[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] How isthe Skimmer different?

To: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>, CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] How isthe Skimmer different?
From: Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:03:04 +0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Dave, et al.....

Very few automated CW methods allow a person to win a CW contest WITHOUT
KNOWING ANY CODE except the CW Skimmer, partly due to the accuracy of this
cursed system.  True, spots can give you call signs, too, but their
accuracy is less.

For the record, I do not use CW decoders, spotting networks, nor band maps
and I do send every contact with a squeeze key.  I do this for two
reasons...  one is I enjoy using a superior skill (compared to reading a
computer screen) and two is I am using copying CW with only ears and brain
and sending CW by hand as a way to keep my aging brain/hand system
working.  My mom kept sharp in her advancing years with crossword puzzles,
I am using CW.

My point still stands....the joy of using CW as it was invented to be used
is greater and more deeply satisfying than milking the preprepared pap from
CW Skimmer or other automatic devices.  I compared this situation to
natural vs. artificial s*x, and was banned for saying that by the Florida
Contest Group's reflector, so here goes here.

Natural and joyful is really better, try it some time.  73, Charly

PS, if the Skimmer is actually really keeping CW alive on the bands, I say
go to RTTY or PSK for full automation and forget the mode that started

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:03 PM, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>wrote:

> That's really pretty funny considering that you cannot in the least tell
> on the air whether the person you are working is using CW Skimmer or not.
> Your English may be fine but your logic definitely is not.  You can think
> of CW Skimmer as simply the combination of a few other things that have
> been in existence (and legal for contesting) for many years:
> a.  CW decoders
> b.  spotting networks (when claiming an assisted category)
> c.  bandmaps
> Your rant is sadly misplaced.  I can think of other things like Super
> Check Partial and "History" Files generated by others that have contributed
> far more to the lessening of skill in radiosport than does CW Skimmer, and
> I can almost guarantee that you use your logger or a memory keyer to
> actually send CW instead of using a hand key dit-by-dah as did those
> "founding users" (whatever that means). And you do know that hams,
> including those who use CW Skimmer, are pretty much the only ones keeping
> this elegant communication mode alive, right??  All those other users
> simply abandoned it long ago in favor of modes requiring even less operator
> skill.
> For the record, I have never used CW Skimmer in text decode mode during a
> contest ... but I see absolutely no difference between it and other forms
> of assistance when following the rules of the contest.  Please explain to
> me how I am wrong ... but try using logic this time.
> Dave   AB7E
> On 11/29/2012 2:05 AM, Charles Harpole wrote:
>> I enjoy trying to use the English language to be specific and expressive.
>> Here is my latest effort..............
>> The CW Skimmer is an obscene perversity of ham radio.  All the art and
>> skill of this elegant communication mode, CW, is destroyed.  The founding
>> users of Morse Code, who saved ships and passed millions of messages vital
>> and mundane, are dishonored.  The joy of doing a difficult activity well
>> is
>> lost.  Ham radio in general and contesting specifically is changed forever
>> for the worse by this abomination.
> ______________________________**_________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>

Charly, HS0ZCW
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>