• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

March 11, 2018 — Robert Schroeder with J. Randall Murphy


Forums New posts
Need to look for very small gamma ray bursts in the earth's atmosphere (intermittent...enough to be thrown away if scientists are looking for other larger bursts)
 
I wouldn't go so far to say Robert Schroeder was badly treated. He didn't seem to think so anyway. I think there was a little too much interruption and I don't think Robert had an opportunity to answer some of the objections because Gene and Randall would tag team him and raise more objections before he had time to answer. Otherwise, I thought it was a fascinating episode.
 
technomage said:
I wouldn't go so far to say Robert Schroeder was badly treated. He didn't seem to think so anyway. I think there was a little too much interruption and I don't think Robert had an opportunity to answer some of the objections because Gene and Randall would tag team him and raise more objections before he had time to answer. Otherwise, I thought it was a fascinating episode.
Click to expand...
Tag team? No way.
 
My feedback is so mild, it almost doesn't quality for a post, but it's a position in between those that see no issue with the interview at all with those that think you and Randall bullied Robert.
 
Ok, understood, but I'm providing feedback on how the interview came across, not what the intent was. It's only my opinion; take it for what it's worth.
 
I did listen to it, and Robert wasn't being interrupted on After the Paracast. I also don't think you were being disrespectful; I just thought there were too many interruptions thus making it hard for Robert to respond to all the points raised. That's all.
 
technomage said:
I did listen to it, and Robert wasn't being interrupted on After the Paracast. I also don't think you were being disrespectful; I just thought there were too many interruptions thus making it hard for Robert to respond to all the points raised. That's all.
Click to expand...
Gene was referring to Schroeder's surprise return visit on the most recent ATP, in which we constantly cut him off again :p . But seriously, I'm confident that after reviewing the episode, the spots I interjected were where our audience didn't need Schroeder's extended monologue to get the point, and that without getting to the point we wouldn't have been able to cover all his points.

I was essentially doing both him and the audience a favor. Maybe there's a way to interject more gracefully, but unless you've participated in a live recording of the show, it's hard to get across the way it works. If one doesn't just step right in there with split second timing, multiple issues can drift by and get lost in the wash before anyone gets a chance to explore them. Intentionally or otherwise, Schroeder milks the mic. to the point of doing himself a bit of disservice ( IMO ).

Maybe others are of another viewpoint. I dunno. The only thing I know for sure is it's difficult to please everyone, and all constructive feedback is appreciated. So thank you for that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's a judgment call, and you can't please everyone. I actually wanted to hear more of what Robert had to say, not less, but maybe I'm in the minority. But the show was excellent, nonetheless.
 
technomage said:
Yes, it's a judgment call, and you can't please everyone. I actually wanted to hear more of what Robert had to say, not less, but maybe I'm in the minority. But the show was excellent, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Thanks. To help me understand a bit better, here's an example. If a guest is going into an extended description of the sort of behavior that sets UFOs apart from other craft, or some other thing we're already familiar with, would you prefer to hear him go through it all before getting to the point and have less time to get into it a little deeper, or just let him ramble, even if it puts most of the audience to sleep?
 
USI Calgary said:
Thanks. To help me understand a bit better, here's an example. If a guest is going into an extended description of the sort of behavior that sets UFOs apart from other craft, or some other thing we're already familiar with, would you prefer to hear him go through it all before getting to the point and have less time to get into it a little deeper, or just let him ramble, even if it puts most of the audience to sleep?
Click to expand...
Remember that he's not as well versed in the nuts and bolts of Ufology as we are, and not fully aware of what our listeners know. It was a balancing. But if you'd put Michael and Robert together, they'd be talking for hours before we'd slow 'em down.
 
USI Calgary said:
Thanks. To help me understand a bit better, here's an example. If a guest is going into an extended description of the sort of behavior that sets UFOs apart from other craft, or some other thing we're already familiar with, would you prefer to hear him go through it all before getting to the point and have less time to get into it a little deeper, or just let him ramble, even if it puts most of the audience to sleep?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. I was referring to cases where you or Gene raised an objection and he would start to answer and then you raised additional objections. I can't provide specific examples, but I recall when I was listening a few times: Gee, I wish they let him answer that question without breaking in with more objections. This happened only a few times so I don't want to blow this out of proportion.
 
technomage said:
No, of course not. I was referring to cases where you or Gene raised an objection and he would start to answer and then you raised additional objections. I can't provide specific examples, but I recall when I was listening a few times: Gee, I wish they let him answer that question without breaking in with more objections. This happened only a few times so I don't want to blow this out of proportion.
Click to expand...
Okay thanks. It's all constructive feedback, so no problem. If you run across a specific example feel free to let me know and I'll review it to see if I might have been able to do better ( if I'm on again ) !
 
Last edited:
@technomage BTW: My question was actually serious because there are a certain number of people who like to have talk radio on just for the background sound of someone talking and they don't always get right into the content. Once in a while I'd do that with Noory and I actually would fall asleep ... lol ... so everyone has different reasons for listening and it's good to get an idea about what sort of listener they are.
 
Back
Top