On Sep 12, 6:28 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

It appalls me that any so-called writer would admit he can't type.
This is beyond pathetic.

When I taught second grade in 01-03 I got to take my class to the
computer room where, we all completed our Mavis Bacon individulaized
key boarding program. In my humble opinion, at this time the ability
to use a keyboard is a necessisty for later accademic success.

I can type as fast as I can think.

Now that is an interesting idea in the area of encoding and decoding
thought. Depeding whoes research you read the numbers most people can
DECODE (listent and usderstand) about 400-600 wpm. Most people belive
we do not think like a typwriter, that is we dont think words per min.
Its mostly feelings/ideas/thought THEN we order the suff in our
brain(ENCODE) for sending (communication). So dear WilllBurr we dont
think in wpm but we do listen and DECODE in wpm.

The point is when a person talks his speech lags behind his thought
process.

YEs, good on Wilbur.

This makes for inefficient speech which when transcribed makes
for inefficient writing.

Again your lay knowldege is showing here. You are makeing lots of
assuptions here.




Look at it this way. If you mouth the words that you read it slows down
your reading.

Readaloud is a very important precess for the emergant reader. Plus a
very important part of modeling reading skills. That is, what an
independent reader thinks when reading. It aint just about
wpm.......... uh, ya gots to consider comprehension to. Thats a big
problem with fonix. Kids can decode (read) text but dont know a thing
about what they read. Its just the abilit to say sounds accuratly 80%
of the time. Probably like your kids. they were able to recite the
multiplication tables (algorythems- facts) but couldnt figure out how
to use the stuff (application). Fairly typical in certain "socio-
economic circles."

This is fact and cannot be argued with. You are engaging
in an extra process and that's inneficient. Same thing goes with
writing. It's more efficient to have the thought delivered through the
fingertips than throught the mouth. Advanced writers have been taught
these facts.

Again Willburr, you ar only partially correct here. You have forgot a
significant piece. Do a little research (that means reading) and
you'll understand why your response does not reflect a complete
understanding.


I can "hear" a good writer as I read. In fact, when I read a writer I
know and *don't* hear his voice, I know the editor is ham-handed and
should be replaced.


By these wrod choices this writer shows some understanding. In several
states, K-12 students writing is scored on: organization, ideas,
conventions, and yes............. VOICE.


Then you are mentally and probably physically mouthing the words.
Printed words have no sound and should have no sound.

I desagree. I love thoes books where you can touch a word and the book
says the word.


They should only
bring forth a mental process.

Now you are talking about decoding symbols. Why dont you just use the
proper words Willburr. Unless you are just pulling this stuff out of
your ass.


The whole idea of verbal speech


And what other type of speech is there? Humm maybe NON VERBAL speech?
No, that is called non verbal communication. Willburr better get a
better grip on word choce. I think your ignorance is showing.


Why do you think I'm such a successful troll. It's not because I put my
verbal blatherings on the screen. It's because I push mind buttons that
writing can push while transcribed verbal gushings cannot.

Wilbur Hubbard

Sounds like board wilbur. Try sailing, I find it fun and fills my
spare time.
bob