----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Taylor" <theroadtrip@mts.net>
> I'd like to see an example of where or how one of us
> will be harmed by a QSO with an operator using a decoder.
No one said that. VR2BG said "The competition is based on
operating: finding, working & logging stations. None of
that is possible if the operator doesn't know the code".
Yes, QSOs of some sort may take place, but they're not
2-way CW QSOs when one or other of the operators doesn't
know CW. In the same way, you can't have a 2-way
conversation in Spanish if one of the people concerned
doesn't know Spanish. And before the mailing-list police
pounce, that's just my opinion :-)
> Is it "I had to learn the code, dammit, so everybody
> else must too"?
Those are your words only.
No one has to learn the code if they don't want to. But
it is a prerequisite to having 2-way CW QSOs. Without
learning the code, they are at best data/CW crossmode
QSOs (IMHO, of course).
> We've already heard from at least one op who has said
> if it weren't for a decoder, he'd never turn his radio
> on during a CW contest.
Decoders are not all bad.
> I'd suggest if there's one element that could hasten the
> demise of ham radio, it's angst about clinging to tradition
> "because that's always the way it's been." And not just
> angst about clinging to tradition, but angst about making
> damn sure everyone else does, too.
Yes, clinging to tradition is an outmoded concept. That's
why fly-fishermen use nets, and sailboat racers use outboard
motors, and ski-jumpers wear Batman suits.
Let's be specific, and see if a direct question will get a
direct answer. Do you consider CW to be just another data
mode? If not, what is it?
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|