it better. Thank you.

73,

Dan
--
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of
 ordinary Americans.." -- President William Jefferson Clinton