"Larry" wrote in message
...
Jere Lull wrote in news:200709112054188930-
jerelull@maccom:

That's

To bring this kiddie war back on topic, I got one of Lydia's
newsletters in
my email, yesterday. They are now at the 79th Street Marina in
Manhattan
with Lydia's 80+ year old mother, who's getting her sea legs nicely
from
the sail over from LI though a little seasick and sore from the
constant
motion of the Pig. They are having a great time in NYC and retreat to
their little mooring bouy island for R&R from the bustling city they
can
watch from the cockpit with amusement.

I suppose she's got Skip hopping around, too busy to post...(c;


More like too "ashamed" to post. Maybe he finally read all the
subscribers who replied to his foolishness and attempted to get it
though his buffoon skull that he's a danger to himself, his crew, his
fellow sailors. And, he's become a joke in this group. I really hope he
has gotten a clue and decided to call it quits before he kills himself
or some innocent party. The man doesn't belong on the water. He's an
idiot. Mark my words, we'll all be reading about him in the Darwin
Awards one day soon.

Wilbur Hubbard

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

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
My mom died last last year at this time. After building Liberty ships
i WW2 and Korea she became a typest. When she retired she was able to
do 120 error free. But then again she also new shorthand. SHe really
liked the computers. It was more difficult to jam em. She routeenly
out typed the IBM Selectricts. She was just too fast for thoes IBM
balls.


Sorry, but that's either a lie or an old wife's tale. IBM Selectrics had
a memory chip. You could not lose keystrokes because you eventuated them
faster than the mechanism could put them on paper. If you typed faster
than the ball could move, the ball would just continue to move after you
had stopped typing until it caught up.

I hope this helps.


The Selectric came out in 1961 and had no chip. In fact it had no
electronics, other than the motor. The entire works were mechanical,
including the "stroke storage" that allowed a second key to come in
somewhat faster than the nominal 65 millisecond cycle time.

At 14.8 characters/second, this is 3 words/second or 180 words per
minute. This is faster than any typist can sustain, but is perhaps
possible in a burst.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:08:31 -0700, Bob wrote:

On Sep 11, 6:43 pm, Dave wrote:

More utter nonsense. Only a fool would let work product that had been typed
at the rate of 80-100 words per minute go out without proofreading.

even if he
were as skilled as the best of those whose full-time job is transcription.


My mom died last last year at this time. After building Liberty ships
i WW2 and Korea she became a typest. When she retired she was able to
do 120 error free. But then again she also new shorthand. SHe really
liked the computers. It was more difficult to jam em. She routeenly
out typed the IBM Selectricts. She was just too fast for thoes IBM
balls. She said when she was working in the federal building steno
pool there were others who were a lot faster !
Gone with the buggie whips

My mom had a similar typing background, working in DC during WWII as a
typist right out of high school. Won competitions.
Later in Chicago in the '50's she was doing a typing test to get a
job at a publishing company.
When employees there heard her typing they all came to the door to get
a look at the new *electric* typewriter they figured the company had
finally bought. No electric there, but they stayed to watch her
anyway. She went on to a career as one of the few female linotype
operators in the country.
I only saw her typing at home much later when I bought a typewriter
to do college papers, and she sometimes helped me get out a paper.
Amazing to watch.
I took a touch typing course in college, only because it got an
elective out of the way, and I liked the 20:1 female/male ratio in
that classroom. I passed the course, which only required about
35 WPM, but soon reverted to 2-finger, and that's all I needed
to get through my 25 year business/computer "career."
I'm going to look at the voice software again. Last time I tested it
- about 10 years ago - I rejected it.
BTW, this post took me about 18 hours to write, but it was the
thinking that made it slow. So the voice-writing might knock it
down to maybe 9 hours.

--Vic

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:28:46 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:




Then you are mentally and probably physically mouthing the words.
Printed words have no sound and should have no sound. They should only
bring forth a mental process. The whole idea of verbal speech in
anathema to written speech. Humans have progressed as far as they have
primaryily due to the written word because it is so much more efficient
and accurate. Writers should realize that fact and use the art of
writing to go where speech cannot go.

As a lit/poetry student I gave considerable thought to what you are
touching on here. Poetry and literature began as spoken words, and
as writing developed they transitioned to being mostly read and not
heard.
Playwrights/scriptwriters have different concerns in their writing,
but most writing it there to be read, not spoken.
I even got interested in the *look* of certain words on a page as
having their own "expression" and power - beyond their prescriptive
meaning and aural sound.

A writer is using the printed page to tell a story, whether it be a
good yarn or an instruction manual.

Only if his intent is to do so. As a writer, I would rather leave good
yarn-spinning to my voice where it belongs. I use writing to stimulate
thought - not paint a picture. A canvas and paint brush paints a better
picture that somebody talking about a painting. A good writer bypasses
the physical senses and goes right to the source - the mind. After all,
without the mind there are no physical senses. The mind is the
wellspring. Any writer who doesn't know this fact is no writer - just a
hack.

There are writers and writers. As I suggested above, some writers to
paint pictures with words. And you have read their magic, seen their
paintings.

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.

You can't speak to a newsgroup with aural voice.
That's why you must type. You can use voice software and
then tweak the words if they don't suit.
Never done it myself.
But if type your words well, a voice is heard. Only then are you
successful.

A common writing technique is to read what you wrote aloud. If it
sounds awkward or doesn't paint the picture you wanted to transmit,
it's time to revise.

Even you have a voice that I hear. I don't know it's pitch or speed,
but I hear it clearly.

Oh, on a different subject: your "@ddress". Most people would spell it
"invalid", not "invallid".


Makes it all the more invalid.

I can't remember if this proves or disproves your point or mine, but
invalid and invallid are the same word when spoken, yet have
generated "discussion" only because they have been written.

--Vic

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:21:10 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

In reading my own post, I see I mistyped and omitted a few words.
A few minutes distance from it allowed me to see my mistakes.
If I had used good voice software, and not been chewing on an apple as
I spoke, those "typing" mistakes would have been avoided.
But would I have had the same thoughts?
Skip? What do you think?

--Vic

In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:

How many airplane pilots can't land?

At least four, that we know of, because they flew into buildings on 9/11
and "Landing" wasn't what they had in mind......... LardHead......

Gogarty wrote:
:In article ,
:says...
:
:The Selectric came out in 1961 and had no chip. In fact it had no
:electronics, other than the motor. The entire works were mechanical,
:including the "stroke storage" that allowed a second key to come in
:somewhat faster than the nominal 65 millisecond cycle time.
:
:At 14.8 characters/second, this is 3 words/second or 180 words per
:minute. This is faster than any typist can sustain, but is perhaps
:possible in a burst.

:One thing I like about the Internet is that the truth eventually will out no
:matter how silly the original assertion.

The Selectric has a complicated mechanical mechanism that allows it
queue a key stroke. The cycle time is long enough that there are all
sorts of combinations that even a not terribly good typist can
produce at greater than 14.8 cps. Think about "th" for instance. I
don't doubt that there are three key combintations that someone who
can type at 120 or 140 wpm that the selectric would lose.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:21:10 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

In reading my own post, I see I mistyped and omitted a few words.
A few minutes distance from it allowed me to see my mistakes.
If I had used good voice software, and not been chewing on an apple as
I spoke, those "typing" mistakes would have been avoided.
But would I have had the same thoughts?
Skip? What do you think?

--Vic



Skip think? Now, that's funny!

Wilbur Hubbard

Gogarty wrote:

In article om,
says...

On Sep 11, 6:43 pm, Dave wrote:

More utter nonsense. Only a fool would let work product that had been typed
at the rate of 80-100 words per minute go out without proofreading.

even if he
were as skilled as the best of those whose full-time job is transcription.


My mom died last last year at this time. After building Liberty ships
i WW2 and Korea she became a typest. When she retired she was able to
do 120 error free. But then again she also new shorthand. SHe really
liked the computers. It was more difficult to jam em. She routeenly
out typed the IBM Selectricts. She was just too fast for thoes IBM
balls. She said when she was working in the federal building steno
pool there were others who were a lot faster !
Gone with the buggie whips

Bob

Right and the current qwerty keyboard was to keep the old time
typewriter keys from jamming - meant to slow down the typist.

The next advance over the regular manual typewriter - before we got
the Selectric, was an IBM Executive with variable spaced letters. If
you had a correction, you had to remember how many spaces the letters
took. IIRC, most of the letters were 3 spaces, but the I and L were
only two, the M was four and the W was five (in lower case). We were
still using carbon paper then too.

One of my jobs in HS was to do typescript of my dad's first book for
photo-offset printing where we were not allowed to erase an error
because it would show. (Later editions were typeset - only the first
version was done this way)

My mom had one of these typewriters and a Selectric when she died and
I basically threw them away because no one wants one anymore.

I had a secretary once whom I hired straight out of college -- her first job.
She was a typing demon. Information went in her eyes and out her fingers with
no stops in between at some incredible speed. The type script she produced was
a faithful copy of what she was given -- errors and all. She just went on
automatic and if it was garbage in it was garbage out. It took awhile to get
her to slow down and read what she was copying before she typed it. She became
an excellent editor and has been running her own PR and advertising business
for years. But way back then she was a real automaton.

Yes - it is much faster to copy than to write. The two processes
don't have any real correlation. Perfectly possible to type faster
than you can think and reproduce what you see absolutely accurately.
When I was learning to type, there was a girl in my class who was
blind and she was learning to type dictation (since she couldn't read
the text). She had to be perfect because she couldn't see her errors.
It can be done.

Really OT, but my first computer back in '76 was a Trash 80 that had no lower
case. I was doing a major project for a client who objected to receiving
typescripts that were all in upper case, like a teletype. The printer was a
recycled Anderson-Jacobson terminal with an IBM Selectric action with a
keyboard. You could use it offline as a typewriter. It cost $1,200 in 1976..
The printer would print out the teletype text and then my wife would retype it
properly on the same machine. Happily, after-market vendors started producing
chips that would give the Trash 80 lower case capability.

My first computer was the Apple II+ in about that time frame and it
didn't have the caps either. Although you could get software that
would put them in.