"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2007091121070211272-jerelull@maccom...
On 2007-09-11 20:16:57 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

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

(answered a few seconds ago)

I, Wilbur Hubbard, can type 150 wpm. I can transcribe faster than you
can dictate.

Nice mechanical skill, but who has paid you for your output?

I can type as fast as I can think.

You only think that fast?

The point is when a person talks his speech lags behind his thought
process. This makes for inefficient speech which when transcribed makes
for inefficient writing.

Look at it this way. If you mouth the words that you read it slows down
your reading. 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. That's why Gogarty is an unsuccessful writer for the most
part. He has limited his potential. He has crippled himself. He's like a
400 pound ballerina.


[Sorry, couldn't resist so easy a shot]

Make it funnier next time . . .


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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. . . But, isn't it amazing how there is
no such word and, as such, it is never spoken yet your mind can deal
with it and look at the thoughts it produced without ever having been
mouthed. Look what has happened "behind the scenes." Sort of makes my
point, doesn't it?

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

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

"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

On 2007-09-12 09:28:46 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

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.

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.

Sorry, but I'm reading far faster than your 150 wpm (or even a New
Yorker's speaking pace) with writers who "flow" well.

"Voice" is more than the mechanical sounding out of words. It more
involves the images and emotions invoked by the exact choice and
placement of words, phrases and their cadence.

Why do you think I'm such a successful troll.

Because you're sometimes somewhat entertaining, and sometimes have a
kernel of "truth" buried in the drek -- and sometimes you're so far off
base with a fair enough facility in making it sound reasonable that a
response seems warranted.

Always, you're persistent and voluminous. Do you *ever* get out?

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/