I don't think so. It also doesn't work with letting you hear things when the wind takes away someone else's voice (which should be a bug, but got classified as not so). I'm not sure it actually does anything other than put a line in DEF.

You were told what it does just a bit earlier in this thread!

If you're deaf, it negates deafness when in the same room as the person talking. That's about it.

How useless...

It's one of those days where I wish I have physic block

And Zarquan asked if it even did that, and I said I didn't think it did. Before you attempt to criticize reading comprehension skills, try reading the posts. (Of course, maybe it does do that now, I am pretty sure it didn't used to though. But that's entirely beside the point of your misreading the thread and then accusing me of misreading the thread based on your misreading.)

It was pointed out, in the very post I was referencing, that it did in fact do that (because, as Shiri said, it can be confusing).

You then ignored that and said you didn't think it did anything, so... I told you that what it did was pointed out earlier.

Maybe you should try this reading thing. Hm.

Xenthos is right on this one. Lipread works just fine. You're just incorrectly assuming that it should also project windtalk onto other people in the room. It does not. It negates deafness when in the same room as the person talking. Nothing more.

When you think about it, it really should. If you can read someone's lips, the wind shouldn't make a difference.

but, but, but that's for windtalk!

No, windtalk lets other people be heard, not you hear other people.

The wind distorts the air so much that the lip shapes can't be seen clearly...

Xenthos is only right by his usual tactic of changing the point of contention until it happens to be one that he might be right about, instead of the one he actually claimed. But that seems to work just fine here. Whether lipread does that or not is far more important than who didn't read what, anyway.

An analogy might help make this clear so it can be put to bed.

Alice: There are ten beans.

Bob: Alice, are you sure there are really ten beans?

Charlie: I don't think there are ten beans, there weren't last time I checked.

Dave: Charlie, you must not be reading the posts, Alice already said there were ten beans.

The question of how many beans there are is far more important than, but an entirely different question than, whether Dave is being a sanctimonious hypocrite, guilty of precisely the thing he's accusing Charlie of.

So with that settled let's stick to counting beans.

The opposite of truth is Xenthos.

I read that analogy and I thought it said bears. It was a much better analogy with bears than beans.

Very strained analogy, but if Charlie can't count beans, Charlie should trust other people's counting. It doesn't count that Charlie doesn't like navy beans, and thus navy beans don't really count as a full bean. Charlie should not try to reinforce his point by showing that he complained that navy beans don't count as a full bean, and no one gave him the time of day for it, therefore everyone else just doesn't understand. Does not follow.

Of course if it was navy bears, you'd have to wonder what nefarious activity the navy is training bears for, like they trained dolphins to plant bombs on ships.

(This current topic so needs derailing...)

D'awww.

Except that lipread has worked this way ever since I got it, years and years ago at this point.

So, yeah. Honestly, it seems like you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of, at this point. So, with that settled... (if I claim it's settled, is it settled? That's an interesting question. Hmm... )

No, it's settled when I say it's settled. And it's settled - Lipread works as intended, as far as I am aware.

You're welcome to speak to your envoy(s) about having it changed, though!

This means, drop it. Back to twitting. Or whatever you call it.

Chiirrrrp!