Alright, to start off, I've been listening since April and greatly appreciate the work being done. On occasion though, I find myself turning off the show entirely or sitting there and wondering if I actually want to put it on my MP3 player just because of a few minor issues.
This didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at first; if the issues are minor, what's the problem? Then I realized that the problem is that I hear the issues over and over and they compact into a larger vexation. So, in the spirit of constructive criticism, I offer the following observations:
- The Michael Horn allusions are the thuds of a dead horse being beaten. It's really not funny, not entertaining, not thought provoking, nor informational. Can we be done with that, please?
- I'm really not too interested in hearing how godly Biedny is. His magnus photoshoppery aside (which also got a little tiring to hear of), the apparent difference between David and most other people with the same interests is that he's doing a broadcast about it. In reality, I hear much better points and questions from other people who aren't on radio shows. Veneration in extreme and deserved moderation is best for listeners.
- I feel like the topics are quite often not very well researched. When you enter an entertainment/media field (or most businesses) it is really best practice to know exactly what your contemporaries are doing. Many of the Paracast topics are regularly covered on C2C... and yet I often hear a profession of complete ignorance on things like Remote Viewing. So when such information is so widely broadcast on a show like c2c, then it seems like you guys are just living in your own world and don't take into consideration the work that other people are doing in your field.
- Complete nonsense speculation about why some people won't go on your show should be eliminated. It sounds cocky and it sounds like you guys are a couple of snooty second-year college kids with a sack full of self-righteous at your side. This is most recently exemplified in the comment about Doty quaking in his boots because of The Paracast "Bottom Line." The reality is that Doty has been trying to keep himself away from all these types of communications, and has claimed that he wanted nothing to do with Serpo. From what he's said over the past 7 months (which isn't much), he won't come on because he isn't interested in talking about it - it's nothing but trouble for him.
- The bottom line isn't really that at all and in fact ends up working as a form of spin... spin toward whatever David's particular opinions happen to be at the moment. As broadcasters, and more importantly as a couple of guys who have a show section they refer to as the bottom line... when any remaining questions often get referred to as "issues" they are percieved as questions for which there are no existing answers. Semantics maybe, but perception is everything in this business.
- "I find [blank] hard to believe because no one has said anything on their deathbed about it," is not a valid argument for anything[/b]. I've heard this one a couple times on the show. First of all, how would you know what was said on every alleged witness' deathbed? Please realize that a) you're not wearing the witnesses' shoes, b) you're not wearing the deathbed confession recipients' shoes (maybe they all think the dying people are senile, you just don't know), and c) you ultimately have no idea who was told what. There seems to be an impression - perhaps due to the internet revolution - that once one person says something, then everyone knows about it. Obviously, once you think about it, that really isn't the case. This ends up sounding like a Janeane Garofolo anti-UFO rhetoric about why UFOs only appear to uneducated morons that live in wheat fields.
- Commercials need... something. The "world of secret handshakes" one is laughable at first, then a bit embarrassing to hear later. But hey, you only have time for so much. I really know how that is.
- I feel like the approach to the guests is often hostile before the listener has a chance to delve into the gist of what people are saying. That's not cool or respectable. It feels like there's not much room for an open mind. I'm sure you would love specific examples, but it tends to be an attitude that all content can be evaluated and given final judgment simply by reading a few pages on the net and talking to someone for an hour or so.
So, good luck and thanks for the efforts and all the work you're currently doing. I'm an avid fan. Cheers!
