Digital vs cw


Date: Thu Sep 15 1994 - 10:18:03 EDT

I look at it this way: CW is like printing with hand-set type.
It may be slow. It may even be old fashioned and out-of-date.
But it still works, and those of us who feel that way have no
problem with those who feel otherwise. Continuing the comparison,
letterpress printers don't snarl at offset duplicating aficionados,
nor do owners of Monotype or Intertype casters go around casting
dispersion on those who set type on a MacIntosh or IBM Selectric
(which, by the way, is now considered "old tech). My four tons
of cast iron and gawdknowshowmuch type in California job cases
in no way implies that I think modern printing and composition
technology is a rape of an art. Sure, some computer type is ugly,
badly spaced and sometimes unreadable. But I still read the stuff.
And I've been known to use it myself.
To carry the analogy to its extended meaning, CW (or hand-set
type) is just as viable a communication option as digital cricket
noises (or computerized typography). It's user defined and use
valuated. Nuff said.

The Tagalong Press
(Where the floor of the garage will never blow away. Sink into
the ground, maybe. But blow away? Never! In fact, I may just put
my tower up on it.)

Search QRP-L Archives

[ QRP-L Archive | ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 ]


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 on Fri Jun 02 2000 - 11:27:00 EDT