January 6, 2019 — Yovav Gad

[guestron]

Randall has basically become the host of the show. Every episode Gene seems to be less interested. I've even heard what seem like obvious times where he is asked a direct question, will say nothing, and have Randall field it. Maybe if he started putting as much work into the show as he does into those daily emails asking for cash the show would not be circling the drain.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[Doppelganger]

with respect to the Paracast itself - I’ve now invested some time in going over the back catalogue of podcasts, especially the earliest ones - and I must say that there are some true classics there eg - interviews with Vallee,Jerome Clark, and some of the old characters like James Mosley (what a guy!), the rather surreal “memorial” to John Keel ! and some of the quite contentious debunking episodes - I really liked the probing approach taken by David Biedny - an interesting character himself.
It must have been hard keeping this up on a weekly basis over more than ten years - so kudos indeed to Gene Steinberg, but it seems to be running out of stream (along with the subject itself) and may be unsustainable in its current weekly form? Also what I’m seeing in the (now quite sparse) forums here - and more pervasively and disturbingly via Google are darker elements of infighting, discontent and accusations which have often dogged this field. It’s such a pity as I would imagine that it just puts many people off.

I love the Paracast, despite this week's oddball guest. I thought the hosts were more than respectful to him despite his unusual views. (CNN and NBC are fake news, but he gave the benefit of the doubt to the alien autopsy and meeting Jesus in outer space.) That said, most guests are top-notch.

Also, David, I your screen name is awesome. One of my all-time favorite shows.

 

[Randall]

with respect to the Paracast itself - I’ve now invested some time in going over the back catalogue of podcasts, especially the earliest ones - and I must say that there are some true classics there eg - interviews with Vallee,Jerome Clark, and some of the old characters like James Mosley (what a guy!), the rather surreal “memorial” to John Keel ! and some of the quite contentious debunking episodes - I really liked the probing approach taken by David Biedny - an interesting character himself.

Yes. Biendny and & Christopher O'Brien were both excellent cohosts. Perhaps more importantly their timing was during a crest in the popularity of paranormal radio show/podcast/forums. But the subject waxes and wanes, and Internet forums in general seem to have been in decline, given way to Facebook and cellular texting.

It must have been hard keeping this up on a weekly basis over more than ten years - so kudos indeed to Gene Steinberg, but it seems to be running out of stream (along with the subject itself) and may be unsustainable in its current weekly form? Also what I’m seeing in the (now quite sparse) forums here - and more pervasively and disturbingly via Google are darker elements of infighting, discontent and accusations which have often dogged this field. It’s such a pity as I would imagine that it just puts many people off.

You might be right. But then again, I've been into the subject for decades, and although the veterans may get tired of hearing the same old stuff over and over again, there are still people who are new to the field who haven't, and keeping the show alive also keeps the archives alive. Plus I like to deliver my part in the spirit of O'Brien and Biendny. That is to say that although I make a little more effort to be diplomatic, I don't simply let problematic claims and opinions slide past, and I like having lesser known guests on who are trying to contribute honestly and constructively, even if they're not as well informed as higher profile guests. Why you might wonder?

The Internet is still good for nurturing newbies to the field and promoting grass roots awareness, and The Paracast isn't a prime time TV show with a 6 or 7 figure budget. I know that's what everyone wants, and all for free nonetheless without the commercials, but that's neither what we're about nor does it matter to me if we ever get to that point. This is the trenches, and I think almost anyone who gets into this kind of gig should be prepared to be battle hardened because it takes a pretty thick skin to take the hits, wipe the mud off, and forge ahead with something positive to say. If I can be even a small inspiration for that, then I'm doing my part.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In case you’re wondering, someone who tried to hijack the thread is now in hate speech purgatory.

Just wondering why the fact that Yovov is a Raelian isn’t coming up.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Of course it's your gig Gene - under your terms - but personally I dislike censorship

But there have to be limits. We don't do it very often, but there is a group of stalkers that have been after me for years and they do not deserve a platform here.

 

[GlitteringBadger]

Just wondering why the fact that Yovov is a Raelian isn’t coming up.

Probably because he was as uninformative on his Raelianism as he was on everything else. There’s just not much to say about it.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Funny, though, that this is one of the most active threads in different months.

 

[Doppelganger]

I think Yovov really shot himself in the foot with that interview. The concept of his website intrigued me at the beginning, but he went off the rails so many times I wouldn't even consider going there.

 

[Randall]

Of course it's your gig Gene - under your terms - but personally I dislike censorship

From personal experience, and I've tried many forums and haven't always had status here ( In fact I've even been banned at least once here ), this is the most tolerant forum I've ever participated in.

 

[Randall]

I think Yovov really shot himself in the foot with that interview. The concept of his website intrigued me at the beginning, but he went off the rails so many times I wouldn't even consider going there.

It's the contributors that determine the quality. So if you want higher quality then the idea is to participate with higher quality content. It's easy to complain or be critical. Much harder to put in the time and effort. But from a sheer consumer perspective, it's not like I don't see your point either. So let's hope the show inspires some new and higher quality participation that will meet your standards.

 

[Randall]

Randall has basically become the host of the show. Every episode Gene seems to be less interested. I've even heard what seem like obvious times where he is asked a direct question, will say nothing, and have Randall field it. Maybe if he started putting as much work into the show as he does into those daily emails asking for cash the show would not be circling the drain.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Although I'm volunteering my time for the show, I feel that I'm very fortunate to have been given the opportunity. In addition to Gene's participation in the show, he also does a lot behind the scenes to make sure he brings the show to you and other listeners. Frankly, I don't know how he's managed to do it so consistently for so long. It's quite amazing actually.

 

[Doppelganger]

It's the contributors that determine the quality. So if you want higher quality then the idea is to participate with higher quality content. It's easy to complain or be critical. Much harder to put in the time and effort. But from a sheer consumer perspective, it's not like I don't see your point either. So let's hope the show inspires some new and higher quality participation that will meet your standards.

I tried to reply to this, but was blocked because, "Your content can not be submitted. This is likely because your content is spam-like or contains inappropriate elements." For the life of me, I see nothing spam-like or controversial in my post.

 

[urkotic]

The thing is, to my mind, it is a consumer perspective which is pertinent here. If something/one is putting itself out there as being "The Gold Standard" in any undertaking then it implies that it has (of itself) the ability to deliver to that standard as a high quality content provider- and its a high benchmark to deliver so shouldn't be trumpeted lightly? ... shouldn't have to rely on it's audience to provide the content, time, effort etc. If the show has morphed from it's previous premier status to that of a volunteer participation organisation, or has run out of steam content-wise (due to there now being many more internet shows, and less actually happening) then its maybe time for a rethink of the show's format/frequency and maintain the quality (the earlier shows definitely deserved the Gold Standard accolade!)? Maybe it's best to bow out on a high - rather than scrape the ufological barrel? But there again perhaps there is an audience for this sort of thing? - it's a good a hobby as anything maybe and it's free.

Eh, self promotion and marketing, no one can really police every claim made in such realms, but I agree that ultimately the consumer's beliefs will tell. Reviews can be a good guide though even those can be fake or biased.

The comic book the Fantastic Four declared itself "The World's Greatest Comic Magazine!" for much of it's decades long run; I could say that it was probably that at times during the first 100 issues but only rarely thereafter. But, that's only my assessment. Really who is to say? Eventually Marvel took a break from publishing it for a few years, only resuming publication this year, which suggests to me it had stopped living up to its title, though other factors may have been involved (Marvel wanting to undercut the value of a film property to get the rights back?).

As a consumer I think I can at least take a label such as that as a declaration of intent - the creator is trying to make this thing the world's greatest, or the gold standard. Self labeling like that will draw my attention but also raises my expectations and colors my judgment of the material. Ultimately though any product has to expect to be worth the consumer's time and attention, or why should the creator or audience bother?

That said with episodic things such as monthly comic books or weekly podcasts, they can't all be winners, and sometimes there are losing streaks and slumps. And you're right, I can listen to episodes of the Paracast without paying for them.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I tried to reply to this, but was blocked because, "Your content can not be submitted. This is likely because your content is spam-like or contains inappropriate elements." For the life of me, I see nothing spam-like or controversial in my post.

Links? Please explain so I can look into it.

 

[Doppelganger]

Links? Please explain so I can look into it.

The post simply explained my (hopefully) constructive criticism of Yovav's appearance. It contains no links or inappropriate words. I'm not sure how to share it with you. I don't see an email option (I'm new here) and tried to "start a conversation" which the system wouldn't allow for the same reason I received for my post.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I really don't see anything in your account setup that would block you. Please click on the Contact us link at the bottom of the forum page and send me the info so I can look into it.

 

[Doppelganger]

Links? Please explain so I can look into it.

The post simply explained my (hopefully) constructive criticism of Yovav's appearance. It contains no links or inappropriate words. I'm not sure how to share it with you. I don't see an email option (I'm new here) and tried to "start a conversation" which the system wouldn't allow for the same reason I received for my post.

 

[Doppelganger]

I really don't see anything in your account setup that would block you. Please click on the Contact us link at the bottom of the forum page and send me the info so I can look into it.

Will do. Thanks.

 

[Doppelganger]

I’d like to hear what you have to say.
I also have a few further questions. Am I possibly missing something that’s going on in another paracast domain/format? A Twitter or Facebook forum perhaps? During my brief visit here I really can’t see much activity going on in these forums. How many members actually are there here? Or do most people just take the free downloads?

Thanks. I'm surprised about the lack of traffic here, too. I just signed up, so I don't know the answer to your question. Maybe a forum veteran can help us out.

 

[Randall]

The thing is, to my mind, it is a consumer perspective which is pertinent here. If something/one is putting itself out there as being "The Gold Standard" in any undertaking then it implies that it has (of itself) the ability to deliver to that standard as a high quality content provider- and its a high benchmark to deliver so shouldn't be trumpeted lightly? ... shouldn't have to rely on it's audience to provide the content, time, effort etc.

I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were referring to UFO Today, not The Paracast.

If the show has morphed from it's previous premier status to that of a volunteer participation organisation, or has run out of steam content-wise (due to there now being many more internet shows, and less actually happening) then its maybe time for a rethink of the show's format/frequency and maintain the quality (the earlier shows definitely deserved the Gold Standard accolade!)?

All fair points, but I don't make those calls either. I do however make suggestions, and if anyone has some specific ideas on format changes, then post them. All constructive suggestions and comments will be considered.

Otherwise Maybe it's best to bow out on a high - rather than scrape the ufological barrel?

We've had some very contentious guests on in the past that due to their style of participation in the field would be considered by some to be "bottom of the barrel", e.g. the Cousins brothers, and they get the same treatment. If you're looking only for star power personalities in the field of ufology, then you'll have to pick and choose. But personally, I like that we feature relative unknowns from time to time, as well as guests from our forum, and in no way do I think that detracts from the quality of the show. I suppose much of what constitutes standards is very subjective.

But there again perhaps there is an audience for this sort of thing? - it's a good a hobby as anything maybe and it's free.

I'm not sure of our audience numbers, but @Gene Steinberg says the show gets a lot of downloads. Whatever the case, I'd say that it's more than a hobby for me. Gene can speak to his side of things, but I contend that hobbies are relatively trivial pastimes to those who do them rather than the things they see as activities that help them fulfill their purpose in life, and that monetary gain is only relevant when differentiating between professional and non-professional in a business sense ( as opposed to a qualitative aspect ).

So for example, ufologists, artists, and musicians are those who do those activities as more than pastimes, whether they get paid for doing them or not. Referring to their work as "hobbies" implies that what they're doing lacks substance in terms of personal importance, which IMO risks the comment being taken in a pejorative manner.