Proving the Troll Mark Conrad Wrong yet again with another one of his famous lies

"Bob O'Dyne" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:58:07 -0800, Mark Conrad <>
> wrote:



> Do you keep a scrapbook or something? Why are you obsessing so about
> this person?
>
> --
> Ann's Little Brother Bob


The reason he is so obsessing about me is quite simple really. It's because
I caught him red-handed, lying and cheating on the WWW in his own words and
context and in black and white for everybody else to see.


He just does not like the fact that he was caught out as the lying cheating
fraudulent Troll that he is. So now he is desperately trying to backpedal
from that fact.


Everybody now, knows they cannot believe a single word he says especially
about his dictation sample tests which he posts and then claims 100%
accuracy. Because he got caught cheating, we all now know he simply copies
and pastes them in the hope that you will believe he actually dictated them.
How sad can you get.


Here is my response to one of his posts in here just so that you know the
reasons and to put the truth to the subject instead of his incessant lies.


>Wow! - It is difficult keeping up with Andy's lies because
>there are so many of them.


The reason it's difficult for you to keep up with is because they are not
lies and you tell so many of them. They are all true and I've proved them
all on the WWW for everybody to see!



>Andy posted this latest lie:


(We shall see ;-)


>> On top of that, he comes up with little gems now and again
>> as this one below where he actually believes that 'tutu' is a
>> homophone of 'to', 'too' or 'two'.

> "Alphabetical order of these four homophones is
> to too two tutu."



>Let's look at Andy's lie in detail, according to
>the dictionary definition of "homophone"



I don't know what dictionary you were looking in. Was it your toy made up
one?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Homophone


The link below shows a list of *ALL* British English homophones. 'Tutu' is
not there!

Look under number 392. 'TUTU' IS NOT A HOMOPHONE OF 'TO', 'TOO' OR 'TWO'.
You said it was!

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=List+of+All...=1267794972073



>Okay, the "symbols" are: to too two tutu


It does not matter how you try to spin it and backpedal from what your
original statement was. 'Tutu' IS NOT a homophone or homonym of 'to' 'too'
or 'two'. YOU SAID IT WAS.


>"tutu" is a group of sounds, "denoting the same sound
> or GROUP OF SOUNDS" as in the examples below:


>Below are several "set of symbols" as per
>the dictionary definition.


>THEREFORE ALL THE BELOW ARE HOMOPHONES OF TUTU,
>INCLUDING TUTU ITSELF.


>1) tutu
>2) to to
>3) to too
>4) too to
>9 etc., etc. ...



Ah, changing the goalposts yet again. Yes, when spoken like that (each
selection has two syllables NOT ONE) so the sounding is the same. That still
doesn't make 'tutu' a homophone of 'to', 'too' or 'two'.


However, that is not what you stated anyway. I STILL maintain 'TUTU' IS NOT
A HOMOPHONE OF 'TO', 'TOO' OR 'TWO'. YOU SAID IT WAS in your original
statement. Just as you said in an earlier post that 'TUTU' IS A HOMONYM OF
'TO', 'TOO' OR 'TWO'. Now let's see him squirm and wriggle and backpedal his
way out of that.


Read below. An explanation grammar guide that 'to too' should not be
confused with 'tutu'. She mentions that 'to' and 'too' are homophones and
that 'to too' is not a short form of 'tutu'.

http://www.graphicaldatablog.com/?p=221


You are more slippery than a barrel full of eels! Gheeze! Did you ever go to
school?


This is a classic case of his constant backpedalling. The poor old sod is
backpedalling for his life to try and change what he really said. His
dementia has kicked him once more. He forgets everything he puts down and
posts here into this news group directly after he had posted them. That's
how bad his dementia is.


Fortunately, the posts are kept as records in these news groups. So let's
start off with this post that Troll Conrad posted. You can easily find it by
typing into the search bar in newsgroups, the heading of the title thread
that he started which is below.


"Question for Windows Speech Recognition guru"


Here is an excerpt from it in his OWN WORDS and CONTEXT



>> - - - examples - - - examples - - -
>> the four words two too two tutu are homonyms

>> Mark-



So firstly, he was calling them homonyms, which they certainly are not.


Below is an excerpt from another poster (an English major) correcting him
because the daft old bugger is as thick as a plank!


> First of all, as an English major from long ago, I must tell you that
> tutu is not a homonym of to, too, and two.
> Your second example repeats the word two twice. I'm amazed that Dragon's
> analysis of the two sentences you cite actually works. I'd expect WSR
> could pick up the difference between to, too, and two when each is used
> in context, such as "He went to the store to buy two bottles of beer.
> She did, too." or "Willy sent Millicent a silly scent."
>
> Your examples do not use the words in context.
>
> Bill


As I say, you can check it all out in the whole thread with the title above.
Troll Conrad tries to backpedal and claw his way out of it as he usually
does after realising what a peach of a statement he has made in saying that
'tutu' is a homonym of 'to', 'too' and 'two'. ;-)


Come on Troll Conrad! Now come back and say you didn't post that even WITH
the PROOF that you did. let's see him try to wriggle out of this one. ;-)


The poster even states he expects WSR could pick up the difference between
to, too, and two when each is used in context. And he is right, it does.
Another thing Troll Conrad refutes.


So originally he thought they were homonyms. When he was quickly corrected
by myself and the other poster above, he has since done some serious
backpedalling because now it's calling them homophones. He changes his mind
like the weather. So now let's come to the homophone.


Surely, someone in this news group can come in and confirm that 'tutu' IS
NOT a homophone OR homonym of 'to' 'too' or 'two'?


>Seems like Andy has egg on his face, should be interesting


We shall see who has egg on their face. Just as you did when you failed the
typing/dictation speed test and had to resort to cheating because of his
failure.


What are homophones?


Homophones are words that sound the same, but have different spellings and
meanings, e.g.flower and flour. Read below and that will tell you EXACTLY
what a homophone is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/word...ctsheet1.shtml


Now that you have backpedalled from what you originally stated by calling
'tutu' a homonym of 'to', 'too' or two' (which it is not). Now let's
establish what the difference is between a homonym and a homophone.


For today's lesson for Troll Conrad.

Homonym

One of two or more words have the same sound and often the same spelling but
differ in meaning, such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is
kept).


Homophone

One of two or more words, such as night and knight, that are pronounced the
same but differ in meaning, origin, and sometimes spelling.


Source: Dictionary.com


I do not need to backpedal. Read below. The RIGHT FACTS on the difference
between a homonym and a homophone.
http://www.taupecat.com/personal/homophones/


After realising what a prize Prat you made yourself look with the statement
above about a homonym, you then changed it to this: 'tutu' is a homophone of
'to', 'too' or 'two' WHICH IT IS NOT. Tutu is two syllables whereas to, too
or two (separate words) are only one and therefore DO NOT SOUND ALIKE.


Below is the English homophone dictionary.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm#t


Show me ANYWHERE in the, homophone dictionary where 'tutu' is a homophone of
'to', 'too' or 'two'. You won't find it because it isn't!


Learn the difference between the three homophones 'to', 'too' and 'two'.
Nowhere does it mention or link tutu in with those three homophones.

http://www.quia.com/pop/31282.html

A homophone triplet 'to', 'too' 'two' (not tutu).

http://www.jimwegryn.com/Words/Homophones.htm

This factsheet is BBC Copyright. A FACT sheet on homophones.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/word...actsheet.shtml

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophone

Definition list of to, too and two.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/dic...threewords/to/

Words about Words

http://www.startwright.com/words1.htm

http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/S00001152.shtml

http://www.bifroest.demon.co.uk/misc/homophones.html



>to see how he backpedals his way out of the dictionary
>definition of "homophone", vainly trying to defend his lie.


Look above the Dick head. I use a proper dictionary. Not the Troll Conrad
made up version.


>the "tutu" sound, let me point out that the dictionary
>definition says "the same sound"
>(in-other-words, the "tu" sound in the "tutu" group-of-sounds)


>*OR* , as in the "group of sounds", (two sounds in the group)
>- - - as in "tu tu".


More made up nonsense. Should have spent more time in school instead of
lying and cheating.

Read all the above links an explanation on homophones and homonyms then you
may learn something.


'Tu-tu' has two syllables. 'To, 'too' and 'two', all have one. Therefore,
the latter, their sounding when pronounced are DIFFERENT to the former. So
once again, tutu is not a homophone or homonym of to, too, and two. FACT!


>Now I am not patient enough to wade through ALL of
>Andy's latest batch of lies.


That's because you know they are true and you cannot refute them.


You wish they were lies but since you have been caught out RED-HANDED on the
WWW for lying and cheating, you are now desperately trying to squirm and
wriggle out of them. I will make it easier for you and list them out for
you and everybody else to see, which they can check out easily by looking
back on your own posts.


1. I dictated the test document in the typing/dictation speed test. (He
actually copied and pasted it several times over)

2. It is conceivable that Dragon would be able to interpret somebody
properly, speaking at 600 wpm.

3. It is conceivable that Dragon would be able to interpret somebody
properly, speaking at 600 wpm AND be a 100% accurate.

4. I can dictate 836 wpm

5. I can dictate 836 wpm with 100% accuracy

6. I reckon I could dictate 320 wpm

7. I reckon I could dictate 320 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

8. I can dictate 307.2 wpm

9. I can dictate 307.2 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

10. I can dictate 260 wpm

11. I can dictate 260 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

12. I can dictate 200 wpm

13. I can dictate 200 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

14. I can dictate 150 wpm with 100% accuracy every time using Dragon.

15. I do not copy and paste my sample test documents that I put in this
newsgroup for all the WWW to see.

16. A typist speed test cannot be compared or measured to dictation speed in
wpm.

17. I know how the WSR toolkit would perform when used in conjunction with
WSR, even though I do not own a copy of the software.

18. The WSR toolkit has to have a reviewer in it to enhance accuracy. All of
the other features within it will not perform this function.

19. WSR is crap.

20. I am not a liar.

21. I am not a cheat.

22. I am not a bullshitter.

23. I am not a fraudulent troll

24. I am an expert in the field of speech recognition.

25. I know what a homonym is.

26. I know what a homophone is.

27. Spelling correctly is not important.

28. I am not a salesman promoting Dragon in this news group

29. I was only trying to ridicule Andy regarding the 836 wpm speed dictation
test scenario

30. I do not make up my own rules regarding speech dictation speed and
accuracy.

31. I do not backpedal.



>He has never explained why Nuance could be stupid
>enough to hire a controversial person such as myself


Another smokescreen and desperate bid to try and hide the fact he is.


>that Andy will say anything to demonize someone who
>does not agree with HIS weird thoughts about SR.


I do not need to demonise you because you are doing a fine job of that
yourself tying yourself up in knots. The only thing I do is correct your
lies, deceit, cheating and fraudulency.


>I NEVER posted any such thing about "still using the reviewer"
>as in Andy's lie.


Well you keep posting that the WSR toolkit does not work when you have never
used it in the first place. You have been told that the reviewer in the base
of WSR does not work. I just assume that you are still using it, seeing as
you do not have the WSR toolkit and therefore you are ****ing in the wind
and guessing about the capabilities of it.


>Here is yet another blatant lie from Andy's same post:
>"His constant stuttering"
>I have never stuttered in my entire 80 year life!


Is that the best you can do? Okay I take that one back but what about the
other 31 lies?



>Seems like Andy will stoop to low depths to demonize
>anyone who disagrees with his weird thinking.


Seems I have really hit a nerve. You see this is what happens when you get
caught red-handed on the WWW as a lying and cheating fraudulent Troll and so
has to resort to throwing out statements as the above to try and backpedal
and dig their way out of it.


>If anyone here thinks I am going to put up with Andy's
>constant and continuing lies about me, I am not.


Oh dear! I believe I have really hit a nerve. As a qualified psychologist
would say; this is a classic case of guilt! ;-)


They are not lies you sad that little old man because they are there in
black and white on the WWW in your words and your context for everybody to
see. In my previous posts, I even given the title of the threads that you
start where this lying and cheating is. It's just that you forget you posted
them because of that dementia of yours.


>As long as these lies from Andy persist, I will keep
>responding to his many lies with the true facts.


You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. The true facts are
there in black and white and you're backpedalling above is futile when the
SHEER AMOUNT OF PROOF is on the WWW in your OWN words and context for
everybody to see with their own eyes.



>MacSpeech, now owned by Nuance (dragon), the same
>"critical" feature that Andy likes to call a "reviewer" is


Further proof that he is a salesman of Nuance because he has been promoting
MacSpeech AS WELL as Dragon. Because he knew FULL WELL that MacSpeech would
be bought up by Dragon.



>For example, I "like" to use the following words next to each other:

>"perioperative transesophageal echocardiography"


Funny that, because I like to use the following words next to each other in
WSR such as hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies annulopapillary
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious just to prove Troll Conrad wrong and that
you do not need a reviewer to put words into the WSR vocabulary in less than
no time at all and they will stay there. I can use them anywhere and any
time I want.


He spent $1600 on Dragon Medical so he could put medical words like that to
the screen when I did in WSR in no time at all. And it's free within a whole
operating system LOL!


>Andy poo-poos the critical nature of this feature,


Tsk tsk. "poo-poos"- (noun) excrement - or an act of defecating.


I believe you meant pooh-poohs. Even Dragon Pro knows how to spell it
properly.

"poo-poos"- Oh the irony ;-)


>which is responsible for the 100% raw accuracy I achieve with
>technical medical dictations of 600 words,


Now, we all know that is untrue. One of his many lies because as we have
since found out, all he does is copy and paste a set of text and then post
it in this news group. And as for 100% accuracy, he is having a laugh.


He is the fastest copy and paste expert in the West.


We all know that Troll Conrad could only cheat using the typing/dictation
speed test which he failed miserably. All he could do was copy and paste the
test, text document. It is all in his posts for everybody to see. He was
caught out hook, line and sinker.



>Certainly I could apply Andy's laborious workaround on
>all 42 of those mistakes that Vista Speech makes,
>however I might as well revert to old fashioned typing,
>by the time I have all 42 mistakes under control.


Further evidence above that he is a Nuance salesman and confirming what I
have been saying all along about this Troll trying to discredit a perfectly
good product.


>Now if $$$Microsoft$$$ ever fixed the broken feature,


Even further evidence that Troll Conrad is a Nuance salesman talking about a
broken feature he already knows does not work. He also knows that by
acquiring the WSR toolkit, this solves all the problems he is blabbing on
about. That is why I can produce all these ridiculously long medical words
by training it in WSR as shown above.


Now if he would only stop living in denial and go back and take a look at
all his previous posts. These prove he is a lying cheating fraudulent Troll
who has just forgotten what he has actually posted because of his dementia.


To end with, this is for you Troll Conrad, a few lessons for you to learn
the TRUE MEANING of a homophone.


Here is a list of common homophones.

Homophones Examples

Allowed - aloud

You are not allowed to smoke until you are 16.
She spoke her thoughts aloud (to say something so it can be heard).

Bear - bare

A bear is a large furry animal.
She walked on the beach with bare feet.

Bored - board

To be bored is to have lost interest in something.
A board is a flat piece of wood.

Break - brake

If you break something you damage it.
When you brake the car slows down.


Caught - court

He caught a large fish.
You play tennis on a tennis court.


Find - fined

I can't find my socks.
She was fined £40 for driving too fast on the motorway.


pour - poor - paw

Can you please pour some milk on my cereal.
He grew up in a poor neighbourhood.
The cat hurt his paw in a fight.

To - too - two (notice there is not any tutu there.) ;-)

He isn't going to work today.
Too is another way to say as well.
Two is the number between one and three.


And so on and so forth etc etc.

Another lie you got wrong because you are a lying cheating fraudulent Troll
and everybody now knows it!

andy t

>Apparently Andy is determined to undermine the
>productive upbeat purpose of this NG, namely to
>discuss Windows/Vista general topics, and help
>each other.


Notice he mentions "to discuss Windows/Vista general topics, and help each
other".

So how does mentioning Dragon NaturallySpeaking come into the equation then
in a Windows/ Vista and general topics forum? More to the point, how is
Dragon NaturallySpeaking helping anybody in a Windows/Vista general topics
forum?


It is completely off topic for this forum and is not constructive for
anything in Windows at all.

EVEN WSR itself has its own specialised news group forum in the form of
microsoft.public speech.desktop but he will not pose his questions in there.
Do you know why? It is because there is nowhere near the amount of traffic
in there than there is in here.

This is how he draws you in as any salesman does and then BANG, out of the
blue, Dragon NaturallySpeaking pops up.

So with both those points, it beggars the question on why he does it. I
will tell you why. So you people will latch on to the fact and have shoved
down your throats about a product he is promoting in a forum designed to
help people with Windows problems.

That is why most of the people in here and I will be soon, ignore this
troll.

Do not get me wrong. I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking as well and it is a
great product but it does not belong here in these news groups. I have
specialised Websites that I go on that deal exactly with this product and
you get all the answers you need in them. So once again you must ask
yourself, why does he not go in them instead?

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions with that.

Now he will come back with some bullshit story about Vista speech
recognition or WSR for short, being a topic within Windows but if you watch,
in a matter of paragraphs, he will change to the subject in some way,
metaphor or form to Dragon NaturallySpeaking. A completely independent
product made by Nuance who are nothing to do with any Windows app
whatsoever, including Vista speech or WSR for short.


So I am not here to undermine anything. Just correcting the garbage and
lies that come from your mouth.


> The main Big Thing in this latest destructive thread
> seems to be trying to convince everyone here that I am
> a hired salesman of Nuance. (Dragon)


> Andy himself came up with that absurd accusation,
> which he repeats over and over, going by Hitler's
> theory that a lie repeated often enough will be
> believed.


That sounds interestingly like a backpedal because the truth really hurts
especially when you are found out.

Once again, read the above and draw your own conclusions.



> Andy does not realize that a person can like a product,
> without being a saleman for that same product.


I like cheese on toast but I don't bring it up as a topic in a Microsoft
Windows news group forum.


> I like Dragon for the same reason that most all people
> like Dragon, it is simply the best of all the SR app's
> available to Vista users.


Bingo! There you have it plainly written above that it is simply the best
available to Vista users. TO VISTA USERS! If that is not advertising a
completely unrelated product in a Vista news group, then I don't know what
is!


I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that as well.


> To prove this simple fact, one has to look no further than
> the history of Nuance...


< SNIPPED >


I have snipped the rest because Troll Conrad goes into 33 lines of a tirade
about the history of Nuance with a couple of references in there just for
good measure. That's almost a book!

Off topic or what? Anything to do with Microsoft Windows Vista? Will that
help anybody in here with any problems?

I will leave you with the statement that Troll Conrad wrote at the top of
this post. In his own words. In his own context. And in black-and-white for
you all to see. Then tell me who is determined to undermine the productive
upbeat purpose of this news group?


>Apparently Andy is determined to undermine the
>productive upbeat purpose of this NG, namely to
>discuss Windows/Vista general topics, and help
>each other.


Now I will leave you to draw your own conclusions with that as well.

No doubt as a salesman, he will come back in to try and justify the above.
After all, that's what all salesman do because they have the gift of the gab
and will spin black to white in their aim to try and sell you their product.
;-)

Do not be fooled for a minute.

andy t

"Mark Conrad" The fastest backpedal merchant in the world!




>> 1. I dictated the test document in the typing/dictation speed test. (He
>> actually copied and pasted it several times over)




> I did not "copied and pasted" it, there are several other
>ways of getting text into that typing website, OTHER THAN
>copying and pasting, which is why discredited that typing


First things first. Why don't you tell us all how you did it other than
copying and pasting it? (Let us see If he actually answers this)


>website by posting that THEY can be fooled by anyone,
>because THEY (the typing website) posted that MY dictation
>speed was 836 wpm.


Perfect backpedalling as only a salesman could pitch trying to wriggle out
of your predicament.


I have already explained this in my earlier posts so that viewers can easily
see what bullshit you do come out with. I will explain it again and correct
your dribble and trying to claw your way out of it.


I KNOW that the website can be fooled and cheated because I did it as well
remember by copying and pasting the test, text document in several times
over until I reached 967 wpm.


Even if you did not copy and paste. Even if you did something else to cheat
it. That was not the object of the exercise.


If you read ALL the posts in the thread, I explained that I took the test
legitimately. That means, I did not copy and paste, I did not cheat in any
other way. All I did was dictate legal and honest, the way you are meant to
dictate by speaking the words, as you will see with my name beside the
tests.


Now, you have always professed you can dictate in the 300s wpm with 100%
accuracy every time on the WWW with your medical jargon in it or not. Now we
have only got your word for that without ANY PROOF because you CANNOT PROVE
IT. This is only your word telling us this. So for a start how do we know
that you are not cheating with that? There is no way of knowing, it is only
your word, which I for one do not accept.


So I put before you a test on the WWW where you could prove your claims once
and for all without the need to just post them on the WWW willy-nilly to say
you did, which proved nothing.


Now you obviously tried before hand because the posts directly preceding the
ones where you actually signed your name to, were only showing 43 wpm. This
was obviously you beforehand practising using proper dictation. As in
speaking the words rather than cheating. And then when you found you could
not do it, all you could do was cheat to cover your tracks and make up some
bullshit story that the typist website could not give an accurate readout
and added that you were trying to ridicule me.


Indeed, you have also since in one of your recent posts I believe, try to
backpedal and add arguments such as you need to shove papers through
reviewers or familiarise yourself with the words first which is all bullshit
backpedalling and your way of trying to wriggle out of the truth. I did not
do all that and I still managed an average of 150 wpm.


Now getting back to what I was originally saying. If I can take the test
LEGITIMATELY by speaking the words LEGITIMATELY so therefore dictating
LEGITIMATELY with BOTH speech apps. Why could you not do it exactly the same
way as I did LEGITIMATELY to prove your point. Instead of cheating and
putting all the bullshit stories you can muster instead to backpedal with
all your life?


I will tell you why. Because you cannot dictate that many words that you say
you can and get 100% accuracy. So why should anybody believe what you say
again by simply putting text documents on the WWW with lots of intricate
words in and then saying you dictated them with 100% accuracy?


Also if you read all the posts in that thread in order, it was only when
another poster corrected you in that thread, that you then started to
backpedal realising what a Prat you sounded by saying that. Anybody can see
this if they read all the posts in that thread in order, not just some of
them that you care to pick and choose.


> Here are a list of your lies to date:
> I dictated the test document in the typing/dictation speed test.



> ...and now expects us all to believe he can
> dictate 836 words per minute and be 100% accurate LOL!




>I never said I could do any such thing, it is just another one
>of your many lies about me, like the time you posted that I
>supposedly said I could dictate at 600 wpm.


I did not say you could dictate 600 wpm. However, in your post titled:-


"Speech Recognition (SR) at 600 wpm, possible?"


YOU DID SAY this.


> Now my computer is not particularly fast, with a really
> fast computer, it is quite conceivable that 600 wpm
> could easily be handled by Dragon, provided you could
> speak that fast. (a few people can)
>
> ...with 100% text accuracy, except not with WSR,


Your very own words in context.


Two lies in one there. Firstly, Dragon would not be able to understand her
gobbledygook speaking at that speed. Secondly, Dragon would not have any
accuracy at all because it would not be able to interpret any of the words
from her gobbledygook.


I have explained all this in my previous posts. I have put the links down
for the woman who can speak 600 wpm and explained in great detail why she
would fail using Dragon. No need to go through all of it again because it is
all there in black and white with all the proof needed.


>You never did apologize to me about that 600 wpm lie,
>so I do not expect you to apologize about this newer lie of yours,


No need to apologise. Look above **** for brains. Check out the whole facts
in my more detailed post about this.


>Nowhere in my post did I claim that I
>could dictate at 836 wpm.


>If you were not such an idiot, you would have spotted my
>words: "ACCORDING TO ANDY'S TEST SITE"


Very selectively chosen. When you read in order ALL the posts in that thread
is quite clearly a backpedal as I have explained above.


That STILL does not explain why you did not take them test legitimately as I
did.



>If you were not such an idiot, you would realize that no one
>could dictate at 836 wpm, not even the worlds fastest
>talkers, who can only talk at about 600 wpm.


You only posted that after another poster corrected your idiot post
beforehand as I have explained above. Only AFTER the poster corrected you,
did you start your backpedalling with your statement above.


All of this is a smokescreen anyway because at the end of the day, you did
not dictate a bean and did not take the test properly in the first place to
prove your claims. And you still haven't.




> actual post below, which Andy is lying about:



Now you claim you never ever did say that you *dictated* the test.
Fortunately, you have conveniently put the whole post below for me, saving
me the time to find it again.

Let's take a look at the appropriate wording in your post.


> 836 wpm, my dictation speed with 100% accuracy,


Yep. It certainly says "MY DICTATION speed with 100% accuracy" to my eyes.
Notice the operative word *dictation*. Implying that this was his dictation
speed and therefore basically, saying he had dictated the test.


> according to Andy's test site below:


It WAS NOT according to the test site. It was not according to anything
because you did not take the test legitimately because you could not produce
the results. So you cheated then simply put "according to Andy's test site
below" as an obvious smokescreen and backpedal because you could not produce
your claims the legitimate way. By dictating as I did.


Gheeze! This Troll should do the backpedal in the Olympics. He would win
every time!


> Now perhaps Andy will stop lying about me
> being afraid to run that speed test,
> at a site he himself selected.


"being afraid to run that speed test". You are not supposed to run anything.
You were supposed to dictate legitimately as I did as I am now.


Yes, I selected the site. In the hope that you would take the test on that
site PROPERLY and LEGITIMATELY by actually DICTATING. As I did.



> Now you paralyzed-brain idiot, where in there did I post:

>"I dictated the test document in the typing/dictation speed test."


> 836 wpm, my dictation speed with 100% accuracy, - < There it is you moron!


You lying cheating fraudulent wrinkled up old troll! Sort out your dementia
because you forget everything you do post as soon as you have put it down.


> Can't find it, can you?


LOOK ABOVE DICKHEAD AND GET YOUR BRAIN FIXED!


> Now there are many more lies in your posts, but unlike you
> I prefer to refute one lie at a time, so today's topic was
> your repeated lie about my dictation speed, your 836wpm lie.


And now everybody knows it is not a lie. As I say, I have posted this before
and anybody can check in my previous posts in great detail to find all your
bullshit lies Mr. slippery backpedal extraordinaire!


andy t

Troll Conrad's Lie




> 836 wpm, my dictation speed with 100% accuracy,


Yep. It certainly says "MY DICTATION speed with
100% accuracy" to my eyes. Notice the operative
word *dictation*. Implying that this was his
dictation speed and therefore basically,
saying he had dictated the test.


>The Actual Post Segment, 2/16/2009 4.40 KB
>(Thread titled "836 wpm with
> 100% accuracy, "typing speed test")


Please do read all of the thread in order. You will see him backpedalling
for all his life.

You will see he changed his tune and story AFTER he was corrected and found
out by another independent poster.



> 836 wpm, my dictation speed with 100% accuracy,
> according to Andy's test site below:

> http://www.now1technologies.com/typetest


That's just a snippet that troll Conrad plucked from the air in one segment
of the whole thread. he quickly backpedalled once a poster told him all his
ridiculous claims. Please do read all of the thread. It will all become
clear that this deadbeat troll tried to backpedal AFTER THAT FACT.

After all this, notice he has still not explained why he hasn't taken the
test legitimately as I did without needing to cheat, doing it properly and
getting 150 wpm. That is because he would fail miserably proving all his
bullshit lies and as for getting 300 odd wpm, the troll is living in cloud
cuckoo land along with Peter Pan, Wendy and Tinkerbell.


>Andy now resorting to snipping out critical parts of
>my posts, in order to make my posts appear to be lies. I am surprised that
>he does not clip out >individual words,
>then glue them together as new lies.


R - i - g - h - t


Please do read all the thread in order. You will see he changed his tune
quite clearly AFTER another independent poster corrected him as an idiot.
Troll Conrad then goes on AFTER the independent poster mentions that no one
can type 836 wpm only AFTER that did he say he was trying to ridicule me.


R - i - g - h - t Course you was Troll Conrad ;-)


It is all immaterial anyway, because he STILL did not take the test
LEGITIMATELY and had to resort to CHEATING because he could not prove his
wild, ridiculous claims because they are all bullshit!


He is very good at putting up smokescreens to try and deflect the real
issue. In this case, why did he not take the test legitimately in the first
place to compare to my legitimate dictation?


I will leave you to draw your own conclusions why. It doesn't take an
Einstein to work it out.

Now you remember in my previous post I mentioned "let's see if he comes back
and tells us how he really did it by cheating another way. Instead of
copying and pasting"?

You notice he hasn't answered this. I told you so. This is what I suspected.

He is the fastest copy and paste expert in the west! LOL!

Proof that he is the lying cheating fraudulent troll that everybody now
knows he is.


>He is a pathetic useless person, offering nothing but lies
>to the good people in this NG.


That sounds like a backpedal as tries to deflect the communication from all
the his bullshit he has posted to trying to blame me as being no good for
this news group. One only has to look at what the other posters are saying
about you sunny Jim, okay.
Read my previous post about useful things to this VISTA newsgroup you moron.

Troll Conrad is about as useful to this news group as a chocolate fireguard.
All he ever does is come in here to advertise and try to sell his product
DNS. He is a Nuance salesman with an agenda.

The only one who is pathetic and made himself look like a prize **** is
Troll Conrad with all his backpedalling bullshit.

Everybody now knows you are lying, cheating fraudulent troll who just copies
and pastes everything and then just posts it in this news group. B - F - D!


You have not dealt with this lie because it is ISN'T a lie. Nor are any of
the others.

1. I dictated the test document in the typing/dictation speed test. (He
actually copied and pasted it several times over)

2. It is conceivable that Dragon would be able to interpret somebody
properly, speaking at 600 wpm.

3. It is conceivable that Dragon would be able to interpret somebody
properly, speaking at 600 wpm AND be a 100% accurate.

4. I can dictate 836 wpm

5. I can dictate 836 wpm with 100% accuracy

6. I reckon I could dictate 320 wpm

7. I reckon I could dictate 320 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

8. I can dictate 307.2 wpm

9. I can dictate 307.2 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

10. I can dictate 260 wpm

11. I can dictate 260 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

12. I can dictate 200 wpm

13. I can dictate 200 wpm with 100% accuracy using Dragon

14. I can dictate 150 wpm with 100% accuracy every time using Dragon.

15. I do not copy and paste my sample test documents that I put in this
newsgroup for all the WWW to see.

16. A typist speed test cannot be compared or measured to dictation speed in
wpm.

17. I know how the WSR toolkit would perform when used in conjunction with
WSR, even though I do not own a copy of the software.

18. The WSR toolkit has to have a reviewer in it to enhance accuracy. All of
the other features within it will not perform this function.

19. WSR is crap.

20. I am not a liar.

21. I am not a cheat.

22. I am not a bullshitter.

23. I am not a fraudulent troll

24. I am an expert in the field of speech recognition.

25. I know what a homonym is.

26. I know what a homophone is.

27. Spelling correctly is not important.

28. I am not a salesman promoting Dragon in this news group

29. Tutu is a homonym of to, too and two.

30. Tutu is a homophone of to, too and two.

31. The words to, too and two do not come out spelt correctly when used in
context dictating with Dragon and WSR.

32. I was only trying to ridicule Andy regarding the 836 wpm speed dictation
test scenario

33. I do not make up my own rules regarding speech dictation speed and
accuracy.

34. I do not backpedal.

35. The new 'Show Numbers' software for Dragon is better than the WSR
version.


andy t