Why does Mark Conrad keep putting his foot in his mouth?

"Mark Conrad" <> wrote more lies, deceit and rule
changing.






>Working my way through your post from top to bottom,
>with salient comments interspersed by me.


Good for you! It gives you something to do in your twilight years and keeps
you occupied I suppose.




>> or indeed any other speech app.


>Incorrect, not trainable in WSR, without resorting
>to an unwieldy hack.



Now I see we are changing the goalposts once again. A familiar trait you
carry proving conclusively that you make up your own rules to suit your own
ends.

Let's have a little recap shall we ;-). People can easily refer back and
see exactly what you wrote in your previous posts.
You implied I could not train any word and in particular a medical word such
as annulopapillary. There it is again using WSR coming out first time,
which conclusively proves you wrong.

NOW you are saying in your very own words above that it can be done albeit
by your interpretation of an unwieldy hack. I wish you would make up your
mind as to what rules you are using.


And anyway, I did not need an unwieldy hack to do it. If you read my posts
properly, the technique is all in the way you pronounce it when recording a
pronunciation of it in the speech dictionary.


I spoke the actual word but just broke it down in gentle pauses as in
'annul-o-papillary' annulopapillary. There it is again, works without fail
for me. There is nothing unwieldy about that. I cannot help it if it works
every time for me using that technique.
You do come out with some poppycock ;-). I bet its great fun playing
Monopoly with you. I bet by the end the game, you'd have invented a new
one! What with all your rule changing and bull **** :-).



> I can easily go to the dictionary and delete those words.
> The reason I am keeping them in, is to prove to an ignorant
> old man that they will stay there and stick and will
> come out on screen every time I pronounce them ;-).



>Provided you remember the unwieldy hack you have to
>speak in order to get that word to come out correctly.



Ah! So there's a proviso now? So now you are admitting it can be done.

That's a little bit different from the original question and test you put to
me. Changing the rules once again Tsk! tsk! Just the same with your words
per minute scenario that you backtracked on several times.




>A decent speech app would not require that a user has to
>use such hacks, as they place an unnecessary burden
>on the user.


Works for me, no burden at all ;-). In fact by doing it in 20 seconds, this
sort of blows your theory out of the water! Your tests are easy peasy, even
with that medical word annulopapillary when spoken as recorded and
concisely. There it is again above. No unwieldy hack needed. You do seem
to get yourself into a pickle, don't you :-).



> >BTW, I found out a little more about the newest bug in WSR.
> >If I butcher the word "annulopapillary" by wrongly pronouncing
> >it as "annulopapill" - - - THEN the correct word "annulopapillary"
> >is printed, without any trailing crap after the word.

> There you go then! You have found a way to split up the syllables so>
> that it will come out on->screen without any problems.



>BIG problem, unwieldy hack.



Read the above. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.




> > BTW, I found out a little more about the newest bug in WSR.

> How can that be a bug if it works?




>bug (noun)
>an error in a computer program



I know what the word means but I've been telling you virtually in every post
that it WORKS for me. Therefore, 'bug' or 'error' does not apply, does not
conform, and is irrelevant.

Irrelevant (adjective) not applicable :-).


>If _you_ consider it normal practice to tolerate needing
>to speak several words...



I didn't. Read the above. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt :-).



>To me, it is a big fat ugly bug, not to be tolerated.


Who cares what you think!!! That is irrelevant.

Irrelevant (adjective) not applicable :-).




> Nobody is saying that WSR is perfect...


>That is a gross understatement.



Not at all. None of the speech apps is perfect actually.



> I am just proving points that work within WSR...


>The only thing you are proving is how much of an
>apologist you are for a crappy speech app.



LOL! I can see it is getting to you by your above remark. I do not have to
apologise for anything seeing as I have polished off all of your little
pointless tests in a matter of seconds and again as I say, proving you wrong
so easily and I love it :-)).
Don't take it to heart Mark; you'll give yourself a heart attack at your age
;-).

I told you in the last post. If it is so crappy, stop using it you moron.
Spend more time with your imaginary friend if it's too difficult for your
ailing brain.




> As I said before, if that's what you think, then why are you
> still using WSR?

>Because I want to give WSR every possible chance to succeed...



Who cares what you want. That is irrelevant.

Irrelevant (adjective) not applicable :-).
I succeeded ;-).



>If it is just barely adequate, fine, I will recommend it...



In which case, that means nothing. Your opinion is irrelevant ;-).
Irrelevant (adjective) not applicable :-).



>Right now, the "document scanning bug" is causing me to
>give a thumbs-down judgement...



Then stop using it etc etc.

Your judgement means nothing, as you are no expert. So, it is irrelevant
;-).

Irrelevant (adjective) not applicable :-).




> It's quite simple really. Put the WSR to one side and use
> your Dragon preferred and then everybody will be happy,
> won't they?


>Everyone except the "poor" doctors.



Bullshit! A likely excuse.

Doctors are not poor, only your excuses are.



>I _still_ recommend WSR...


< SNIP >


Who cares what you recommend. Your opinion is irrelevant.

Irrelevant (adjective) not applicable :-).




>Such people get "exposure" to SR, when they would otherwise
>become overwhelmed by Dragon.



Poppycock! On the contrary. I have been using Dragon Professional since
November last year and found it relatively easy to use. I am already making
macros in the Command Browser with no problem at all except for a little
advice from the experts now and again.
It took me a little time to get used to and memorise the slightly different
commands and quirks that WSR has but that's all. Now I interact between the
two (read my previous post on how easy it is done) and I have memorised
virtually all the different sets of commands between BOTH apps. I have the
best of both worlds between two excellent apps at my disposal. Believe me;
myself being a quadriplegic they have to be good otherwise, I would not use
them!



>Only the dumber dodos like you stick with it, when they
>become aware of the many limitations of WSR.



Temper! temper! Proving you wrong gives me great satisfaction. That
proves YOU are the dumb one by setting your pathetic tests that I have
passed with flying colours with WSR every time ;-).



>Have to run now Andy, seems some doctor or other wantsto lay claim to my
>body this morning; I >think she is interested
> my brain, and wants to use it as a model for a cyborg
>brain she is working on.



Why? Does she want the cyborg to be unintelligent and have dementia?


I am guessing she must be your imaginary friend ;-).




>Will pick up my critique of the rest of your interesting post
>in a few hours, after my forthcoming brain transplant.



If only that were possible.

Let's hope they make a better job of it than the first time :-).

andy t

"Mark Conrad" has lost it!





LOL! I have noticed your posts are getting longer and longer just to try
and get your futile points across with palpable failure each time. Most of
the points we have already covered; I have answered AND proved you wrong.
So there is no use going over old ground just because you have a sad case of
dementia and a failing memory. It is obvious for everyone to see you have
no family life. Either that or you have forgotten you have one.


So are we ready?

Questions already been answered can be checked by looking through previous
posts. So I do not waste any more of my valuable time, I will scornfully
remind you of these, as it is self evident you are incapable of remembering
for yourself ;-).



> Now my question is: If there are pros and cons within each speech app and
> it
> is that quick to interact between the two, do you not find it sensible to
> get the best out of both of them therefore making life even easier? I
> know
> it has for me ;-).



>Oh yes indeed, but keep in mind that our toy computers
>can easily become overwhelmed with too many apps,
>even if those apps are on standby.



1. WSR is integrated within the operating system and takes up little
resource.
2. Although Dragon is well known for being a resource hog, they recommend
the requirements of your PC be a minimum of 2 GB. Since most PCs these days
now are made with at least that requirement, the problem should not arise.
My old PC was 2 GB and I had WSR and Dragon running side-by-side (as I
explained in one of my previous posts) working with no problem at all.

I have 4 GB on my new machine with a very fast processor and sometimes I
have had 12 different applications running at the same time and all being
interacted by using commands from either WSR or Dragon that are ALWAYS OPEN.
I have no trouble at all ;-).



>Medical radiologists commonly open & run Dragon,
>then they also have open a $5,000 app on the same
>computer...


If they can afford an app costing $5000 then they sure as hell can afford
any computer capable of running it. Keep it real! We are talking about
domestic and business users where the size of the hard drive on a computer
is concerned.

As I've been saying all along, the right tools for the right job and I
firmly believe, especially in the medical profession, they would not skimp
on a tool just because it was cheaper.

Having said that, I don't see your point here. What has a $5000 app got to
do with WSR or Dragon?
One minute you're saying doctors are so poor they would prefer to use an app
that is not designed for their ultimate requirements. Next, you are off the
scale talking of a $5000 app they use. Medical radiologists, doctors. All
still work within the medical profession. Therefore, I would imagine they
could not afford to skimp. (As I have been saying all along).



> That is why I use both because for me,
> they both have their excellent uses.


>Humph! - I have yet to find a use for WSR.



Then stop using it! Repeated it hundreds of times to you before. (Read my
previous posts to suggest what to do with your time instead) ;-).



>Occasionally, some lost soul will wander into the
>KnowBrainer forum,
>spouting the same drivel as you do...




Wrong! I use the KnowBrainer forums for advice on Dragon, not WSR. Seeing
as this is a predominantly Dragon advisory website, this makes sense do you
not think?



>And the experts there
>are quick to point out to him that the Dragon commands
>can do everything that the WSR commands can...



Well they would, wouldn't they seeing as though they are trying to sell the
Dragon and KnowBrainer software to you. Along with all the microphones on
the same website. Nothing unusual about that. That is just good business
sense just as any good salesman would advise you to buy his wares. After
all, they are trying to make a living ;-).



>plus a heck of
>a lot more things that WSR can not do, such as enable use of a
>high quality digital recorder (the $600 Olympus DS-5000)
>specifically designed for SR use, with synched audio playback,
>where a Dragon user can _hear_ the words at the same exact
>time they are appearing on the screen.



Plus a lot more? You have mentioned one thing above. Hardly a lot more is
it.


Seeing as I only use my PC at home. I have no need for such an item. To be
honest, I do not know if WSR can be used with a digital recorder or not. My
guess is that it can but you are better off consulting Marty on that one.
Nevertheless, that will not lose me any sleep and clutching at straws by
trying to impress me with one supposedly item, shows how desperate you are.

So now these poor doctors as you call them not only have to buy a cheap
speech app, they have to invest further with more equipment really classed
as luxury extras. If they don't want to buy an expensive speech app (the
right one to suit their needs,) they are hardly likely to consider anything
else, are they.



>Dig' recorders are great when I am away from a computer,



I'm sorry it does not rock my boat and is surplus to my requirements anyway.
Besides, I'm sure this can be done with WSR anyway; otherwise, Marty would
not sell digital recorders.



My god! I expected you to list out all the many extras you boasted about
above, that Dragon has over WSR. You have listed one!

Instead, I looked below and all I saw was a brief insight into your
autobiography about when you went jogging and was totally irrelevant!

Irrelevant: (Adjective). Not applicable.

Nice try though ;-)


The first and most obvious advantage WSR has over Dragon is cost and the
second most obvious advantage is it comes integrated within a complete
operating system. (That's two straight away)


Within the programmes themselves, there are quite a few little advantages
and timesavers that WSR possesses which Dragon does not which I have
mentioned in previous posts. Mainly on the command side. When using
dictation, the commands needed to move the cursor, correct, delete or change
something etc. They can both handle this no problem and there is virtually
no difference between them except you might have to say a different command
within each app to achieve the same result.


For example to insert the cursor before or after a word in Dragon you would
say "insert before" or "insert after" the word. In WSR, you would say, "go
after" or "go before" the word.


Yet even here, WSR has a slight advantage over Dragon. I will explain.


If you use the command above, for example. You say go or insert after or
before a word, if the same word is duplicated on the screen either once or
multiple times, Dragon will only go to the nearest version of that word with
the cursor whereas using WSR the numbers will come up on each duplicate of
the word and you can choose which one you want to interact with. By the way,
the new show numbers software that can be used with Dragon cannot do this as
far as I'm aware.


This is not so bad in Dragon because you can choose a word quite near to the
one you want to interact with and then use the command. Nevertheless, it is
still an unwanted extra command and a pain in the ass and especially so if
the command is "delete so and so" and Dragon deletes the wrong duplicated
word, you want instead of giving you a choice by WSR with the numbers. This
then being a failsafe methods of never getting the wrong duplicated word you
want no matter how many times the word is duplicated.


Then there is the show numbers command itself that we all know now Dragon
has copied because it is a faster way to get around the computer. (Just As
Well, Microsoft or the computer guru who invented the show numbers within
WSR did not patent it. Otherwise, Nuance would still be in the slow lane on
the command side).


I am actually quite pleased that this software is now available to Dragon
because it simplifies everything. Having said that, over the next months it
is bound to need more tweaks to get anywhere near the WSR version that is
far superior at the moment.


For example, (and you can correct me if I am wrong because I haven't tried
it fully myself yet) I have four mail accounts each with its own inbox, sent
items etc. In WSR, if I simply say "inbox," then only four number pulses
will come up labelled 1-4 on each inbox and I just choose the one I want.
This is as opposed to simply saying "show numbers" which will effectively
highlight everything. I do not believe it works like this in Dragon and is
not selective like WSR is.


Then there is your clutching at straws argument that the new show numbers
software can be faded so you can see the menus below. Seeing as the show
number pulses flash on and off in WSR, there is no need for this.


Another command I have found works better in WSR than Dragon is if you want
to switch from one program application to the next. I know you can say
switch to blah blah blah in Dragon but if you cannot remember the program
you want or it has a long or unusual name, you may as well give up!


This invariably happens in Dragon so the next step is to say "switch to
window 1" or "switch to window 2" but then you have to remember which window
is what number and sometimes I have 12 applications up on screen at any one
time. Geeze! What a commotion and BIG DISADVANTAGE.


I know you got the show numbers program now to deal with this problem (which
you eventually will have to buy) but I didn't even need the show numbers in
WSR to sort this out. All you say is "switch application" then a window will
pop up on screen naming all the exact names of the applications you have
open at the time and each one numbered. You simply choose the number of the
application you want and it comes up on screen straight away. This
eliminates having to memorise which program in which in Dragon and better
than that, you do not need to try and get your tongue around long-standing
application names. This is even quicker than using the show numbers
alternative in Dragon.


Those are just a few, I could give you more but I think you get the gist
now.


To be balanced, there are also some commands in Dragon that I find easier
than using in WSR but not as many.


THAT, is why I use both. Dragon mainly for dictation especially on long
essays or writings interacting with WSR in an instant to use the much
quicker command side in certain aspects as I have explained. And WSR for
commands and dictation for smaller shorter documents such as e-mail etc and
definitely for getting around the computer faster if I want to surf etc.


Dragon has a bit more catching up to do to beat WSR on the command side but
the show numbers software is heading it a bit closer and that is if you
include the KnowBrainer software running alongside it as well. Without that,
forget it! That is another disadvantage in Dragon because you need to pay
for this additional software to get the maximum out of it and you have to
have Dragon in the first place for the KnowBrainer software to work.


As I say, the show numbers software should improve it just as in every newer
version of WSR, the dictation is becoming more accurate. This is evolution
at work my friend ;-)




> If you find WSR no use at all, then do us all a favour
> and just stop using it and move on.


>I plan to, once I wring it out a bit more.



THANK CHRIST! There is a God after all ;-).


> If it is that bad in your eyes, why are you spending so much
> time with it?


>Like I told you before, because others ask me about it.



And very wise of them to do so indeed.


> >"annulopapillary" is correctly pronounced as:



I am not interested in how it is pronounced. All I am interested in is
proving your point wrong and that it will come out on screen every time I
pronounce it. I may be pronouncing it improperly but the principle remains
the same. As long as it is in the speech dictionary and you pronounce it the
way you recorded it, then it will work. (Didn't I say this before?) Blimey,
I'm beginning to become as screwy as you are and that word déjà vu comes to
mind once again.


Work: (noun) the function of completing a process or carrying out a task
Work: (intransitive verb) be successful. To be effective or achieve a
desired result.


No problem at all?


No! Comprehend?



Comprehend: Understand. (Transitive and intransitive verb) to grasp the
meaning or nature of something.



>Screwy workaround, requiring a user to remember 3 words
>just to print One word, instead of merely speaking the word.


I meant to write syllables. Sorry about that.


For a start, if you say three words as in 'separate' three words then you
will get three words come out on screen dickhead.


I thought I explained this properly somewhere before. Let me explain a
little better this time for the last time.


Annul-o-papillary. Not three words but three syllables with a tiny (and I
mean tiny) pause in between each so in effect it is just one word and by
that pronunciation and speaking it this way the recording picked it up. And,
as I have said so many times before I have lost count, as long as you
pronounce it the same as you recorded it, it will come out on screen like
magic.


I am in WSR now and let's try again. We are talking about the word
annulopapillary again. There you go. Of course, I will also concede that if
you miss pronounce the word from that of your recording by only a little,
then there is the chance it will come out wrong. I just assume this is the
same for all speech apps. I will try it in Dragon Professional when I get
time.




> Marty lives in the US and I live in the UK. That's as far
> as our relationship goes. Having said that, he has helped
> tremendously with advice ...


> Well why don't you take his advice then...,


I have been. That is one of the reasons I am getting 98-99% accuracy with
WSR and can get around the computer faster than you can ;-).



>If you like fooling yourself into believing it works, don't expect
>me to share your weird distorted belief.


Okay. I can live with that because what you believe, to me is irrelevant.


Irrelevant: (adjective) not applicable.



>What other placebos do you believe in? The Tooth Fairy?


No. I'll leave that to you because that is your imaginary world along with
the tall, fairytale stories you tell.



>YOU are the one who claims WSR is almost as good as Dragon,



Um, not true. I have never said this. There you go mauling my words again.
The statement above is inaccurate. You can check this quite easily by
looking back on my earlier posts.


What I have actually said is; both speech apps have their advantages and
disadvantages over each other, some of which I have explained above. I will
and always have admitted in previous posts that Dragon is more accurate than
WSR with dictation. WSR I find easier and quicker on the command side of
things. All of which I have spoken of several times. So they both have their
good points and bad points and that is why I use both. (To get the best out
of each of them)


So you see your statement above, accusing me of saying 'WSR is almost as
good as Dragon' is a total fabrication made up by you. It is not a case of
it being black or white as that. I have never said one app is better than
the other one. They both have their uses and both are excellent in different
ways. That is a totally different statement to, your made up one.




What I have said can be looked up in any of my other posts quite easily. I
did say I would not repeat stuff I had mentioned in previous posts but I
wanted to set this point out to you for the last time.



>yet you are scared to death of running that 600 word medical
>test to prove it !!!


Not at all and I have answered this in previous posts. Change the record.


>Hell, I am ten times better at using Dragon Preferred than you...


We shall never know ;-). I use Dragon Professional because I can make my
own macros with this version and so much more than the 'Preferred' version
;-).


>However, Dragons doc' scan' works just fine...



If you are talking about 'Dragon's Accuracy Center' Yes, I know. So does
the toolkit.


>The way you can convince yourself that your WSR doc' scan'...


< SNIP >


Been through all that. Change the record.


>Will that bee be flying south?


Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Read my previous posts. You don't
need the toolkit for that, you don't need to make a macro for that. READ MY
PREVIOUS POSTS!




>It is very important...


No, it is not.



>If it passes...


What do you mean if? I already have ;-). If you are referring to your
full-blown test with the medical jargon in it, I have explained in previous
posts why I do not have to do it. Read my previous posts.


>WSR will fail.


Succeeded for me :-).

And anyway, that is only your silly little opinion and your opinion is
irrelevant ;-).


Irrelevant: (adjective) Not applicable.

andy t

"Mark Conrad" is confused and does not know the difference between the WSR
toolkit and the document scanning feature he keeps going on about!






> >However, Dragons doc' scan' works just fine...


> If you are talking about 'Dragon's Accuracy Center' Yes, I know.
> So does the toolkit.



>No, the toolkit does NOT work for the simple "bee" sentence
>test, otherwise Marty would have crowed about it.



>My gawd, I thought you would never get to the point, I had to
>wade though your entire post before I got to the part of it
>under dispute, namely the broken document scanning in WSR.


Okay, I did a bit of research because I did not know what the **** you were
on about by keeping on saying "document scanning feature." I believe I know
what you are on about now.


I believe what you are referring to is the feature in 'Speech Properties'
within the 'Advanced speech options' section of 'Speech Recognition' in the
control panel. If this is what you mean, then why did you not word it as I
have above instead of keep calling it a 'document scanning feature?'

It's no wonder I could not understand what the **** you were on about!

First things first, if this is what you mean then let me know in your next
post.

Let me educate and correct you once again if this is the case.

That feature was found useless from the time of Vista Beta 1. (From way back
when it was in its trial period). Don't ask me why they kept it in because
I don't know! It was designed to scan every single document on your hard
drive and to not only help speech recognition but handwriting recognition as
well. This is what Marty has been trying to tell you.


THIS IS NOT THE WSR TOOLKIT YOU MORON BECAUSE THE WSR TOOLKIT WORKS!!

IT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE FEATURE YOU ARE ON ABOUT AND IS VERY SEPARATE!


Separate: (adjective) 'different' 'unrelated': distinct from or unrelated to
something else: not shared with somebody or something else.


Comprehend?


Comprehend: Understand. (Transitive and intransitive verb) to grasp the
meaning or nature of something.


This is what I have been telling you in all my previous posts over and over
again and asking you if you have actually got the WSR toolkit which I'm sure
you have not now because that works!

Just because you cannot explain yourself properly, keep calling something a
'document scanning feature' like a stuttering broken record and not being
more specific which I asked you to be umpteen times, it is no wonder nobody
understands your posts at times!

It is not a substitute for adding specific documents or training the
acoustic model that the WSRToolkit does very well. It does it well if you
are talking about standard language usage.



These are just 3 of the items within the toolkit I have mentioned in several
of my last posts and what they do. (There are 7 altogether).


'Add to dictionary' feature. (This is the article within the toolkit
describing what it does)

The purpose of "Add to Dictionary" is to help the speech recognition engine
with difficult to understand words and phrases.

If you find certain words or phrases consistently being misunderstood, you
can add these to your personal speech dictionary, as well as record a
pronunciation. This will increase the chances of accurate recognition for
these particular words and phrases.

Copy and paste words and/or phrases in the text box area to the left. Each
word or phrase should be on a separate line, for instance:

alpha
beta
zebras at the zoo etcetera and so forth

When you are ready to begin adding words to your personal dictionary, click
(or say) 'Add Words' and you will be guided through the process by the
Speech Dictionary Wizard where you will be given the option of recording a
pronunciation for each word or phrase.

So you need to add unusual words in the first place like your rubbish words
so they are at least in the vocabulary. Got that?



'Add from file' feature. (This is the article within the toolkit describing
what it does)
This feature will allow you to improve the accuracy of your "Language
Model." It's not the same as adding words to your personal dictionary but
works by taking the text that you pass it, parses it into words, and then
records the relative frequencies of occurrence of each word with respect to
the words around it. If you use documents that represent your style of
speaking, this feature will improve dictation accuracy. (Which it does!)
That is why I am getting between 98 to 99% accuracy as I have been saying
since time immemorial!

Currently only MS-Word 97-2003 (.doc) files, MS-Word 2007 (.docx) files and
Text (.txt) files are recognized.

Choose 'Browse' to locate your Word .doc file, then choose 'Begin Add From
File' to begin.



Parse - (verb) (used with object)
1. to analyze (a sentence) in terms of grammatical constituents, identifying
the parts of speech, syntactic relations, etc.
2. to describe (a word in a sentence) grammatically, identifying the part of
speech, inflectional form, syntactic function, etc.
3. Computers. to analyze (a string of characters) in order to associate
groups of characters with the syntactic units of the underlying grammar.




'Train from text' feature. (This is the article within the toolkit
describing what it does).


The purpose of "Train from Text" is to improve the acoustic model of your
user profile.

We suggest you train from The Rainbow Passage below. This passage,
developed by linguists, contains a good sampling of phonemes, individual
sounds, found in the English language.

This feature works best when you enunciate clearly and do not pause while
reading. A pause in speaking will trigger the next page to load.

If you wish to train other text, click (or say) 'Clear', then cut and paste
desired text into the text box area below. When you are ready to begin
training, click (or say) 'Begin Training'. The Speech Recognition Voice
Training Wizard will guide you through the process.




I believe both features should be used together. First, 'Add From File' and
then 'Train From Text'. This is not to forget to add unusual words, adding
them to the dictionary FIRST, and recording your pronunciation of that word
INSTEAD of just putting documents through with dictated versions of your
unusual word in the document that were not trained in the dictionary FIRST.




>Let's look at the facts about the broken doc' scan' of WSR.



Read above!


> to too two tutu."


Correct when said like that. Incorrect when used with context between them
most of the time.

More backtracking (realising your original mistake) and changing the
statement from one of your previous posts where you said tutu was a homonym
of to, too or two (which it is not) and not knowing what a near homonym is.


This has all been covered in previous posts anyway that proved you wrong
before ;-). Read my previous posts.


> tutu two too to."



Looks like you have a bad stutter there ;-).



>...spoken rapidly as for example...


Change the record etc etc.



>$1,600 Dragon has no idea WTF is going on, it is clueless.



It's a bit like you then isn't it.


>Humans have no problem...


Maybe that's where you're going wrong then ;-).



>Now I do not want to get into a ****ing contest with you
>about whether "tutu" is a homophone, you will lose - - -


As far as I am aware, a homophone is virtually the same as a homonym so I
have a doubt there. Okay, tutu is a homophone of what? You stated to, two
or too. Show me the link to prove it and then I'll be happy seeing as I am
answered your question on your 'document scanning feature.'


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



Well done! How clever you are. I'm impressed ;-). Have you been
practising at school as I told you?


>Answer is that Dragon "fakes it", making use of a feature
>that "scans" a text document that was previously placed in
>the Dragon app' , as a kind of template or pattern of how the
>user prefers Dragon to behave, when it encounters a sentence
>like that.


Do yourself a favour and buy the toolkit. Read the statements above on the
features I have mentioned time and time again and then try it. You'll find
the above will work just as in Preferred and it will enhance accuracy as it
has done for me. 98 to 99% accuracy ;-).

I'm sure even your poor doctors as you call them can afford $15.99.

>That feature works great with Dragon and MacSpeech, but fails miserably
>with WSR, even with >"WSR Toolkit",


Poppycock! How would you know if you have not got it? Works very well
using the toolkit. When you have actually tried it, then give a proper
opinion. Until then, stop guessing and ****ing in the wind!



>because _their_ document scanning features are broken.



Correct as explained above but the toolkit works. Two different things
asshole!



>Any workarounds to make up for the broken document scanning
>feature place an unnecessary burden on the WSR user.



The toolkit helps me take away any unnecessary burden and you know what they
say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it ;-).



>WTF can't $MS just fix the damn thing? Are they too stupid,
>or do they just not give a damn about their user?



They won't fix something that is obsolete and where the WSR toolkit takes
its place and does a fine job without it ;-).



I thought you might be interested in this link.

http://www.dragonvoicerecognition.co...ofessional.cfm



Look under the heading: "Features for Dragon NaturallySpeaking professional
solutions."


.... And then just underneath the subheading: "Up to 99% Accurate and Three
Times Faster than Typing.


.... Read how many words per minute Dragon reckons most people can speak!
Enjoy :-).

Andy t

"Mark Conrad" I'm sure he has one brain cell left







>> instead of keep calling it a 'document scanning feature?'





> BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET CALLS IT
> A DOCUMENT SCANNING FEATURE, YOU IMBECILE.




No they don't. ONLY YOU call it that because you made it up! It is known as
the speech option, review facility in speech properties and nowhere in the
speech properties does it say DOCUMENT SCANNING FEATURE YOU MORON!





> NONE of that useful info is in WSR.





That's because all the useful information is in the toolkit THICKO because
as I explained in my last post but one, the review facility does not work.
GEEZE! I even copied some of the information from the toolkit from three of
the accuracy improving features down for you in that post as well but I see
you conveniently ignored them.


You won't find them in the review facility because they are in the toolkit
that is a TOTALLY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PIECE OF SOFTWARE from the review
facility. This is what gives me my 98 to 99% accuracy.




> The WSR user is kept in the dark, he/she is not




But you are not kept in the dark because you know all about the toolkit that
you have not tried yet because you are afraid to be proved wrong about the
accuracy improvement it makes to WSR.



Guess you will never know, will you? So keep using that redundant item if
it keeps you happy in your twilight years while you wear your tutu around
your two toes.


(See in WSR, the right definition of 'wear' and 'two' came out above when
spoken in context) ;-). It also does the same in Dragon Professional ;-).




> your extremely detailed post...



Detailed and accurate.



> "Allow computer to review (scan) your documents




And I agreed with you in my previous post that it does not work because you
need the WSR toolkit, which DOES work. Which you do not have so you are not
going to get WSR to be as accurate as I can get it, are you.




> If you have the stomach to wade through the confusing WSR...




If you find it confusing, stop using it and get a life!




> even
> in the "ordinary real-world dictation" you rant about.



Do you mean the 'Speech Dictionary' that I successfully trained
annulopapillary, would that bee be flying south and
supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in? There it is again using WSR. Still
there since I trained them. ;-)




> Thank you for FINALLY admitting that the document scanning feature
> in WSR is broken, kaput, does not work.



Not at all. Try to remember the proper names of things in future and word
your posts properly then you may get further, quicker. Having said that, you
probably cannot remember your own name. That is why you keep signing with
your false one, Mark Conrad.




> Do you have any idea how long it takes to find 42 mistakes
> in a document, and correct those mistakes?



No, because I have the WSR toolkit and get very few. So I've never had to do
it. ;-).




> And WSR makes those same mistakes over and over and over
> and over and over and over....



Not using the WSR toolkit it doesn't :-).




> That effectively renders WSR useless, it is not a bug to be
> glossed over, as you are trying to do.



Not glossing over anything. Telling it like it is. I agreed with you the
reviewing feature does not work. That's why I use the WSR toolkit that does
work.



> Wonder if anyone has tried contacting Rob Chambers,




Don't know. Why don't you join his forums and ask yourself? Or better still,
buy the WSR toolkit that works and helps that will get you up to 98 to 99%
accuracy with dictation.




>It is really killing Microsofts reputation,



I doubt they'll lose any sleep over it especially with the billions they
made with Windows 7.



> Heck, even I would use it, were it not for bug.



I doubt whether Microsoft will lose any sleep over that either. :-))




> Gotta run now, will get back to you later.


Can't wait!



> Thanks again for your very detailed post Andy.


My pleasure. Shame you will forget what you read in it tomorrow. Sigh...
Groundhog day all over again for you


andy t

"Mark Conrad" man or android?





>> You won't find them in the review facility because they are
>> in the toolkit that is a TOTALLY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
>> PIECE SOFTWARE from the review facility.
>> This is what gives me my 98 to 99% accuracy.






> Well of course it does, because you do not have
> challenging dictation like my medical example,
> you just use it on baby words, like in your posts.



How old are you?


Finally! At least you are agreeing that it does at last, as I've been
telling you all along.



Told you before, don't need medical jargon. For that, you will need $1600, +
$200 for the KnowBrainer software to work with it (otherwise, the command
side is a pile of ****) + eventually you will have to buy the show numbers
software as well. (Very expensive for the whole shebang).



Whereas WSR is free + the show numbers facility comes free with it + you get
a complete operating system with it as well and the toolkit is only $15.99 +
I have Dragon Professional and the KnowBrainer software. So with all that
lot together, I have the complete works at my beck and call. (Which you do
not have). A powerhouse of technology ;-). Very accurate and fast around the
computer. Everything you can do and more.





> And you actually think that Marty was not using his
> "WSR Toolkit" when he ran the "bee" sentence




Told you before, I did not need the toolkit to complete that simple test. I
explained how I did it before and was truthful with you. I can't speak for
Marty but that's how I did it and it worked a treat. I will now swap to WSR
and try it again.


Would that bee be flying south? There it is again. Annulopapillary.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Yep, without fail.




> Here are the conditions again:




I am getting a little fed up with you now. 1. I have already passed your
pointless test. 2. It is pointless sentence and nonsensical in everyday
language. 3. I've told you how I achieved it in a previous post. So NO MORE!
Time for you to go back into your padded cell.




> will of the be bee flying south





That doesn't make sense (like you) and is no use to me or anybody else AT
ALL. Nobody would EVER use that sentence. EVER!


So what? Nonsensical sentences have no relationship to real life usage.
Dragon has been refined for eighteen years while WSR has been worked on for
approximately two years, from 2005 through 2007, with very little else done
since.


I use the Add from File function and see a difference. The other day I added
several spinal reports on my condition and trained them. Approximately 1500
words had four mistakes.


Before I had the toolkit basically, back in the days when I first had the
unfortunate pleasure of bumping into you and Grant X, I was not getting that
accuracy then.




> Now I realize you are not as adept as I am at SR,



If you are talking about in Dragon, you should be years ahead of me since
you keep boasting you have been using it for umpteen years. Yet I have been
using it since November last year AND I have the KnowBrainer software which
you do not possess. So straight away I have some thousand more or so
commands than you. Give me one more year with Dragon and I will be up there
with the rest of them, especially where making macros is concerned with this
software.


With WSR, you would lose hands down because you do not possess the WSR
toolkit for a start and you have only just started dabbling in it, whereas I
have been using it for nearly 2 years now ;-)


andy t

"Mark Conrad" being proved wrong yet again ;-).









>> it is not a perfect science and it does not always work...
>
> I agree, but slow progress is being made.



Rome was not built in a day. Be patient young Mark.




> The guys with the crystal balls seem to think that in
> 20 years SR will be much better that it is now.




In which case you, or indeed even me, may not have to worry anyway.




>> ...but the majority of the time I have found it does...

> Depends on the exact phrase, some phrases only
> come out correct in one out of twenty tries.




Some. I will agree with that but the examples I showed and a majority of
others prove otherwise in the speech apps I have.





>> >NONE of them know which of the following is the
>> >"correct" version:
>>
>> > will that bee be flying south
>> > will that be bee flying south
>>
>> Not with the second sentence because it
>> does not make any sense...


> NO sentence "makes sense" to ANY of the speech
> applications. Speech apps are not yet capable
> of making sense of dictation.




You have already murdered that statement to death in nearly all your other
posts and I've already answered that in previous posts and in fact the last
one.


Read my previous post.




> Furthermore, I can feed any "nonsense" bunch of
> words to Dragon and have dragon output those same
> "nonsense" words without error, in the same sequence
> as I dictated the words.




Yes, so you keep telling us in every single one of your posts. So what! It
is a pointless exercise because being nonsense; you will never ever use it
in everyday language.




> Dictated words/phrases/sentences that "do not make sense"
> have nothing at all to do with accurate output from a SR app.




Yes I know. Are you teaching me to suck eggs now? That is why the WSR
toolkit does not have a reviewer but does contain features that improve
accuracy.


Otherwise, explain why I am getting 98 to 99% accuracy with dictation using
WSR?



PLUS, YOU DO NOT NEED A REVIEWER AT ALL for the command side of a speech
app. You cannot improve accuracy with commands, you can only make more or
make them easier and I find the commands in WSR a little easier than Dragon
for getting around the computer faster at the moment.


You seem to forget that dictation is only one part of a speech app. The
command side is equally as important. Some days I don't do ANY dictation and
only use the command side in which case I would not enable Dragon for this
purpose.


You have just started to see the show numbers experience, which is easily
one of the quickest ways around the system. This will definitely help
Dragon become faster on that score along with the KnowBrainer software that
adds some extra 1000 commands or so. But even with all this, I still find
WSR quicker.


I will give Dragon its due, there is one function that I do like which is
quick. In 10.1, you can simply say "search the web for homonyms" or "search
the web for pictures of the moon" and then it will find exactly what you
want and bring up a list of links straight away. This is a nice feature.



>> I would never ever use it ...
>
> Who cares, not me. No one is asking you to "use it"...



In that case it is a pointless exercise and null and void AND it does not
prove anything.



>, any more
> than an auto mechanic is asking you to use one of the "tests"
> he subjects a car to.



I'll stick with speech recognition if you don't mind and not your analogies
of car garages.



> A test is just that, a test, to determine whether a SR app is
> broken, or not.



As the toolkit does not possess a reviewer, it cannot be broken. What it
does have is other features that improve accuracy. I can vouch for this
because I am getting 98 to 99% accuracy with dictation in WSR. A marked
improvement before I used the toolkit and all for only $15.99.


Plus you can also make text and command macros in it that I believe you
cannot do in Preferred.





> WSR is broken.



If you are referring to the reviewer within it in speech properties, then I
have already agreed that it does not work. Tell me something I don't know
and read my previous posts.



>"WSR Toolkit" is also broken.



Impossible, seeing as there is no reviewer in it to break.



> Both of them are incapable of improving the accuracy
> of dictation, when all the words being dictated are already in
> the users vocabulary.



Incorrect. Read my previous posts.



The toolkit gives me 98 to 99% accuracy. Whereas before I had the toolkit,
it was significantly lower.



> This is a serious flaw in WSR, NOT a minor flaw.



Poppycock! Works for me ;-).



> Wsr Is Very Prone To Making Many Mistakes Of This
> Type, Wrongly Choosing:

> "Ed jested" instead of correct "adjusted"
> "rated" instead of correct "braided"
> "cards" instead of correct "chords"
> "look" instead of correct "hook"
> "martial" instead of correct "marginal"
> "bring" instead of correct "ring"
> "polled" instead of correct "pulled"
> "links" instead of correct "lengths"
> "bank" instead of correct "vent"
> "second" instead of correct "suction"
> "they" instead of correct "the"
> "age action" instead of correct "ejection"
> "are" instead of correct "or"




'I have adjusted defender'
'The beads were braided'
'I played the right chords on the piano'
'Come and look at the next house'
'He won a marginal seat'



Just a few of the words you pointed out that needed correcting that came out
first time and did not need correcting at all. I am not going to waste my
time and do the rest because I know they will work.



I will admit that the speech apps (ALL OF THEM) not only WSR can often get
confused with small words such as "as" with "an" "all" with "or" "end" with
"and" "and with an" "am" with "an" and a few others but I had no problem
with your simple tasks.




> Those mistakes, and innumerable other mistakes of the
> same nature actually happened to me when I was trying
> to use WSR, making WSR essentially useless...



That's probably because it was you! An answer to the above question - STOP
USING IT THEN! AND QUIT WHINING.



> Compared to
> both Dragon and MacSpeech, whose document scanning
> feature actually works the way it should work.



And cost $200, comes without out KnowBrainer that costs another $200 comes
without the show numbers that will cost another $29 whereas WSR is free,
comes with a complete operating system and the toolkit is only $15.99.



> I am not willing to give up a correctly working document
> scanning feature, it is just too critical for reducing the
> time needed to correct mistakes.



Nonsense! Not critical at all. Read my previous posts. I am getting 98 to
99% accuracy using WSR.


Critical: (adjective) essential. Absolutely, necessary for the success of
something.


Which of course is not true. Because, it is NOT absolutely, necessary ;-).




> Your hack of trying to replace a properly working
> document scanning feature with "phrases" in the
> vocabulary editor is not the answer either, for many reasons...




It was the answer for me and it passed all your tests.


Once again, there is no reviewing feature in the toolkit so if it is not
there in the toolkit then it cannot be broken in the toolkit you numbskull!
And "hack", "workaround", call it what you like but it works and if it ain't
broke don't fix it ;-).



>, which is why I specified NOT using the editor,
> in the "bee" test.



The reason you specified not using the editor and putting it through the
reviewer (which the toolkit does not have) is because you knew I would pass
which I did with flying colours and no real effort needed ;-).


Read my previous posts.



> Don't get me wrong, I use the vocabulary editor "phrase"...



I use the toolkit because it works ;-).




> trick myself, which in Dragon is called
> "spoken-form/written-form"...




Durr! I know!


Tell me something I don't know and stop trying to teach me to suck eggs!




> to conventional document scanning.




The toolkit does not have a reviewer but using all the other features gives
me 98 to 99% accuracy with dictation ;-). Read the above.




> Both those tricks have their own individual strengths and
> drawbacks, I would not want to do without either one of them.



I have Dragon Professional that has all those features and more than the
Preferred version ;-).



> Microsoft has had years to fix the obvious bug in WSR,



Wrong! Dragon has been refined for eighteen years while WSR was worked on
for approximately two years, from 2005 through 2007 with very little else
done since.



WSR works fine with the toolkit. the WSR toolkit does not have any bugs.
You do!


Read my previous posts.


look at what I just trained in WSR's speech dictionary
this > Hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies


I broke it down into syllables (as shown below) with very short pauses in
between each one and it worked!!! ;-).
hepati-cochol-angio-cholecy-stente-rostomies


Hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies
hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies
hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies
hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies


These ones I dictated after I rebooted the computer to make sure ;-).
Hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies
hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomies


CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!!


If I can train that, I can train anything! As I've been saying all along.
Read my previous posts!



> because WSR is hardly ever used
> by the great majority of users, no profit in it for $MS.



Don't let it bother you and stop using it if it does ;-).


andy t