One prime reason I try to popularize MacSpeech
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: J.J. O'Shea on 6 Sep 2009 14:30 On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:27:40 -0400, Jim Carlson wrote (in article <nomail-7E6A6B.14273906092009(a)news.eternal-september.org>): > In article <1j5mkq5.19phql414ee43iN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, > mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote: > >> Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> We all assume they're paying you to shill. >>> >>> Yes indeed _you_ assume, because you are too witless >>> to observe that I criticize MacSpeech unmercifully at times. >> >> It could be a sales ploy. Negative publicity is still publicity. > > It's more likely that he's just an incredibly stupid shill. there's little doubt of that. -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
From: Jim Carlson on 6 Sep 2009 14:42 In article <h80v3v02mvp(a)news3.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to(a)but.see.sig> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:14:17 -0400, Mike Rosenberg wrote > (in article <1j5mktl.dbsyemcapyk2N%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>): > > > Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: > > > >>> And that they don't pay very well, 'cause if they did they'd be able to > >>> get a better spokestwit. > >> > >> They can't pay at all nitwit, they are just barely > >> avoiding bankruptcy. > > > > You know this how exactly? > > 'Cause he's on their payroll. I can't help but notice his non-denial response. Classic example of an attempt at misdirection. He's on their payroll, so instead of flat out denying it, which would be a lie, he suggests he wouldn't take a specific action if he were. "Now look, would I turn on this gas if my friend Rocky was in there?" "You might, rabbit. You might."
From: Mark Conrad on 6 Sep 2009 16:59 In article <1j5mkq5.19phql414ee43iN%mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com>, Mike Rosenberg <mikePOST(a)TOGROUPmacconsult.com> wrote: > It could be a sales ploy. Negative publicity is still publicity. Now being I obviously have your attention, below is some more "Negative publicity". Now be a good little weenie, and be sure to state that I must be a shill for MacSpeech, even though no mention of MacSpeech appears anywhere below: Neat use for speech recognition --------------------------- Playing with Snow Leopard, to find out what does and does not work with SL. One would think that the usual person would scribble down the details of what he learned about Snow Leopard, right? But I never do, for some unknown deep-seated psychological reason. Probably the same reason that men do not stop and ask for directions when they are on a car trip, they instead persist in chugging along, getting even more lost. Women supposedly act differently. Anyhow, I took advantage of one of the benefits of using a speech recognition app. *NOW* before I check out Snow Leopard, I immediately start up a _different_ Mac, one that is running a speech recognition app, to listen to my comments. No wasted time scribbling notes, I can talk to the Mac as though it were another person, while I still stay focused on wringing out Snow Leopard. No details forgotten, everything is captured in a permanent text record. Mark- -- One detail about my setup here. Contrary to what others say about speech apps, background noise does not bother me at all. For example, I turned up my TV as loud as it would go, the "infomercial" from the loudmouthed announcer was actually hurting my ears. No problem, every word I said was recorded, the background racket did *NOT* interfere, not even a tiny bit !!! It is all in how you adjust the settings on your speech app, which most newbies are totally unaware of.
From: Jim Carlson on 6 Sep 2009 17:15 In article <060920091359535431%none-of(a)your-business.invalid>, Mark Conrad <none-of(a)your-business.invalid> wrote: > > It could be a sales ploy. Negative publicity is still publicity. > > Now being I obviously have your attention, below is > some more "Negative publicity". > > Now be a good little weenie, and be sure to state > that I must be a shill for MacSpeech, even though > no mention of MacSpeech appears anywhere below: You start a thread about popularizing MacSpeech, you post a response in that thread, first repeating "MacSpeech" twice then stating you're not mentioning it any further having already done so twice, and somehow that's supposed to _not_ be shilling for MacSpeech?
From: Mark Conrad on 6 Sep 2009 20:22
In article <nomail-1F42D5.17152006092009(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Jim Carlson <nomail(a)noserver.invalid> wrote: > You start a thread about popularizing MacSpeech, you post a response in > that thread, first repeating "MacSpeech" twice then stating you're not > mentioning it any further having already done so twice, and somehow > that's supposed to _not_ be shilling for MacSpeech? What part of my posted phrase: "even though no mention of MacSpeech appears anywhere below: " ....do you not understand? Possibly the word "below" ? You impress me as someone who doesn't know up from down. |