Re: Refuting the MANY lies from the troll "andy t"

"Mark Conrad" will give out any lie to backpedal as fast as he can.






"Mark Conrad" wrote: backpedalling as fast as his little arms will take
him.


> I will refute just one of Andy's multiplicity
> of lies in this latest tirade of his.


Only one? So he is admitting all the rest are true! ;-) Which they are.


Especially the typing/dictation speed test where he could not prove how many
wpm he could dictate compared with the wild claims of how many he said he
could. This is why I do not believe a word he says when he just says "I have
dictated this" or "I have dictated that" with 100% accuracy. Anybody can
copy and paste and you cannot prove it anyway just by putting your little
citations on the screen and expecting us to believe you!


> Andy is so desperate here that he is referring to
> an old thread of mine on 12/25/2009 (3.49 KB)


Not desperate, just factual because they are all your own words and in
context.


> Title of thread: "Question for Speech Recognition guru"
>
> My post is 11-posts down from the opening post.


Try posts 7 & 9 down from the opening post in the same thread BEFORE he had
a chance to backpedal when corrected thus REALISING that his original
statement was incorrect.


This is what he stated answering my first comment below in that thread in
post 9.


>> There you go Mark, now you have learned something
>> and 'tutu' is not a homonym.
>
> It certainly is. Below is a list of two homonyms:
>
> tutu tutu
>
>
>
> Here is another list of two homonyms:
>
> tutu two
>
>
> homonym (noun)
> each of two words having the same pronounciation
> but different meanings, origins, or spelling


There it is in black and white, in his OWN words and all in context for the
whole WWW to see so they can judge for themselves.

Quite clearly saying that 'tutu' and 'tutu' are homonyms of each other when
in reality all they are; the same word.

He then goes on to quite clearly state that tutu and two are also homonyms
WHICH THEY ARE NOT!


> 1) Just for beginners, my old post referred to
> homonyms, not homophones, as in Andy's post today
> where he suddenly injects "homophones" into a
> 3-month old post about "homonyms", but so be it,
> I will play his silly game.


Actually, to, too or two are not homonyms in the first place strictly
speaking. They are homophones. Another fact you got wrong in your statement
at that time.


> 2) Notice there was no quoting of the individual
> words tutu, to, too, two, as in Andy's
> creative-quoting today.


Read above. They were DIRECT QUOTES in your OWN words and in your OWN
context in black and white ALL YOUR OWN CREATION Mr slippery. You learnt
from your first made up mistake that you got totally wrong regarding the
homonym.


> 3) Keep in mind that my dictation of the sentence
> sounds like this:
>
> thefourwordstwotwotwotwotwoarehomonyms
>
>
>
> Now Andy's Big Point today is that supposedly the
> word "tutu" is NOT a homophone of "twotwo".
>
> He desperately tries to confuse the issue with his lie
> about me supposedly quoting the individual words
>
> "two" "two"


> ...WHICH I NEVER DID IN THE ORIG OLD POST 3 MONTHS AGO


I think I have hit a nerve.

Yes you did and I've quoted it above before you had a chance of
backpedalling and changing your statement. This is what happens when Mr
slippery decides to have an attack of selective forgetfulness.


> If indeed tutu is NOT a homophone of twotwo as Andy
> claims, then Andy should have no trouble "spotting"



> the four words tutu two two two are homophones


I take that back, you do have a stutter ;-)


More backpedalling.

So now they are homophones and not homonyms as you originally stated.
Changing your mind like the weather again Mr slippery.


> Andy can not determine where "tutu" is in the sentence,
> that means that Andy is wrong (lying) when he claims that
> tutu is NOT a homophone of twotwo


is where Conrad needs humouring for the complete ignorance he possesses. So
I feel I have to explain to him in baby steps to prove why he is wrong and
see if it goes into the old grey matter.

I UNDERSTAND what you're saying. I UNDERSTAND tutu sounds exactly the same
as twotwo and I UNDERSTAND when using speech recognition the way you have
presented your little example, all of your words in succession sound the
same.

However, the FACT remains and you do know what is meant by the word 'FACT'
don't you. It means it is a FACT and is FACTUAL therefore, it is TRUE. So I
do not have to put the definition down for you.

Because surely, even you know what FACT means. Also EVIDENCE and PROOF of
which I produced OVERWHELMING, INSURMOUNTABLE AMOUNTS OF in my last post
with the links I produced which you cannot possibly refute.

Tutu is not a homophone of anything! It is a separate word with two
syllables. There is no such word as 'tu' on its own Mr slippery therefore,
tutu is not a homophone of anything!

It does not matter that tutu sounds the same as twotwo, they are not
homophones of each other. Fact. You said they were.


This is a homophone dictionary with EVERY SINGLE HOMOPHONE IN IT. Find me
the one that matches tutu? Let us see you slide out of that one Mr
slippery.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/homofone.htm#t


I even found this rule for you to digest within the dictionary.


"We omit pairs of words that, when pronounced together, sound like some
other single word, e.g. a cord, accord. We stick to this rule even when the
relation between a given pair and a given single word is not accidental,
e.g. back ache, backache."


You notice, within that statement they mention that they stick to the rule


Rule: (noun)- 1. Principle governing conduct. An authoritative principle set
forth to guide behaviour or action. 2. norm. Something regarded as customary
or normal.

Therefore, tutu is not in the homophone dictionary next to twotwo so
therefore they are not homophones of each other.


Now you watch him come back bleating on about that the words sound alike so
therefore they are homophones. This simply is not true. It is as I've said
all along. He backpedals more times than I care to remember to apply his
bullshit as a smokescreen to try and blind you with science.


> The word homophone comes from the Greek homo
> meaning same and phone meaning sound. Strictly
> speaking therefore, the word homophone is used to
> refer to words which sound alike, although they have
> a different spelling and meaning.


Yes I know that. I read the article in Wiki as well. That does not change
the fact that tutu and twotwo are not homophones of each other.


> tutu and twotwo sound alike to my ears.


Except there is no such word as twotwo in the English dictionary so it
cannot possibly be a homophone of tutu. God you are dense.


It does not matter what they sound like to your ears, tutu and twotwo not
homophones of each other, otherwise tutu would be next to twotwo in the
homophone dictionary if they were.


Now I dug this out especially for you Conrad to make it easier for you to
comprehend. This is all to do with speech recognition and their identifying
of homophones. See if you can find your tutu in there as one with twotwo.


Now pay attention because it also lays to rest our dispute over using
homophones or homonyms in context where you say Dragon or WSR cannot
decipher this. Proving you wrong Once more. This is the actual speech
recognition developers saying this. Please try to take this into that dense
brain of yours.


Apparatus and methods for identifying homophones among words in A speech
recognition system before APPARATUS

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/62...scription.html


I love to see Troll Conrad wriggle and squirm and backpedal with all his
might but get nowhere in the end.
Will deal with your other backpedalling bullshit posts when I get back from
a family outing.

andy t