[DECtalk] decTalk on IOS with TestFlite beta app?

[Don]

On 11/15/2022 9:27 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, jake mcmahanCharles Mcmahan wrote:
> 
>>     Normally I don't say much on these type things but I think this whole 
>> thing is quite unnecessary.  We all use products and technology in our own 
>> way, think in our own way, that's what makes the world what it is.  While I 
>> personally use dectalk for some things, eloquence for others, I don't think 
>> it's a bad idea for an old product to be invested in if proper permission is 
>> given.  Last I heard, Jake Gross did get the source from someone who actually 
>> worked at the company, so really the legal thing is complicated and I 
>> wouldn't do well exploring that one.  Point is though, we're all people who 
>> function in different ways and have our own ideas. Lots of this stuff is very 
>> informative and it's interesting to see what others think but I don't think 
>> it's necessary for anyone to be hostile or get worked up when there really is 
>> no need for it.
>>
> Well said, which is why I spoke to the disrespectful comparison  of how I 
> *choose* to use equipment to an 8-track machine.
>   What value is there in such a comment?

Value?  It points out that the technology is OLD and no longer being
developed or supported, IN ANY WAY.  Just like DECtalk is old and
unsupported.  There are no active 8-track manufacturers.  There is
no active DECtalk manufacturer.

As long as your 8 track (DECtalk) continues working AND you are
happy with its performance and not desirous of any features
available from newer technology, you can continue to use it.

Just like an 8 track user can continue to listen to his collection
of 8-track titles -- as long as they (and the player) continue
to work.  But, if he wants 10 hours of music on a cartridge,
he's SoL -- ain't gonna happen with that technology.  Or, if
he wants higher fidelity reproduction *or* error free copying.

And, there's no one he can talk to about getting those enhancements
made ... because there's no one asserting ownership of the product.

> Most of my remarks were not  addressed to don specifically, but to the thread 
> generally, which I freely owned up not reading.
> Why He chose to make it personal just because I did not write in context is 
> entirely on him.

You chose to reply to *my* post -- not, for example, to josh's post in which
claims of "poor blind people on social security" was voiced.  Along with the
passive-aggressive comments regarding my being "an authority on all aspects of
the human condition".

Or, am I mistaken?  Was that intended as a COMPLIMENT??

> A shared label does not a shared experience make uniformly, that is part of 
> what makes us human.
> Karen
>   who is done commenting at all now.