Hello Roy.

24 May 06 10:56, you wrote to me:

 RW> 23 May 06 18:32, Jeff Smith wrote to Roy Witt:

 JS>> Hello Roy.

 JS>> 23 May 06 12:00, you wrote to Janis Kracht:

 RW>>> 22 May 06 20:03, Janis Kracht wrote to Roy Witt:

 JK>>>> Hi Roy,


 JK>>>> Once in a while I get a windows ham file in from authors, not
 JK>>>> to often though
 JK>>>> :(  And not knowing the first thing about Ham radio, I'd be
 JK>>>> hesitant to start looking for files..

 RW>>> You could get advice from some of the HAMs still left in
 RW>>> Fidonet. Thom LaCosta has a pretty good handle on what's going
 RW>>> on in the HAM community. My HAM activity is kind of dormant
 RW>>> since the move to Texas. The radios are on, but I'm not
 RW>>> listening.

 JS>>         So what do ya think, code or no code?

 RW> I've been a no-code advocate for years. It's nice for the nastalgia
 RW> aspect of the hobby and remembering the early days of radio, but in
 RW> today's society it's obsolete.

        I would sadly have to agree. I think it would be nice to be able
copy 5 to 15 wpm to increase one's capabilities. But the actual nessesity
has seriously diminished over the years. Sadly today the code requirement
is more of a hinderance to new amateurs looking to upgrade.

Besides, with the software out there one doesn't even need to copy code. Just
hook their radio up to their PC or laptop and let it translate and display the
QSO for you. Often times the software will also allow you to type or even
talk and it will key up the radio and send out the CW.

I guess my view is what's the point. Why not just do voice.


The other night I was chatting with a guy in his mobile on 2m. He was on
a country road south of London, England.

Did I mention I was using Echolink? 

 RW> Roy
 RW> --- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 RW> (1:1/22)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60