[bookport] Re: bookport suggestion
- From: "David Edick" <mdedick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:48:13 -0800
I understand, I am almost sorry I subscribed, and maybe even sorry I even
considered buying the book port that the loud voices don't even want to se
further development on!
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bruce Toews
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:21 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: bookport suggestion
Man, I'm sorry I resubscribed. We're having the exact same argument we've
been having for months: someone makes a suggestion, a select few go into
panic mode.
Bruce
--
Bruce Toews
E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: DogRiver@xxxxxxxx Web Site (including info
on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net Info on the Best TV Show of
All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Walt Smith wrote:
> The more functionality, the more complexity. The more complexity, the
> higher the risk of error and failure. Anyone who knows anything about
> technology should understand this fundamental fact. How many people
> have you ever heard speak favorably of combined
> printer/copier/scanner/fax devices? There's an excellent reason that
> people don't tend to favor them and that reason is that when one
> function fails, the entire unit is almost always rendered useless.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Allen" <wd8ldy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 12:18 AM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: bookport suggestion
>
>
> Hi David and list:
>
> So if such a nit can be manufactured that easily and cheaply with all
> the functionality you outlined without reducing the degree of
> functionality book port owners already enjoy, what's stopping
> you?Remember, many want a choice of speech engines as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
