Ah guys come on, let's all just agree that this is a think tank list and if somebody has a feature thought, post it. No thought is a bad one. I don't agree with all i see and use to say that, but then I realized how demeaning that is. The BookPort, Larry and his staff are great and let's keep that spirit going. Now, for that dog hair removal tool, SMILE! Come on folks, let's allow people to say what they think is a good idea and respect from where each of us comes. We all bring value to this table. Marlaina ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Edick" <mdedick@xxxxxxxxx> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:48 PM Subject: [bookport] Re: bookport suggestion > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >