Re: Why is Mark Conrad so thick?

"Mark Conrad" <> wrote: His usual repetitive bull ****!




>Concerning the broken document scanning in WSR:

Been answered, repetitiveness, you're like a broken record!> Mark, nowhere did I say the feature is broken or code is broken.

>You did not need to say it in so many words. People with
>cognitive capability can easily figure out the document
>scanning feature of WSR is broken, from what you did post.

You haven't any ability except to put words into people's mouth dumbass.
Can't you read? Nowhere did he say the feature is broken. Look above you
dumb ****. He's just told you in his own words.
Not only can you not spell properly, it seems you have difficulty with
reading as well. You should have done better at school you dense wannabe.

>This lets out "andy t", as he has no cognitive abilities,
>he is dumb as a rock.

Says he at 80-years-old illiterate who still cannot spell properly and does
not know the proper meaning of a homonym LOL!
Ah but who was the one who passed your silly little test in 20 seconds
whereas you are still trying to work it out after three weeks! Who is the
dumb one? ;-)

'would that bee be flying South'. Yes, it still works. Let's try again once
more to see it is no fluke.
'would that bee be flying South'
'would that bee be flying South'

That's proving it was no fluke. I bet you haven't even tried it that way yet
have you? 20 seconds and I blew your theory out of the water!

>Here is your relevant posted comment:

> 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.

Repetitiveness. I told you how to do it in my last post. No toolkit needed.
No macro needed. Try it you dumb ****!

>It does not take a genius to figure out that to handle the simple
>test sentence: "Would that bee be flying south?"
>without any error, requires that the "document scanning" feature
>has to be functioning properly.

Repetitive bull ****! You don't need any document scanning feature, you
don't need the toolkit and you don't need a macro. All you need is WSR's
speech dictionary. It takes 20 seconds.

>If document scanning is broken, results similar to this
>will occur:

>"Would that be be flying south?"

"Would that bee be flying south?" Not when trained through the Windows
speech dictionary :-) as you can see it is still working since I trained it.
No toolkit needed. No macro needed ;-) .

>get the correct version in one out of ten tries.

"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"
"Would that bee be flying south?"

I just dictated that 10 times with WSR. Not one mistake. All by training it
in the speech dictionary. No toolkit needed, no macro needed.

>With a working document scanning feature, I get the
>correct version of the test sentence all the time,
>in ten out of ten tries.

Look above dick head! 10 out of 10 tries and without needing your so-called
document scanning feature. All from training in the Windows speech
dictionary which takes 20 seconds and remains within the dictionary from
your recorded pronunciation.

>The proof of that is that there is no difference in WSRs
>average number of errors between:

Look above dick head! Dictated your test 10 times with no errors by training
in the speech dictionary.

>That difference is especially pronounced on words that
>are not strictly homonyms...

Bull **** repetitive nonsense! This has been answered and explained.

>When document scanning was active in Dragon, all the
>above words came out correctly, as in the right column.

Don't need your so-called document scanner. Look above. If you need
instructions to look above, I suggest you get some help ;-)

>Or I could listen to reason...

That's impossible! You would forget the next day!

>I will stick to using actual speech recognition tests,
>rather than using car analogies, thank you ;-)

Boy what an interesting and useful life you will have then! ;-)

If your little tests keep you amused in your twilight years, then good for
you. It will be good therapy for you and your tiny little brain!

andy t