I agree - listening to SSB can really turn one off Ham Radio for good, I don't
think I've ever seen an argument on digital modes.
Simon Brown, HB9DRV
- Original Message -
From: Joe Serocki
Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275, etc. The
TRY to find
I used to wonder about this, but I think that much of this is related to
the nature of the mode. One of the main reasons that CW and digital tend
to have fewer disagreements is that it is not as easy to have the
quicker back and forth ability you have on voice modes. You also don't
get the
] On
Behalf Of kv9u
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:48 AM
To: =SMTP:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I used to wonder about this, but I think that much of this is related to
the nature of the mode. One of the main reasons that CW and digital tend
to have fewer
is was
invented for.Tnx es c u l om es 73
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:48 AM
To: =SMTP:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
I used to wonder about this, but I think that much
You haven't see me on CW ..
I can talk a whole bunch faster on phone
--- Les Warriner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Horse Feathers. From 50 years of experience -
military and civilian
At 07:01 AM 3/21/2007, you wrote:
I really dont want to start a CW vs anything
war here
Now remember we now have some that can't speak CW at all.
At 09:01 AM 3/21/2007, you wrote:
I really dont want to start a CW vs anything war here really I DONT.. but you
are dead wrong on CW it is faster to talk with CW than with voice and you can
QSK that is what is was invented for.Tnx
Like most things, there are always some extreme examples that you could
point to, but 99% of us are not going to be doing QRQ CW. It took
tremendous work for me to even pass the 20 wpm CW test at the FCC years
ago. And not many hams today even know Morse code at any speed, much
less at QRQ
Rick ...
99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that
said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and
enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys
zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a
few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY
good when you have to pull
99%? That works out to 150 hams per state.
Perhaps that number is an exaggeration, because when I listen on the
contest weekends, it sure sounds like a lot more than that.
73,
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:27 am, bruce mallon wrote:
Rick ...
99% of us took the code and don't use it.
at high speed.
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of bruce mallon
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:27 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Rick ...
99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that
said nothing wrong
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Rick ...
99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that
said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and
enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys
] Re: CQ CH?
Rick ...
99% of us took the code and don't use it. BUT that
said nothing wrong with thoes who are GOOD at and
enjoy the mode I myself love lissing to the guys
zipping along at 12-20 wpm even if i can only copy a
few letters in a row It's a neet mode and VERY
good
Bruce and group members,
I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking
about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It
seems to me that you have to get up around 30 or 35 wpm or more to even
approach that point from what I have seen. One of the
I was on 160 last night working a ham about 35 miles away. We meet at 7
pm local time on Tuesday evening for testing of various digital modes
under different condx. had the big blowout of my XP computer and got the
new Vista computer that temporarily did not run any digital software
:31 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Bruce and group members,
I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use CW. I am talking
about QRQ CW where you are having a near real time conversation. It
seems to me that you have to get up around 30
/10th the time).
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of kv9u
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:31 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
Bruce and group members,
I am not suggesting in any way that only 1% of hams use
Roger roger and QSL - but we were talking about ham radio QSOs
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Les Warriner
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:57 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: CQ CH?
And if you are describing
Let's change the subject or get back to the subject.
Here Here! Even back in the day when I ran RTTY on a HW-101 (really) people
on digital modes were more polite, less antagonistic, and in my humble
opinion, had better operating practices. CW came second, and phone a LONG
third.
Want to reinforce this? Listen to the loonies on 75 Phone, 14.275,
19 matches
Mail list logo
