I have to agree with the original intent of this message, which seemed
to be ops that take forever to end a QSO. Have seen it a few times myself,
and also do not understand why the tag at the end quoting the band,
frequency, mode, time, and so on. If I was one part of the QSO, I think I
already know this!
However, in defense of macros stating an ops equipment, personally, I
like them! Maybe I don't really need to know how many pixels are on the ops
monitor screen, but a list of what the other guy is using is very often a
nice springboard for a subject of a good ragchew. There have been many times
an op will have an antenna or tuner that I have an interest in, and asking
questions about it can sure get a discussion going!
Yes, macros CAN be overdone. Years back there was a software package
named Lan-Link that was designed as a controller for modems like the PK-232.
You could set it up to have "robot" QSOs. The software looked for key words
in the received text. For example, if the other op used the word "rig", the
software would respond with your canned brag message - or if he said
"employed", Lan-Link would next send your career macro, and so on. While it
was interesting to watch, and a hoot to try out, it wasn't my idea of
amateur radio hi!
I have and use regularly macros that send my equipment (not every nut &
bolt!), name, QTH, and grid, CQ, QRZ, and so on. Since I only type at best
around 30 WPM, sending one of those macros gives me the time it takes to
send it to start typing ahead in the buffer. I don't feel I should inflict
my hunt-and-peck typing "live" on anyone! While the other op is sending, I'm
either cueing up a macro if appropriate, or typing ahead, so that when he
gives it back to me, there aren't large gaps between words and letters.
Keep the macros! Use the macros! Save the macros!
73 es Happy Holidays to all
Dave
KB3MOW
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Music Maker
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:46 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Dxing and long winded digital ops
Hi Folks,
I fully understand everyones point of view over Macros, and hate them
myself. I must admit (as a very recent newcomer to Digimode), I do use the
Macro for calling CQ, but more often return to others calling.
I would love to 'ragchew', but here in Europe, there are some underlying
reasons why this is a rare occurance, and total Macro QSO's are the norm.
Most operators in Europe can't speak enough good English to conduct a
conversation, (I can't speak Russian at all!), so Macros provide a way of
doing it. Secondly - and this applies world-wide - some operators are not
very good typists, and are embarrased by their slow speed. Add to this
dyslectic, disabled, and even illiterate, and Macros offer these people a
life line.
I am the fortunate one, as I am a competent 'touch typist' and am quite
happy at anything up to about 50wpm, so obviously am very comfortable in a
'rag chew' - How many other Amateur Operators are really comfortable and
competent typists? (as a percentage of the whole).
Just my Point of view.
John G3OBU
......................................................................
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "obrienaj" <k3uka...@...> wrote:
>
> I'm all for a good digital mode rag-chew...but allow me to be the Grinch
on Boxing Day and gripe about digital ops that take FOREVER to sign-off when
working DXpeditions and the like. Today when trying to work a needed entity
, and with a fading band, I had to patiently wait my turn while others that
had got through were sending such none sense as how many QSO's they had had
in the particular digital mode and the exact time and date they had logged
the QSO. Do we really need to know when you LOGGED the station you were JUST
working?
>
> I did work the DX, but I can complain too, right ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>
