[CQ-Contest] Maybe..........

Tony Rogozinski 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
in CW.


----- 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 mailing list