| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| vk3pa |
Posted - 14 Nov 2005 : 09:07:48 AM
To me QRSS CW qso's that can be seen and not heard may be quite valid -
especially on 137Khz - but for me, that is not something I would enjoy. I want
to hear it happen and be an active participant in the process.
I really abhor a MACHINE doing most of the work for me.
I am not saying that is wrong necessarily either - but it does not appeal to
me really - and that's a personal preference - not a slam against QRSS
really.
|
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| vk3gom |
Posted - 14 Nov 2005 : 12:29:31 PM
Ok you guys I guess for normal people to pound the brass is really fine don't forget the people with disabilities!!.
That's all I have to say on the subject |
| vk3pa |
Posted - 14 Nov 2005 : 12:07:29 PM
,Hands on sent and received by ear is real ham stuff.If you
> have to use the computer to generate "Perfect CW" Why bother to use the
> radio at all.
|
| vk3pa |
Posted - 14 Nov 2005 : 11:34:11 AM
I note the shift of the original thread re "Spotting" to "Technology Qso's"..
That really open's Pandoras Box, doesn't it.
Claiming DXCC CW using computer generated Morse Code TX-RX would have to be the
ultimate fraud.
Bob VK3ZL..
|
