David Biedny on The Noosphere Podcast

[Schuyler]

Not ready for prime time. Click on their red button and get Page Not Found. Write to them to tell them about it, and the email bounces back. Listen to their intro (I listened to the UFO/TV episode, not the one with David) and you get the "Yuck, yuck, we're so funny" routine, not to mention J&J: You can't get away from them. They're everywhere with nothing much to say.

Frankly, I think we've got a "Podcast Problem" that mirrors the problems of the Internet, to wit: Now that everyone CAN do Podcasts, everyone IS. There are no brakes on the system at all. We have a proliferation of them and what's worse, they're getting pretty incestuous. I think there are a limited number of quality guests who themselves have a limited amount of time, so we run the risk of these shows 'doing roundtables' so they can just have a conversation and fill an episode. It won't be too long before they'll be pulling people off the street and saying, "Now, what do you know about the paranormal?"

Ultimately I trust their will be a winnowing effect so that the better programs prevail and the worst ones will just go away. No one is forcing anyone to lisen to them, of course, so good luck to them.

 

[skunkape]

It won't be too long before they'll be pulling people off the street and saying, "Now, what do you know about the paranormal?"

That's the one I was thinking about producing.

 

[Ron Collins]

That's the one I was thinking about producing.

Actually, and I know i am gonna take some shit for this, but I would listen to that if it were well produced and the guests were either quasi-celebrity types or intellectuals that would take it serious enough not to keep throwing out the same old tired jokes. I can see the potential for a shitty show but it could also be an entertaining and enlightening show for many of us.

 

[skunkape]

Actually, and I know i am gonna take some shit for this, but I would listen to that if it were well produced and the guests were either quasi-celebrity types or intellectuals that would take it serious enough not to keep throwing out the same old tired jokes. I can see the potential for a shitty show but it could also be an entertaining and enlightening show for many of us.

I'm the kind of of person who asks strangers about this shit, and I hear some really cool stories. Even if they are nuts, why does that diminish the value of their tales? I've heard some pretty interesting tales from some folks who seemed to have a poor grasp on 'concensus-reality.' I prefer the term "otherly-saned."

 

[eckloss]

Not ready for prime time.

We never claimed we were. We are simply a bunch of average people who happen to enjoy talking about these topics. Thats the entire point of the show. We didnt want to be another cookie cutter podcast who bring on the same old guests and ask the same stale questions. And the only reason we are on iTunes is because the people who did listen to the early incarnation of The Noosphere asked us to, so they could have an easy way to find episodes when they are posted.

Click on their red button and get Page Not Found.

Could you be a little more specific? If theres a broken link I need to know about it.

Write to them to tell them about it, and the email bounces back.

Yes, there was a typo in the email address. It is now corrected. Much appreciated for bringing it to my attention.

Listen to their intro (I listened to the UFO/TV episode, not the one with David) and you get the "Yuck, yuck, we're so funny" routine

Is there something wrong with that? If you cant laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? And the particular episode you are referencing, before you criticize it and its (very purposely) over-the-top attempt at humor, I put it to you that you don't know the story behind that recording, as our regulars do. But that's neither here nor there. Everyone has their opinions, and different senses of humor.

not to mention J&J: You can't get away from them. They're everywhere with nothing much to say.

Well, whatever anyone else may think of them, they happen to be friends of mine. If you choose not to listen to a particular podcast or radio program because someone you dont care for may appear there from time to time, so be it. Thats your choice.

Frankly, I think we've got a "Podcast Problem" that mirrors the problems of the Internet, to wit: Now that everyone CAN do Podcasts, everyone IS. There are no brakes on the system at all. We have a proliferation of them and what's worse, they're getting pretty incestuous. I think there are a limited number of quality guests who themselves have a limited amount of time, so we run the risk of these shows 'doing roundtables' so they can just have a conversation and fill an episode. It won't be too long before they'll be pulling people off the street and saying, "Now, what do you know about the paranormal?"

Again, I refer you to what I say above. And add that we do not do the Noosphere for recognition, fame, notoriety (as so many out there pathetically do attempt to do), and certainly not for money. The four of us (myself, IsoBan, Stars, and Violet) are friends. We do this because we enjoy it. We have no great Messianic agenda. We have no delusions of greatness. It is a hobby, a mental exercise, a way for us to stay in contact with one another and to explore things in a way that some others find enjoyable to listen to. If you do not, again, that's fine. Not knowing you, I can still at least say I respect your opinion and acknowledge your criticism. If you are the same person that David mentioned and sang the praises of on our show last night, then respect is even more deserved.

 

[Schuyler]

Well, if random podcasts are going to be the order of the day I think we should set up some kind of podcast rating system to help people wade through the massive number available, maybe a scale from one to five, with questions such as:

1. HOST COMPETENCE: Are the hosts competent in their field? Do they have any expertise or any credentials whatsoever? Have they done any research in the field? Have they published anything? How long is their tenure? What's their reputation?

2. YUCK YUCK FACTOR: Are the hosts just naturally funny and entertaining (good) or do they push the envelope and think everything they say is funny. How 'forced' is their humor? Does it dominate the show? Do the hosts rely on potty-mouth humor or excessive obscenity?

3. GUEST QUALITY: Overall (allowing for a few inevitable duds), do the guests to the show bring knowledge and insight that is useful in understanding the field? Are they argumentative and defensive?

4. PROFESSIONALISM: Do the hosts exhibit a professional manner? Are the guests treated civily, but with discerning and insightful questions? Can the hosts pull off a 'good interview'? Is the show filled with poor grammar and excessive 'ahs' and pauses?

5. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: Are the 'production values' of the show at a high level? Can you actually hear the show? Are there technical quirks in the show that take away from the value? Is there any evidence of editing?

6. AUDIENCE AWARENESS: Does the show recognize that it actually has an audience, or does the show sound like it is a tape of a conversation with no awareness of the outside world?

7. BIAS LEVEL: Does the show reflect a political or contextual bias? For example, does the show reflect an ETH bias and treat the IDH with obvious disdain, or is the show even-handed across the spectrum of opinions in the field? How judgmental is the show?

8. BREADTH: Does the show cover a wide range of topics in the field, or is it narrowly focused on one particular aspect to the point that it is repetitious?

9. ATTITUDE: Is the show all about the hosts or all about the show? Do the hosts spend an excessive amount of time discussing themselves and how great they are, or do they get right down to business and 'do the show'?

Maybe these could be refined a bit, but the idea is to have the audience rate each show they listen to to get a cumulative score. Since people have a limited amount of time to devote to listen to a couple of guys jawing off about the topic, people could begin to get a sense of the worthiness of each show. Like a ratings sysem, the best shows will rank near the top, garner a larger audience share, maybe even a premium ad rate, and be 'worth more' than shows which rank near the bottom.

 

[Schuyler]

Could you be a little more specific? If theres a broken link I need to know about it.

the BIG RED BUTTON on the HOME PAGE does not work.

Yes, there was a typo in the email address. It is now corrected. Much appreciated for bringing it to my attention.

That's great that it works now, but it didn't then. Imagine the scenario, if you will. I click on the BIG RED BUTTON which gives me a "Page not found error." I then click on "Contact us" and send an email that BOUNCES. How would you feel about quality if that happened to you? I TRIED to contact you to make you aware of the issue and THAT didn't work. I'll bet you would have bailed in a heartbeat if that had happened to you.

As to the rest of your comments, you're just being defensive. I stand by my review. I have, for the record, reviewed literally hundreds of mostly books in the last 40 years and this is only the third time the 'author' has decided to 'correct' me.

If you can't derive value from what I am telling you about your show, that's not my problem. If your show is really good it will get a larger audience and be successful on its own merits. If it doesn't, it won't. Again, not my problem. I don't care enough to be drawn into an argument over this. It's not worth my time. Use what you can. Discard what you want. Good luck with your show. End of story.

 

[Gareth]

Schuyler, to be fair, something is only 'random' until youve heard of it. If you were an Eerie Radio listener rather than the Paracast I assume you would have a completely different opinion.

And the only other thing Ill say is from what I can tell, the are not a 'guest' podcast. Just the same group each ep hashing out a subject. Having guests seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[eckloss]

the BIG RED BUTTON on the HOME PAGE does not work.

If you are referring to the direct mp3 downloads button near the top of the page, it does work on my end. But I would ask that anyone else also test it and get back to me, for if there is a problem, it obviously needs to be corrected at once.

That's great that it works now, but it didn't then. Imagine the scenario, if you will. I click on the BIG RED BUTTON which gives me a "Page not found error." I then click on "Contact us" and send an email that BOUNCES. How would you feel about quality if that happened to you? I TRIED to contact you to make you aware of the issue and THAT didn't work. I'll bet you would have bailed in a heartbeat if that had happened to you.

You're 100% correct, and Im in complete agreement. I would feel the exact same way. In fact, I owe you thanks that you even tried to let me know about the issue. Most wouldn't even bother in such a situation.

As to the rest of your comments, you're just being defensive. I stand by my review. I have, for the record, reviewed literally hundreds of mostly books in the last 40 years and this is only the third time the 'author' has decided to 'correct' me.

If I'm coming across as defensive, that's not my intent. I'm simply responding to your comments. I don't know you, except for what I've heard about you from DB, and you don't know me. But I'm not the kind who likes to jump into an argumentative stance. So, my apologies if anything I said came out that way. As I said, I can respect your review, and acknowledge it. To be honest, from what I've heard about you, you are the kind of person we like to have join our discussions.

If you can't derive value from what I am telling you about your show, that's not my problem. If your show is really good it will get a larger audience and be successful on its own merits. If it doesn't, it won't. Again, not my problem. I don't care enough to be drawn into an argument over this.

Again, Im not trying to start an argument. Simply responding. As to whether our show is "good" or "bad", that doesn't much matter to us anyway. It is what it is, we are who we are, and we enjoy doing it.

On a side note, I saw your review criteria above, and think there are many valid points in it, and personally agree with the majority of them. Well done. The only counterpoint to that I would make is that, though many would find such a rating system very valuable and useful, everyone must gauge their like or dislike on their own opinion and preferences.

In any case, have a great night, and I do thank you for listening to the show(s) of ours that you did.

erich

 

[Gareth]

red button works for me.

 

[thefoundryman]

You have an awesome show Erich, I listen to it at work where it is a loud environment, is there anyway you guys could boost the final output volume? My ipod is cranked, as it's one of the quieter podcasts I've been devouring lately.

Oh, and it kicks ass hearing Dave Biedny use appropriate language to exemplify the opinions he expressed on the show. I'd like the paracast even more if it was explicit. Loved the Alfred F**king Webre (sp?) rant.

Stoked for the next one!
Thefoundryman

 

[eckloss]

you know, i asked a few others in a chat about the volume issue myself. i will def boost the final cut on the subsequent posts. let me know if it seems to become too much.

and thanks for listening. we have a great 2-parter that were going to begin to record next week i believe. we're going to dissect a book and then the author will join us for a follow up to address any issues we come up with.

 

[Paul Kimball]

wow, im always surprised to learn of who is actually listening to the show.

kudos to you, mr kimball, for all the incredible work you've done!

Thank you. I enjoy your show - the episode with DB was a good listen.

Paul