On Apr 6, 2005, at 10:11 AM, R. Kevin Stover wrote:
Jeremiah McCarthy wrote:
There are a lot of bad fists out there, but there is NO excuse for
what I heard on 40 meters one day last week while I was at the work
bench...
A station in Canton, Ohio was working 7.037...He got a straight key
reply to his CQ that was too weak for me to fully copy...
His reply was "Your sending is choppy, your fist is terrible, and I
cannot copy...73"...The poor guy did not reply...
Fortunately I did not have a key hooked up...I was sorely tempted to
give this guy a piece of my mind...
I can't say I completely disagree with the chap in giving such a
response. He might have been a bit more pleasant, but, after all, the
other ham is supposed to know how to send and receive code **before**
he is given a license. Yes, sending is not tested any more, and that
is a shame. But what if people got out on the roads in automobiles
before they learned how to drive. After they smashed into your car (or
your kid), would you suggest they slow down a bit, then sit in the seat
next to them to give them a lesson? Not quite the same thing in terms
of the severity of the consequences, to be sure, but . . .
I had the same thing happen to me on my very first CW contact back in
1992.
Yes, this is inferable.
A gentleman in Pennsylvania let me know in no uncertain terms that my
sending with the straight key was downright ugly and almost
un-copyable. He also took the time to help me get it straightened out
and we ended up have a very enjoyable, albeit SLOW QSO.
It motivated me enough to spend the time necessary to improve my
sending.
If you don't have the time to help a struggling Ham with some tactful
instruction keep your hand off the key. You do more damage than good.
There is a difference, here. The rather rude chap above couldn't keep
his hand off the key, because he was the one who sent the cq and got
answered. I guess he could simply have qsy-ed and ignored the chap.
But, just as you benefited from being told in no uncertain terms how
your fist stacked up, so likely did this guy. I think a bit of candor
regarding bad sending is fully warranted, indeed desirable. I do,
however, agree with the the tenor of your remarks that the caller above
could have been a bit friendlier. That's decidedly in the ham
tradition -- as also ought be decent sending.
best wishes,
dave belsley, w1euy
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
