Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!wells!k3tx
From: k3tx@wells.UUCP (Dave Heller)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: morse code
Summary: re: morse code
Message-ID: <691@wells.UUCP>
Date: 18 Dec 90 05:04:02 GMT
References: <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> <7197@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Organization: Wells Computer Systems Corp., Levittown, Pa. 19058
Lines: 23

In article <7197@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes:
> In article <1990Dec14.012315.7858@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes:
> >>  Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway?


N3HAU seems to have learned the code just to get his Tech ticket (assume he's
a Tech from the makeup of his call).  Doesn't anyone realize that some of us
(which includes a large proportion of the real good amateur operators) use CW
by choice as the most relaxing and interesting mode?  And for the traffic nets
CW seems to work better - we tried just the other night to pass the same message
both on 2 meter FM (local, repeater) and on 80 CW.  The 80 CW pair got done much
faster. - - may I draw an alalogy:  some of the boat hobbiests seem to like 
sailboats, when everyone knows sailboats are obsolete as all hell.  (As for me
I would prefer never to see or hear about anything involving boats.)> >
> >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned,
> >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with
> >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts.
> 
> Also because of nasty ITU regulations.
Try usisng it. You might like it.> More reasonably, code is exceedingly useful in low-power operations.
> Of course, I really haven't used code since then...
Nothing to brag about.