[Amps] Drivel

[Carl]

IF a CW SOS was not heard by the generally useless ham contingent does that 
mean it was never sent?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Brown" <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: <amps at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Amps] Drivel


> On Sat,4/29/2017 11:09 AM, Mark Bitterlich wrote:
>> But relying on CW is not going to get you killed.
>
> To evaluate your opinion (and it is nothing but opinion, based on a 
> religious belief in CW), I'd like to know exactly what emergency 
> communications operations you have been a part of in the last ten years, 
> and exactly what your participation entailed. And I'm not asking about 
> drills or training sessions, I'm talking about real emergencies, like 
> tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, explosions, wild-land fires, severe storms, 
> landslides, and earthquakes.
>
> FACT: CW is a great mode, no question about its advantages over voice 
> modes -- IF the operators on both ends are good at it.
>
> FACT: CW is a USELESS mode if there's NOT an operator on BOTH ends who is 
> good at it.
>
> OPINION: The chances of there being an operator on an FM repeater who can 
> copy CW are pretty slim. When I'm using VHF/UHF FM, I'm usually the only 
> one.
>
> OPINION: The chances of SSB ragchewers being competent in CW gets 
> increasingly slim as the ham population ages. And most SSB ragchewers are 
> there because they DON'T work cw.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> Founding member CWOPS, #69
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amps mailing list
> Amps at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com