trogo at telegraphy.com
Thu May 27 19:33:36 PDT 2010
this gives rise to another category of "unassisted" - those who can really send and receive the Morse
Code. Is a SO Unassisted entry really "unassisted" if the operator is using a machine to send and/or
receive? In my humble and old school opinion it is not. I have used computers for logging but I have
NEVER made a complete QSO with a computer in a contest. Oh well just my humble opinion - life and technology
go on but that won't change the way I operate - win or lose.
Contesting for nearly 53 years
If you want to have a CW QSO, it's a good idea to
learn CW. Otherwise, while it's still possible to
have a "QSO" with a CW operator, you can't do it
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindquist, WW3DE" <ww3de at comcast.net>
> We don't impose restrictions or recategorize ops who
> use software to SEND CW exchanges; why should using
> software to decode it be any different?
Understanding (what was said or what was sent) is the
key to communicating with another person. When I hear
CW, I may not know whether the other person is sending
it by hand or by software. All that matters is that
I can decode what is sent. If I can can do it myself,
in real time, then, for me, it's a CW QSO. The fact
that I "know" CW (can decode it), implies that it's
probable that I can also encode/send it. Even if
I can't, it doesn't matter to other operators. It's
a CW QSO when they decode it themselves. Otherwise,
for them, it's a data QSO.
Anyone who can't decode CW in real time may call it
what they like, but they can't call it a CW QSO.
More information about the CQ-Contest