From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   news:-uadnQLeEYCUPzjQnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   >>   
   >> "Not necessary" did refer to the cussing.  There's nothing else it   
   >> /could/ have referred to.   
   >   
   > It could easily have referred to my suggestion that you try optical   
   > scanning for yourself.   
      
   And as I /already/ stated, I have worked with it for decades, seen where   
   it's been and where it's going, so your suggestion is off-base.   
      
   > Slightly off in left field from this, why exactly are you splitting posts?   
   > You replied to a single post twice on two occasions, creating three   
   > different discussion threads.   
   >   
   > Are you trying to be an annoying twat, or are you really so scatterbrained   
   > that you can't figure out what you want to say the first time through?   
   >   
   >>> Bullshit.   
   >   
   >> Again, *not necessary*,   
   >   
   > Stop being a fucking net nanny.   
      
   1) This from someone complaining about an addendum to a previous reply?   
      
   2) "The net" is not the issue.  It's entirely interpersonal.  If someone   
   were to act this boorishly toward me elsewhere, in person, by phone, during   
   a teleconference,  wherever... I'd tell them to go away until they can check   
   it at the door.  I don't "nanny" your discussions with others on the net.   
   You chose to try to make this personal with me.  I'm saying that was an   
   overreaction.   
      
      
      
   >> In other words, it can't read those in situations where a human /can/   
   >> read them.   
   >   
   > That's not what it said at all. In situations where the newspaper was new   
   > and in good condition, the OCR systems could read it just fine. You did   
   > not see the scans where they were in poor condition, so you cannot judge   
   > whether they were easily readable or not.   
      
   If it can be corrected by human intervention, it's /trivially/ readable by   
   human beings.  There are many factors that can lead to OCR misinterpretation   
   even in source material that the average human would not consider damaged   
   enough to create a problem.  Contact the author with any questions, the   
   contact information is in the documented I cited by ISSN number.   
      
   > You're pretty adept at misinterpretation. I said nothing of the sort. What   
   > I said was that THIS PARTICULAR project wasn't getting very good results,   
   > and is behind what others have already done.   
      
   And this brings it all back to just exactly *how* you measure just that,   
   which requires taking much more into account than you are here.  From the   
   very beginning, this has been at its core a disagreement about how   
   cut-and-dried all this research is.  That disagreement does not have to   
   become this kind of big huge hangup.  I think you are taking this way too   
   seriously, to get this much of an attitude over a simple difference in   
   perspective.   
      
   Now, are you going to respond to diplomacy with more invective, or are you   
   able to get past this without getting all worked up?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)