First you talk about what we are losing by "not allowing" sound files; then you provide an SE answer with sound files. This isn't a matter of "not letting users use sound files;" rather, it's that we don't currently have a convenient way to make them, upload them, and integrate them into an answer.

@J.R. You don't seem to be your normal self of late. As demonstrated through the link those links and sound files no longer work. It's also clear, if you click on the link to try it out, that the original page disappears. Thirdly, the link shows that the sound files were usefu and helpful to the readership in the first instance, and so should be made difficult to use or directed of site. Does that help you with that issue?

I didn't click on the links, so I didn't realize they didn't still work. My larger point still stands, though: no one is "prohibiting" anyone from incorporating an audio file into an answer, as Mari-Lou has done here in her question.

@J.R. So with the other issue, we don't need to "make" files, we need to enable them to be uploaded. Lots of other sites can do this, so it's disingenuous to imply that there's some kind of technological gap here which SE can't overcome.If there were then a useful post from you explaining why would be helpful. But there isn't ... :(

I don't know who implied there was an "insurmountable technological gap," but it wasn't me. I said early on that I thought this idea had merit, and that being able to embed an audio clip just as easily as we can now embed an image would be helpful feature not just on ELL, but on all of SE's language sites.

@J.R. Noone said there was anything insurmountable. You said "This isn't a matter of "not letting users use sound files;" rather, it's that we don't currently have a convenient way to make them, upload them, and integrate them into an answer". That coupled with your other comments in relation to my answer, made it sound as if there was some technological reason why this long-requested feature hasn't been acted upon. Your undeleted comment still reads "First you talk about what we are losing by "not allowing" sound files; then you provide an SE answer with sound files" ...

@J.R. ... which basically indicates that you didn't read my carefully drafted and well-meaning post. You say you said that this idea has merit, but alas, I cannot find any indication to readers here that this is what you think. As a long standing and well respected (including by me) mod, your negatively construed comments under here in conjunction with your lack of positive support for the proposal are not likely to help realise this potentially useful and innovative feature. Quite the opposite :( Come on J.R! Get behind this (and please delete your comments here). Please, old bean!

@J.R. Users are not able to embed sound files in their posts. This technology is easily available to S.E., but it has not been made available to users as a feature. Linking to off-site posts does not constitute embedding sound files in posts. "Not allowing" here means choosing to not facilitate this easily facilitatble feature.

I'll be candid. First, I like the idea, and have since it was originally proposed. But the idea needs to be elevated to meta, and, before that happens, it should be polished up. First, delete that bit that says: Disadvantages: None. (That's just not good form; it's condescending.) Second, trim down the list of advantages to the heavy-hitters (I especially like Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6; I don't think it would be wise to tout this as "dyslexic-friendly" because we are talking about short sound clips, not entire answers.) Third, don't act like it's trivial, it may not be easy to code the back end.

@J.R. Not my question post or edits to make. These comments would be helpful under the actual question. It may well not be easy back end (Although a fair few very small independent bloggers can do it). But that would require a response from those who do the heavy lifting back end. Your tentative support down here won't help anyone as much as a more prominent comment/answer would ... Nudge.

Nor mine. I tried editing Mari-Lou's question once; she rolled it back. I'd be an ardent supporter with the changes I've suggested in my comment to you. Without those changes, though, I can only say that it's not an ELL decision to make, and I hope we'll be more careful in the language of the proposal if it goes forward. I recommend that we get out of the business of shooting down naysayers and instead strengthen the proposal by cutting out fluff and marketing it as an SE feature that would be especially helpful on its many language sites (16 and counting, I believe).

@J.R. You live here and represent the wider readership. I'm an occasional visitor at the moment, with no democratic weight.Those 16 sites (of which, I believe this must be one of the most frequented) depend on you as well as other contributors to weigh in and make this a better site.

@J.R. I have posted the drawbacks and my responses to them in a new post. The proposal is already fantastically long because I felt constrained to transfer comments in the main post because everyone's comments disappear within a few hours and without warning. You never suggested that you liked Ns. 2,3, 5 and 6. Instead you said the proposal would stand little chance on meta because, and I quote...

"I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that, if your proposal was laid out as it is here, saying that it would be nice to hear other accents and it would help people who might be dyslexic, it would get a very chilly reception at best." I was not a happy bunny.

@Mari-LouA - Yes, and when I wrote that, your proposal looked like this.

@J.R. the original answer did not include that observation ell.meta.stackexchange.com/revisions/… That point was made after I had edited.

@Mari-LouA I stand corrected but I also stand by my comment. I think the overall post would be improved by deleting that Disadvantages: None bit and by culling the advantages to the most relevant ones and taking the other ones out.

...by culling the advantages to the most relevant ones and taking the other ones... this is the first time I've seen this piece of advice. I am done. What with Kentaro and his continual comments about choosing which answer would be the best. It was also said I was naive to present only the positive advantages, well it was a short-lived spurt of enthusiasm which I thought would be welcomed more warmly than it was.

After I posted comments saying that the intention was the audio clip would not substitute written answers, and the idea had been taken completely in the wrong way, your answer remained unchanged until I edited the next day. I am exhausted. I have tried to be professional but also show enthusiasm for what is a good idea, an idea that I posted on ELL, not on EL&U. I am done. But I'm glad the comments are now in chat.