Message-ID: <4AFDDBB1.3060000@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:20:33 +0000
From: John P-G <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <016001ca64a7$959b4f20$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
In-Reply-To: <016001ca64a7$959b4f20$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920>
Subject: Re: LF: Proper morse
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


mal hamilton wrote:

> Could the said person be a WSPR PIRATE ?

Well, my NoV is actually for A1A Telegraphy, and I've never radiated 
anything other than that mode. I have NEVER transmitted WSPR on 500kHz, 
so I guess I couldn't be considered a WSPR PIRATE. You must be thinking 
of someone else?

This doesn't mean I'm not happy to help others in their studies of 
alternative modes.

Anyone who decries "beacon modes" and "appliance operation" - and who 
claims to only use "QSO mode" - really should restrict themselves to 
hand sent CW using real "proper" CW, don't you think?

Once such a person has been seen and heard to use an "appliance" to 
generate their CW and QRSS signals (we've ALL heard the interminable CQ 
calls... obviously not hand generated, and sent with no intention to 
listen for replies), in the hope of being received on a distant grabber, 
with no hope of a 2-way QSO, then I believe they forfeit any moral 
authority to lecture the rest of us as to how we should conduct our 
experimental activities.