Mark Conrad's brain has seized up!

"Mark Conrad" <> wrote in message
news:190120100647110452%...








>Spin it any way you want to, Marty

The only one that is spinning a yarn is you with your 300 words per minute
bull ****

>I have found out what I wanted to know about the
>broken document scanning feature of WSR,
>from your own words, in your previous post.

You have found nothing in your tiny little world! It's a pity you can't
find your memory!

>Easy enough to prove by trying to get WSR to handle a
>list of randomly aranged homonyms correctly, such as
>this sentence:

Arranged has two *r's* you thick, illiterate cretin!! You do not even know
how to spell properly let alone know the meaning of a homonym!
Boy do you forget easily! That dementia is really bad. Still you're in the
right place I suppose so they can treat you!
Remember?? In your previous posts you stated tutu was a homonym of to, too
and two. WRONG! Try again. Must do better!

>A list of randomly arranged homonyms is
>cent cent cent scent sent.

>Dragon can do that with ease, WSR can't. This bug of WSR causes gross
>errors not associated

WRONG! Utter bull ****. We have been through all this in previous posts. I
think you have serious problems in remembering. Remember??

My WSR and Dragon will mostly use and spell homonyms properly if they are
used in the right context within which they are dictated. Just by saying the
same word over and over again *EVEN*if they have different meanings as you
have done above in *ANY SPEECH APP* *INCLUDING DRAGON* without any context
between them, all you will do is confuse the speech app.

For example: cent cent cent cent cent. I have just dictated that with
Dragon. That's what is produced!

Now I have switched to WSR: sent sent sent sent sent.
You see? Exactly the same as Dragon but it has used a different meaning of
the pronunciation.
Put context between homonyms and they will invariably work!
You are full of bull ****!

Mark Conrad wore a tutu to a party with two girls and they all wore too much
make up.

That was using WSR. I had to train *tutu*in the dictionary to sound slightly
different to the others so that the speech app would not be confused. No
problem at all with 'tutu', 'two', 'to' and too as used in the right context
within the dictation. But we have been through all this already in previous
posts.

Either you are winding us all up or you are seriously ill! From now on I
refuse to keep correcting you on your repetitive, bull **** nonsense!

>...or failing to recognize words like "transesophageal"

Repetitive bull ****! Change the record!

If I can train supercalifragilisticexpialidocious than I can train the
shorter useless word for everyday dictation you have put above if I wanted
to. BUT I DON'T BECAUSE I DON'T NEED IT!

From now on I am not going to waste my time repeating answers to the same
repetitive questions you keep posting you ****ing moron! I shall simply
put - has been answered! Repetitive bull ****! Change the record!

There, that should save some time from going into the same old ****
different day scenarios with an illiterate imbecile who has dementia!

andy t

"Mark Conrad" <> wrote in message
news:290120102305393036%...
> In article <eY$>, wrote: ... more bull
> **** as usual!



> Tsk tsk tsk, I must have hit a nerve, you responded
> violently, even going into your Spelling Cop mode.

That's because I love the humiliating you and you make it so easy because
you are an illiterate cretin :-). How can anybody take you seriously when
you spell like a backward schoolboy?

> You must be desperate, now that your hero Marty
> admitted in his own words that "WSR Toolkit" could NOT
> repair the broken code in WSR.

Not desperate at all. I've been using WSR for two years now and I'm very
happy with it. I am using it now and it is very accurate for me. Not as
accurate as Dragon (which I also have) which I have admitted :-) but
accurate enough and definitely faster on the command side so I use both ;-).

As you can see, the text is flowing lovely for me as I dictate to the screen
:-).

> Here Marty's exact words:
>
>> > "Would that bee be flying south?"
>> >
>> > WITHOUT using either macros, or "spoken-form/written-form"
>>
> Marty's comment starts here:
>> You are correct. The only way I could get it to recognize would that
>> bee be flying south? Was by creating a simple macro, a less than 20
>> second procedure.

Did you read my other three posts? I answered this. Did you read Marty's
follow-on post? He also answered the question you dumb ****. These are his
exact words that he stated in his post answering your dumb question.

>> Question: Is there any chance that Microsoft will
>> get around to fixing that bug?


> It is not a bug as you have been told many times. It is the design of
> WSR to be useful as a general business vocabulary.

Which it is, very useful and enhances accuracy. He also mentions he has told
you many times but you are too dense to take it all in. Do yourself a
favour, go and sort your dementia out.

>> There are a bunch of (poor) doctors who would use WSR
>> if that bug was fixed.


>If a physician fed 50 typical documents to the WSRToolkit and then
> read a few of these in, then the software will work.

Can you try and concentrate for one minute and try to take in the words
above into your dementia world ?

I also mention, twice I think in my other posts and I will mention it again
here for the last time. I have put some 80 documents through the *add from
file* feature in the toolkit (which is what Marty is proposing in his answer
to you above) and several documents through the *train from text* feature of
the toolkit and trained them word for word and I noticed a definite
improvement with accuracy.

I am still getting 99% accuracy with WSR. How do you explain that then Mr
Smartass?


> The $15 software utility he sells, "WSR Toolkit",

WRONG! He did not sell it to me, he donated it to me free of charge ;-)


>could NOT
> handle the simple sentence: "Would that bee be flying south?"

Okay. What I did was open the speech dictionary in WSR. I put in the word
"bee" in the "start spelling" section, recorded a pronunciation of it and
added it to the dictionary.

This is using WSR - "Would that bee be flying south?"

Easy peazy! AND I didn't even need the toolkit to make that work.

That took me all of 20 seconds. So you see Dick head, there are ways round
these little problems proving you wrong once again. Try using your thick
brain to work these things out instead of keeping on putting your foot in
your mouth all the time. You are talking bull **** as usual.

> In his own words, he admitted that he could not get WSR to
> properly handle that simple sentence, without resorting to a macro.

I have just told you how to do it above Dick head. Did not need a macro,
did not need the toolkit, read the above and try it. It was so easy and
like you, SIMPLE!

> You think Marty is going to tackle my "simple sentence challenge"
> without using the "WSR Toolkit", when his income depends on
> the result?

I have already tackled it. Read the above you monotone troll. You do not
need the toolkit for simple things like that. That's what the WSR speech
dictionary is for.

> To Marty's credit, he is truthful,

Trying to get round Marty now is a bit late don't you think? ;-)

>unlike you, who loudly
> proclaimed that the WSR Toolkit fixed that serious bug.

Read the above idiot. Did not need the toolkit to succeed in your little
test ;-)

> All here know you are a liar, so we expect it from you.

I have just proved it can be done so how can I be lying?


Pot/kettle springs to mind!

He who proclaims he can dictate 300 words per minute then change it to
syllables per minute then change it to 260 words per minute then change it
to 200 words per minute and he is still lying with that! When are you going
to be truthful and honest and admit you will be lucky to get 150 words per
minute?


Everybody knows who the real liar is. He's an 80-year-old illiterate cretin
bull shitter with dementia.

Everybody who reads your previous posts can easily see what a bull shitter
and liar you really are!

> Even though the toolkit is not capable of fixing the killer bug,

Read the above. Did not need the toolkit for succeeding in that test.
There is no bug except the one inside your head!

> it has other uses, for the fine macros it contains

Correct! Not only that, it has the train from text and add from file
features amongst many others which gives me my 99% accuracy. That is why it
works very well ;-).

Otherwise I would not use it but as you can see I am using it now as I speak
and I am having no problem whatsoever with it. That's why I have been using
it for two years without any problems ;-).

>are well worth
> the modest $15 price.

Correct! Except it was even more modest for me because Marty kindly donated
it to me for free :-).

So I am guessing by your statements above that you have got the WSR toolkit.
I had a feeling you had it all along ;-). All you have to do now is figure
out how to use it properly but it might be a bit too complicated for someone
as you especially with your dementia. You will probably forget you have got
it in a few days.

> Now macros are great, but can you imagine how much time would be
> wasted if I created 42 macros for the 42 errors that WSR produced
> when I dictated that 600 word medical extract?

Don't need medical words. That's what the *Dragon Medical* version is for at
$1600. I have *Dragon Professional*.

To be honest, I have very few text macros. I have text macros for signing
off my name, e-mail addresses, things like that. Most of my macros are
command macros and very useful they are. Since I was donated Brad T's book,
(a real expert by the way) making command macros I find very useful and
making them is fun ;-).

The best one I have and it's probably the most valuable one to me, is the
macro that enables me to switch back and forth between Dragon and WSR. It
actually turns one speech app off whilst turning the other one on at the
same time and vice versa depending on which one I want to use :-).

All I have to say is either "Enable Dragon" or "Enable Windows Speech" and
it works like a dream. Very ingenious :-).

The reason I do not have a lot of text macros is because I do not need them.
WSR I have found is accurate enough without them. Of course, if there is a
very difficult word or a special name of something or someone that I need,
then they come in very handy and are very easy to make :-).

> Microsoft _has_ to be aware of the bug, but they show no interest
> in repairing the broken document scanning feature, I don't know why.

That's because it works. I told you, there is no bug only the one inside
your head :-).

andy t