• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mark's Interview with Ron

I forgot to mention that my website URL doesn't appear during the show. People won't know how to read the papers we're referring to. :(
 
Gravy said:
Not yet. The producer had to have his funny bone surgically removed. Otherwise editing that show could have been fatal to him.
Click to expand...
You do realize that your respone makes me want to hear it even more. For my sake, it better be up before the 10th.
 
Aha! Thanks, Oliver.

For those who don't know him, Paul Isaac posted here as Sentinel before he was banned for being abusive. For those who do know him, you'll recognize every argument from last year.

We started the show with the policy that we'd really give the truthers a fair listen. But Ron didn't know Isaac's reputation, and we didn't have a prearranged signal, like a kick to the shins, for characters who are known not to ever shut off teh burning crazy.

My tongue almost needed stitches from being bitten so hard while listening to those two nuts.

Thanks to Pat from Screw Loose Change for calling in with a sane, worthwhile question!
 
Gravy said:
Aha! Thanks, Oliver.

For those who don't know him, Paul Isaac posted here as Sentinel before he was banned for being abusive. For those who do know him, you'll recognize every argument from last year.

We started the show with the policy that we'd really give the truthers a fair listen. But Ron didn't know Isaac's reputation, and we didn't have a prearranged signal, like a kick to the shins, for characters who are known not to ever shut off teh burning crazy.

My tongue almost needed stitches from being bitten so hard while listening to those two nuts.

Thanks to Pat from Screw Loose Change for calling in with a sane, worthwhile question!
Click to expand...
Guess I better listen again with headphones this time. That didn't sound like Paul Isaac but it certainly seemed that he was more in the guano catagory now but thankfully he didn't bring up his Indian Point nonsense.
 
That was great but you really should have limited it to one question per caller so as to avoid spenting ten minutes dealing with one kook going from question to question to question.
 
That really was a joyous experience. It’s a pity you didn’t get to talk about 9/11 all that much, but maybe next time (and I sincerely hope there is a next time, too). I agree with CW above, there should be a time limit of some kind. Both of the agitators who called in had their claims about 9/11 immediately refuted and so had to fall back on extremely vague and broad claims about Iraq and oil and, curiously, libraries.
 
Yeah it would help to restrict questions to those that directly relate to 9/11 as too often twoofer will move on to stuff about Iraq and the Patriot Act that they know many of us will agree with to some extent.
 
Civilized Worm said:
That was great but you really should have limited it to one question per caller so as to avoid spenting ten minutes dealing with one kook going from question to question to question.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Paul Isaac consumed far too much time, covering way too many broad topics and not making enough specific claims.

It's definetely worth doing again, however, i'd suggest that Ron regulates the callers a little more in future (which is obviously easier said now in retrospect).

Most of time in this episode was spend on Iraq, oil, and other non-conspiracy related topics, unfortunately.

Anyway, thanks again to both Gravy and Pomeroo for the entertaining show.
 
Hyperviolet said:
Most of time in this episode was spend on Iraq, oil, and other non-conspiracy related topics, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
The points are well-taken, but I think this is what Ron was allowing to be conveyed: that (at least) these people cannot put forth a coherent argument about 9/11, and that they resort to scattershot, irrational "connect this" statements. If we do another call-in show, we do need to take more calls, and to ask if the callers have questions rather than manifestos. But it's unlikely that we'll get anyone as long-windedly crazy as Paul Isaac.
 
Someone let me know when it makes it to youtube. google video is too unreliable for me. It gets part way in and just stops. Then I have to relaod and watch all over again until it stops at another spot, and so on and so on...
 
Gravy said:
The points are well-taken, but I think this is what Ron was allowing to be conveyed: that (at least) these people cannot put forth a coherent argument about 9/11, and that they resort to scattershot, irrational "connect this" statements. If we do another call-in show, we do need to take more calls, and to ask if the callers have questions rather than manifestos. But it's unlikely that we'll get anyone as long-windedly crazy as Paul Isaac.
Click to expand...


You're right, it was a good example of twoofers arguing techniques, but we've already seen that with the Loosers and Uncle Fetzer so I think most viewers will get the idea by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom