Search results

No thread yet? It was a bit of a 'heard it all before' one (the type you could play a drinking game to) - but interesting enough. I mean, I listened - but I always do:D

I is Welsh, innit:D

Okay let me say. The middle ground - which you're so keen to claim - outside of some 'extreme' the parameters of which you don't define - doesn't really exist. So, you seek an apparently strong 'rational' middle ground commentator - who is really an egotistical bully. Fromm would have a...

?Dave, seriously, I honestly think you sometimes take a manichean view which really isn't helpful. Sure, there is bullshit but look at the different view taken on some Meier material in a recent programme : you can't just draw a 'with me or agin me' line in this field even on the most...

lol:D Dave, really:rolleyes:

This is so obviously a Biedney sock-puppet that it's actually a bit embarrassing **hides in shame**:cool:

Yes it's Godwin's law::) I'm not here to cite 'God did it' - that claim is a bit bizarre actually:D. I actually think David is more or less sound but (and this flaw is fatal, really fatal, in my view) he allows his ego to intervene (and 'wooters' like you don't help, really;).:cool:

Well, it's like someone comparing someone to Hitler and a third party trying to have a debate about the merits of National Socialism. Analogies lie as they fall acccording to their purpose. There's no point saying 'ah, the calvinists were misunderstood, or whatever". The point is whether...

Well, precisely, but misunderstanding the point of the analogy and veering into a 'description' of Calvinism not pertinent to her 'point', is hardly constructive, is it?:)

I think the point may have been about a rigid distinction between the 'blessed' and the 'damned' based upon the capricious decisions of a (in the analogy, self-appointed) 'deity' : this manichean duality based on a 'choice of who is blessed' which cannot be overturned is what she was getting at...

this inter-faction mutual bitchfighting is hilarious:D

yeah, c'mon mate: you're one of the sycophants, obviously:D Don't be so nasty to the 'others' :they ain't your enemy (necessarily):)

lol, fair enough, Dave but, as I said, I think that OP has a teensy weensy bit of a point about how you approach the credibility of your guests through how they react to certain ufo 'names'. This tends to make the focus of credibility of a guest how they do or do not give credence to other...

Me too. Don't get me wrong, I luv the bitchin'.:D : and it's still there throughout the show;)

But why ask for people's opinions then? You have fallen into the trap of gathering a couple of sycophants around you who may not represent general listener opinion. Fine, but don't ask for genuinely held opinion, then I think OP has a point in the sense that you judge guests by the people...

I thought it was obvious that they meant 'doe-eyed', to be fair. Why deliberately pretend you didn't know? - that's what I would call 'unconstructive'.

Forum description says : "What is your favorite episode? What's your least-favorite episode? We've love to know, so we can take The Paracast to the next level of excellence.". OP seems to fit the spirit of that criteria:).

Ooh 'e's ard innee?:rolleyes:

It's happened to me several times, to be fair. I just assumed it was common but not really discussed in public.

I agree with Scott to some extent. The problem is that it's easy to get wrapped up in one's own 'character', and the indulgence of this - at the cost of an effective investigative interviewing technique - then get's inflated through the encouragement of one's rather sycophantic friends and the...