On 25/10/2010 01:18, Jack Haverty wrote:
> I think the only reason CW decoders work so well is because today most
> code, especially in contests, is machine-sent,
Whether CW decoders work well or otherwise is irrelevant - the
issue is whether they are used.
> So, if you want to outlaw CW decoders, I think that rule should be
> symmetrical and outlaw CW encoders as well.
This argument has been refuted many times.
The key to human communications is understanding. If I
don't know Russian, I can communicate with someone who
does by using an interpreter. However, due to the fact
that I don't understand Russian, I can not claim to have
had a Russian conversation.
If I don't know CW, I can communicate with somone who
does by using a machine or software. However, due to
the fact that I don't understand CW, I can not claim
to have had a CW QSO.
The use of decoders reduces CW to the status of "just
another data mode" simply because the fundamental
difference between CW and other data modes is that
CW can be understood by ear in real-time.
> E.G., the N1MM logger, by quickly identifying stations, as you type
> their callsign, which you've already worked, or which are unworked
> multipliers, arguably helps to "find or facilitate contest QSOs",
Here is what I said -
"The tools should not involve any use, during the contest,
of non-amateur-radio communications modes or technologies,
with the potential for, or for the purpose of, finding or
facilatating contest QSOs."
A contest logger is neither a communications mode nor
a communications technology - except, of course, when
it is linked to the internet.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|