faetal on 19/3/2015 at 19:07
It's possibly because I know someone who has done sound work in television and he described the job of stage managers to me. They are basically there to ensure that the audience behave as they are supposed to, laugh at the correct moments etc. The Top Gear studio segments are borderline unwatchable for me. They're so full of clearly deliberate pregnant pauses for the audience to follow their cue (usually the word "laughter" flashing on a teleprompter), with such clearly scripted links between the "banter". It's supposed to come across as three witty guys chatting among themselves and giving the room a great laugh, but to me it just looks like a really mechanical piece of trite performance art designed to simulate "lad banter".
bjack on 19/3/2015 at 19:58
You are describing about 99% of all TV :D At least the live "seminar" type shows. For those that really love that team, those pauses are jewels to them. To those that dislike the humor, well, you've said it.
I will miss Captain Slow (James May) though. I have watched his other series and enjoyed it. Hopefully we'll continue to get his future work in the US. He reminds me of myself, a quirky car guy that is fascinated with old things (WWI and II machines of all types, antique and vintage cars, steam engines!) I bet if we every met, we would become fast enemies, since we would be so similar we would drive ourselves mad :laff:
Yes the chemistry is now forced. You can't keep up a show like that for decades, especially when younger generations have different sensibilities.
Tony_Tarantula on 19/3/2015 at 20:09
Quote Posted by faetal
Either way, if you present a counter-argument with enough detail, then yes, you can compete with peer-reviewed studies. Simply googling an (ironically, peer-reviewed)
The fact that it's peer reviewed is the point, since you've previously stated that peer review is the "minimum basis of discussion"....in other words, anything that's not peer reviewed isn't even worth considering. Therefore I know(and have observed from past behavior) that you're going to immediately dismiss any article that isn't peer reviewed without even reading it.
Anyways, which is it? Is "a counter argument with enough detail" or "peer review" the "minimum basis for informed discussion"? You've stated two directly contradictory positions in this thread and I'd curious which one you'd like to keep and which one you'd like to renounce.
And Nicker, after that last post I think you should probably STFU about other people being assholes. Glass houses and such.
Tony_Tarantula on 19/3/2015 at 20:16
Quote Posted by DDL
Hyperbole police just called, they want their gigantic bag of crazy back.
You clearly didn't live in the USA during Obama's campaign season. Fortunately a lot of what he describes has faded, but back during the campaign and Obama's first few years in office literally ANY high visibility criticism of Obama would result in an NBC pundit, huffpo blogger, or some other progressive "journalist" waxing poetically and self righteously about how the criticisms were really rooted in prejudice and stating that they wouldn't have said that if Obama were white.
But, again, none of that's new news. The USA was founded by people who were (at the time) the most uptight assholes in the world so it's no surprise that the country continues to be full of uptight assholes. Even when we think progressivism is going to lead us away from our puritanical streak, along come initiatives like "yes means yes" and all the complaints about "sexualized female characters" that attempt to re-impose the exact same puritanical mindset.
faetal on 19/3/2015 at 20:22
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
The fact that it's peer reviewed is the point, since you've previously stated that peer review is the "minimum basis of discussion"....in other words, anything that's not peer reviewed isn't even worth considering. Therefore I know(and have observed from past behavior) that you're going to immediately dismiss any article that isn't peer reviewed without even reading it.
Anyways, which is it? Is "a counter argument with enough detail" or "peer review" the "minimum basis for informed discussion"? You've stated two directly contradictory positions in this thread and I'd curious which one you'd like to keep and which one you'd like to renounce.
Peer review of a solid study is the vbasis for having confidence that something is a genuine phenomenon. Peer review at all is the basic minimum for being considered a study. A newspaper article can be well written, specious, make sense and yet contain numerous fabrications. It's the basis for wondering about something, in essence. Taking issue with concepts however, can be a philosophical matter or one of the mechanics of logic, which can be discussed purely by using dialectic discussion.
See, no contradiction, just nuance.
Nicker on 19/3/2015 at 21:01
Quote Posted by bjack
If one cannot read in the sarcasm, then I must have failed.
In a nutshell.
Quote Posted by bjack
So now I have been labeled a hateful...
I never said that, just like I never said I hated Carlin. I just finished asking you to stop putting words in my mouth and you are right back at it. Is this going to be a problem?
Are you going to keep making inflammatory statements only to pretend you were just funnin'? Because that gets tired fast too. You said it yourself, we can't see your face, only what you write. So unless you start punctuating your posts with armies of winky's, prepare to be misread, especially when making unequivocal statements.
You haven't been posting long enough to distinguish between your
jes' kiddin', hyuck hyuck schtick and your usual blustering, baldfaced bullshit, especially when they are all mixed together. So excuse me if I take offense at you accusing me of "spewing hatred".
Nicker on 19/3/2015 at 21:06
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
And Nicker, after that last post I think you should probably STFU about other people being assholes. Glass houses and such.
Just trying to maintain a level of honest, open and forthright assholiness. It's the surreptitious rectal antics that annoy me. That and people putting words in my mouth. Or are you OK with that?
bjack on 19/3/2015 at 22:13
Nicker, you are really misreading me. I did not call you out. I used the "hater" thing as a comparative device. It backfired with you. OK. Sorry. What I was trying to say is if one says anything against anything in the USA, he is immediately a "hater". You had a bad burger at Denny's and posted that? Denny's Hater! You didn't like the dress the news anchor wore? Woman HATER! Inthe USA, one must LOVE everything anyone does, unless you are part of a protected class, then you can be the biggest a-hole on the planet and be thought of as edgy. No that is not hyperbole. It is fact. You must not watch TV or live in the USA. Please do yourself a favor and read comments on blogs (what passes for news today). It is a wasteland of extremes. Yes, many of the posters are professional trolls, but common! The illogical vomit from both sides make me want to move to Pluto.
It is OK for a group a gay panelists to mock transgender models on a game show, but if I say the same things as they do, I am a hater. I was trying to show the hypocrisy. A taste of what it is like to be contrary in America today. If you say one little thing against anything that is PC, you are a hater. If you are anything but a progressive, you are a hater. Sorry that did not come through in the message.
However, you used a whole set of nasty words to describe me. You do not know me at all. :cool: You tried to interpret my entire being via a few posts. Not very open minded, but that would be unfair of me to put that label on you at this point. I don't know you either. You may save children from burning buildings and raise little kitties. Whatever you do, I wish you peace. I really do mean that. We all need it.
No, I am not trolling. No I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone. I am trying to show that some have extreme beliefs on both sides of the fence and need to relax a bit. This includes me. We have far too many people calling for blood for the smallest of things. It makes me very sad and it also frightens the shit out of me. Barbarism will be the result if we keep down this path. That is one reason I started that "free thinking" thread. Too much dogma, man...
As for the use of emoticons, I thought that was supposed to be so yesterday? Still, I have used them. I will use one now... :) We cool? If not, then OK. Be free and dislike me if you want. Or just ignore me.
bjack on 19/3/2015 at 22:34
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Even when we think progressivism is going to lead us away from our puritanical streak, along come initiatives like "yes means yes" and all the complaints about "sexualized female characters" that attempt to re-impose the exact same puritanical mindset.
The progressives are the ones giving the current set of illogical people a voice. Feminism has degenerated into the insane. Women are definitely different than men. They are equal in many respects, yet lesser in others. The same can be said about men. To say we are all the same is crazy talk. To allow 90 pound girls to play football with 200 pound boys in the name of fairness is stupidity. "So ban football," is the response.
The "Yes Means Yes" California campaign is a wonderful example of doublethink. What a cynical name for that peace of crap legislation.
When the right was in power, we had all sorts of nonsense too. The war on drugs for example (actually owned by both sides). Opposition to centralism as they increase federal power with Homeland Security.
Yes, we love to think we are so open and cool in the USA. Hell, we Amsterdam'ed 2 states, with Oregon getting ready to toke up too. Throngs of thongs on the beach. Kardashian pouring milk over her overly ample butt. Yet we have this puritanical streak. Can't say fuck on TV, but you can say shit. It is OK to show zombies eating people (Walking Dead), but not sexual acts. You can kill, but not make babies. Sounds like death worship to me :ebil: Can't show am erect penis on M rated TV, but you can show a chick rubbing away on her erect clitoris. Hell, 2 chicks can get it on and show everything. I guess the standard are written by men only. It is hypocrisy. It is America. At least we are not under Sharia law.
Nicker on 20/3/2015 at 01:30
Quote Posted by bjack
We cool?
OK. Reset.
