wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:16:57 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Gogarty" wrote in message
.. .
In article s.com,
llid says...
"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
Well, Wilbur, I made a substantial living as a writer over many
years.
Still manage to rake in a dime or two now and then. But typing is
not
now, never will be and never was one of my skills.
What a hoot! A writer who can't type? Now, that's so dumb it's
beyond
human ken.
How many truck drivers can't steer? How many cowboys can't lasso?
How
many wet nurses can't lactate? How many bartenders can't mix drinks?
How
many airplane pilots can't land? How many talk radio hosts are deaf
mutes?
Get the point? Any writer worthy of the name learns to type.
Wilbur Hubbard
How dreadfully ignorant you are. (Typed with two fingers.)
I don't imagine Shakespeare knew how to type.
Voice recognition software is still not up to par. A good touch typist
can type 80-100 wpm without a single mistake that has to be corrected
later. One spends more time looking for and correcting voice
recognition
software mistakes and omissions than if one simply learned to type and
removed the middle man so to speak.
Anybody typing with two fingers is lazy, stupid or both (unless, of
course, they only have two fingers). Learning to type is a simple
thing.
Anybody can accomplish the task in about a week or two. Anybody who
needs to type (as in a writer) should have enough pride in his work
that
he learns to type and at an advanced rate like 80-100 wpm.
It appalls me that any so-called writer would admit he can't type.
This
is beyond pathetic. I, Wilbur Hubbard, can type 150 wpm. I can
transcribe faster than you can dictate. I can type as fast as I can
think. The problem with transcribing is you don't write well when you
simply transcribe your talk. Writing is not talking. Writing is a
different type of an art form. When I read somebody's writing I
certainly don't want to read his blabbermouthing. And, believe me, I
can
tell the difference. Writing and word processing always ends up
telling
a better tale than a simple-minded narration.
Wilbur Hubbard
Willie boy, you are positively amazing. You can type 150 words per
minute ... I can type as fast as I can think, you say.
So, using your figures you can think at about 150 words per minute, or
about 0.400 seconds, or 400 milliseconds, per word.
As reporting in the May 25 Proceedings of the National Academy of the
Sciences, the speed of thought is around 300 milliseconds. That's how
long it took a volunteer to begin to understand a pictured object.
The speed of thought is not measured in words. Thought happens without
words. If I stick a pin into you there are no words involved with your
realization of pain. You don't have to think "ouch" in order to feel the
pain. So there goes your somewhat convoluted argument.
It appears that your comprehension is 33% lower then normal.
Got you again! What does comprehension have to do with the speed of
thought?
Some idiot savant might not be able to pick his nose but he can
caluclate pi to the 39th decimal place in his head. He has no
comprehension at all but he can still think. Again it makes my point
that thinking does not rely on words. Words are just a by-product of
thinking and a clumsy one at that. Add to that clumsiness verbalizing
these words prior to putting them onto paper or the screen and you've
become so inefficient that it's laughable thinking of a somebody like
Gogarthy going through the motions. A 400lb ballerina.
Wilbur Hubbardd