Poll

John B. Wells looks like:

A Vulcan
87 (26.6%)
Hank's Japanese half-brother, "Junichero," in King of the Hill eps. 6ABE20-21  
52 (15.9%)
A stoner sufer named "Tracker," who mentored Sean Penn & Keanu Reeves
43 (13.1%)
Frankenstein's Monster
90 (27.5%)
One of those faces on the Sgt. Pepper album (2nd row from the top. Face #5)
55 (16.8%)

Total Members Voted: 215

Author Topic: John B. Wells  (Read 380606 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1050 on: July 08, 2012, 05:59:21 PM »
According to Merlin's creators when they first came on years ago, Merlin studies Internet "chatter" and looks for "spikes" which it then interprets.  What's so hard to understand about that? I'd hate to see what would happen if it stumbled onto this site.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1051 on: July 08, 2012, 06:33:52 PM »
According to Merlin's creators when they first came on years ago, Merlin studies Internet "chatter" and looks for "spikes" which it then interprets.  What's so hard to understand about that? I'd hate to see what would happen if it stumbled onto this site.

I dare you to find that description anywhere on their antiquated website. You act as though your summary, if correct, is common knowledge. Perhaps it would be wiser next time to think about what you post before acting like an arrogant prick.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1052 on: July 08, 2012, 06:54:12 PM »
Looks like Merlin has stumbled onto this site.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1053 on: July 08, 2012, 07:01:54 PM »
Wells said someone sent him an email, letting him know his British accents are awesome. He then let loose with his equally atrocious pirate accent in appreciation. From bad to worse.

(Attachment Link)

I sent Johnny Bonghits an email that stated the exact opposite. That accent is so phony it makes me want to retch. With skills like that, I suggest he leave radio, and pursue a career at the Medieval Times as a court jester.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1054 on: July 08, 2012, 07:38:36 PM »
According to Merlin's creators when they first came on years ago, Merlin studies Internet "chatter" and looks for "spikes" which it then interprets.  What's so hard to understand about that? I'd hate to see what would happen if it stumbled onto this site.
Your thinking of the "web bot."  MERLIN is supposed to take celestial/astrological crap into account and then crunch it in some dos command line which ends up spitting out neat little ascii charts.  Here's the best that the MERLIN site comes to for an explanation.  Nowhere does it mention that it's snagging info from the internet.
"MERLIN combines the exactness of planetary mathematics with recognized historical cycles to create snapshots of time by using a single, "frozen moment" of time as a starting point. The resulting chronographs, called “Timetraks®” are highly individualized patterns, tracings in time that begin when we are born or a key ("genesis") event occurs. These Timetraks® depict chains of activity that are twofold: external factors (career matters, where we work or live) and internal factors (health, relationships, emotional concerns.)  MERLIN pinpoints three elements about such periods of activity: the onset, the intensity, and the duration and the technology is equally applicable to people, companies, situations and countries."

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1055 on: July 08, 2012, 07:49:33 PM »
You're right - it's so confusing keeping up with all these fancy computer programs that claim to do what simple humans, such as Sylvia Browne, once did. 

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1056 on: July 08, 2012, 08:06:04 PM »
When you type "douche" into MERLIN it spits this out:

John B. Wells
« Reply #1057 on: July 08, 2012, 08:23:24 PM »
As if I needed another reason to hate John B. Wells, he's become the shill for a new product: Bolt-B-Gone. You have to admit, the results are rather dramatic.



Not much different from this guy:

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1058 on: July 08, 2012, 10:04:51 PM »
Ha!  JBW just got called out by the CIA author for not reading the book that is the topic of discussion.

I listened to this show earlier today and heard that. Legit lol. Wells had dead air for a moment. I don't mind Wells that much but come on is it too much to ask that the host read the book before coming on? It's getting to be the norm on the new C2C. The CIA stuff was interesting but they really could've done a good show with his book. Instead we get a quick over view in the last hour. In more capable hands it would have been "classic" imo

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1059 on: July 08, 2012, 10:07:38 PM »
Separated at Birth?

Paul Guercio
Charles Bronson

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1060 on: July 08, 2012, 10:16:37 PM »
I think a new tradition similar to hockey's "playoff beard" should be created if you are going to be a guest on Coast to Coast: "the coast 'stache".

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1061 on: July 08, 2012, 10:19:30 PM »
I listened to this show earlier today and heard that. Legit lol. Wells had dead air for a moment. I don't mind Wells that much but come on is it too much to ask that the host read the book before coming on? It's getting to be the norm on the new C2C. The CIA stuff was interesting but they really could've done a good show with his book. Instead we get a quick over view in the last hour. In more capable hands it would have been "classic" imo

Why would you continue to listen to a host who doesn't have enough respect for his guest or his audience to read the book being discussed? Wells comes across to me as being lazy and incredibly dimwitted. Coast to Coast AM is dead to me save for an occasional Sunday broadcast. And even then, it's a tossup since George Knapp tends to talk exclusively about UFOs.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1062 on: July 08, 2012, 10:20:47 PM »
I think a new tradition similar to hockey's "playoff beard" should be created if you are going to be a guest on Coast to Coast: "the coast 'stache".

Not to be confused with the porn-stache.  ;D

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1063 on: July 08, 2012, 11:20:20 PM »
This isn't my creation so kudos to the person who made it and put it on the net.

                                                                                             

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1064 on: July 09, 2012, 12:04:01 AM »
This isn't my creation so kudos to the person who made it and put it on the net.

                                                                                              (Attachment Link)

Fire burn!!!

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1065 on: July 10, 2012, 07:26:46 AM »
I listened for about 20 minutes on Friday night and for a Wells show, it wasn't as bad as usual. I happened to be in the car the NEXT night, when the show started, and heard the rundown for that night's show...first hour, something that sounded like a genuine and legit topic for Coast, followed by...BIBLICAL PROPHECY. Of course. But that wasn't the thing that finally made me turn it off (though I should know better); no, it was his INTRODUCTION of the Biblical Prophecy guy. I don't remember specifically, but it was something like "...and we have an expert on Biblical Prophecy who has TEACHED the subject for 30 years."

TEACHED.

Not "taught"...

TEACHED.

And that just made me want to SCREAM.

And I'm sure that preacher boy learned Wells real good. What little I heard of it was the MOST paranoid, right-wing, hateful rhetoric I've EVER heard, even for a Wells show--and I grew UP forced to hear that crap.

I don't blame Art for wanting to cut ties. Not one little bit.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1066 on: July 10, 2012, 05:52:00 PM »
And I'm sure that preacher boy learned Wells real good. What little I heard of it was the MOST paranoid, right-wing, hateful rhetoric I've EVER heard, even for a Wells show--and I grew UP forced to hear that crap.

I don't blame Art for wanting to cut ties. Not one little bit.

Every post you make about Wells invariably leads to you mentioning your hatred of his politics.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1067 on: July 10, 2012, 05:53:40 PM »
This isn't my creation so kudos to the person who made it and put it on the net.

                                                                                              (Attachment Link)

The phrase "permanently stoned" come to mind.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1068 on: July 10, 2012, 07:49:02 PM »
Every post you make about Wells invariably leads to you mentioning your hatred of his politics.

And your point is....?

(and my response is as follows...)

1) So what?
2) Like I'm the only one? I'm not. Read this forum. I may have brought it up first and loudest, but very few have contradicted it.
3) There are radio hosts whose politics I passionately disagree with whom I will still acknowledge are good or at least competent hosts, users of the medium, good broadcasters, and intelligent people. Wells is not good or competent or in any sense a proficient user of the medium at all. In his case, his absolute incompetence and yes, I'll say it, stupidity, exacerbates his smug, arrogant, uninformed (indeed, UNformed) opinions. He's not even someone I could "agree to disagree" with. He'd be incapable of that kind of stretch.

So if there was a barb embedded in your comment that was aimed in my direction, forgive the fact that it failed to penetrate. I stand by my disdain for the man, his lack of hosting abilities, and his barbaric (even dangerous) religious/political rhetoric. If you happen to agree with that rhetoric, I pity you, but I have nothing else to say to you.


Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1069 on: July 11, 2012, 11:38:57 AM »
Personally, I like Wells. I don't understand the hate that some have for him here. True, he is no Art Bell or Knapp, but he is a much better interviewer than Snoory and I find him interesting to listen to.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1070 on: July 11, 2012, 03:49:23 PM »
Personally, I like Wells. I don't understand the hate that some have for him here. True, he is no Art Bell or Knapp, but he is a much better interviewer than Snoory and I find him interesting to listen to.
I like him too..  I find he's covering topics I'm interested in these days....  he's offbeat and a change from Ian Punnett.  But, many people feel he's not a journalist, he let's guests ramble without challenging, his topics are 'right wing' conspiracy, he's a fan of Alex Jones (so his credibility sucks)....  those are the types of opinions many people have about him.  To each his own, I say.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1071 on: July 11, 2012, 03:57:49 PM »
He has his moments... I'd rather listen to him than Snore's but that's not saying much.  Whereas Snoore's is annoying ALL the time Wells actually makes me laugh with some of his remarks.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1072 on: July 11, 2012, 11:17:11 PM »
Personally, I like Wells. I don't understand the hate that some have for him here. True, he is no Art Bell or Knapp, but he is a much better interviewer than Snoory and I find him interesting to listen to.
Me too.  It seems that with the passing of time, a lot of the folks here have developed a selective memory about the kind of guests Art had on, and are engaging in revisionist history about his political stripes.  So Malachi Martin wasn't a Christian fundamentalist? And somehow Noory is to blame for Hoagland?  And the show is nothing but fear mongering now?  Pull the other one.
For about four years, every second show that Art did was about climate change, super storms, weather manipulation (HAARP), etc.  In fact, I would venture to say that Art got rich promoting fear of global warming.  Mongering some fear never fazed ol 'Art (The Quickening?) That period of C2C coincided with his highest ratings, his breaking through the 500 affiliate mark, his sale of the show, and his sale of the book and movie rights with Strieber.  His haul makes any money Al Gore took in from the same cottage industry seem like a pittance.


On any given week, the guest lineup, subject matter, and general flip flopping between new age mysticism and right wing conspiracy theory, extraterrestrial weirdness and assorted nut jobs looks pretty much the same is it did when Art was hosting.  I won't deny that Art was a master of the medium, and I dearly loved his shows, his style, the whole coast to coast vibe - because it was entertaining! But to say that it is has fundamentally changed with the new hosts is bullshit.  The story is the same, it is the actors who are different.  And maybe the audience has changed as well.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1073 on: July 12, 2012, 02:06:48 AM »
Personally, I like Wells. I don't understand the hate that some have for him here. True, he is no Art Bell or Knapp, but he is a much better interviewer than Snoory and I find him interesting to listen to.

Some of us have taste. Face it, the guy is a complete moron. Whereas Art used to open his programs with the news of the day and his commentary about it, Wells simply reads the headlines on Drudge or Infowars and apparently considers that being informative.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1074 on: July 12, 2012, 02:26:40 AM »
Me too.  It seems that with the passing of time, a lot of the folks here have developed a selective memory about the kind of guests Art had on, and are engaging in revisionist history about his political stripes.  So Malachi Martin wasn't a Christian fundamentalist? And somehow Noory is to blame for Hoagland?  And the show is nothing but fear mongering now?  Pull the other one.
For about four years, every second show that Art did was about climate change, super storms, weather manipulation (HAARP), etc.  In fact, I would venture to say that Art got rich promoting fear of global warming.  Mongering some fear never fazed ol 'Art (The Quickening?) That period of C2C coincided with his highest ratings, his breaking through the 500 affiliate mark, his sale of the show, and his sale of the book and movie rights with Strieber.  His haul makes any money Al Gore took in from the same cottage industry seem like a pittance.


On any given week, the guest lineup, subject matter, and general flip flopping between new age mysticism and right wing conspiracy theory, extraterrestrial weirdness and assorted nut jobs looks pretty much the same is it did when Art was hosting.  I won't deny that Art was a master of the medium, and I dearly loved his shows, his style, the whole coast to coast vibe - because it was entertaining! But to say that it is has fundamentally changed with the new hosts is bullshit.  The story is the same, it is the actors who are different.  And maybe the audience has changed as well.

Give me a break. Art Bell took his political stances, but he was a compelling enough host that I didn't mind whether or not I agreed with his politics. I wouldn't trade the entire lineup of Coast to Coast A.M. today for one Art Bell. And as far as your accusation of revisionist history goes: I've listened to the original broadcasts back in the day and continue to listen to the now classic programs online. The competition is no competition. Art knew what questions to ask his guests to bring out the best in them. He prepared for his interviews -- and it showed. There isn't a current host that I haven't had to turn off in disgust at one time or another. Coast to Coast A.M. is like a classic rock band that has one of it's founding members left, yet continues to tour and record under the same name --living off of past glory.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1075 on: July 12, 2012, 07:44:40 AM »
Give me a break. Art Bell took his political stances, but he was a compelling enough host that I didn't mind whether or not I agreed with his politics. I wouldn't trade the entire lineup of Coast to Coast A.M. today for one Art Bell. And as far as your accusation of revisionist history goes: I've listened to the original broadcasts back in the day and continue to listen to the now classic programs online. The competition is no competition. Art knew what questions to ask his guests to bring out the best in them. He prepared for his interviews -- and it showed. There isn't a current host that I haven't had to turn off in disgust at one time or another. Coast to Coast A.M. is like a classic rock band that has one of it's founding members left, yet continues to tour and record under the same name --living off of past glory.
Give you a break? My point was that the show is pretty much exactly the same, exact for Art having left.  You disagree by saying that the show is a like a classic rock band that has one of it's founding members leave.  Gee, thanks for pointing out how wrong I was. 


You are right - C2C is now radically different.  It is akin to Van Halen after David Lee left and Sammy came on board.  No one could possibly confuse the two as being the same entity.  The entire sound changed, the nature of Eddies finger work changed, Alex got new drum skins...thanks for taking the time to correct the error of my ways.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1076 on: July 12, 2012, 08:05:30 AM »
Give you a break? My point was that the show is pretty much exactly the same, exact for Art having left.  You disagree by saying that the show is a like a classic rock band that has one of it's founding members leave.  Gee, thanks for pointing out how wrong I was. 


You are right - C2C is now radically different.  It is akin to Van Halen after David Lee left and Sammy came on board.  No one could possibly confuse the two as being the same entity.  The entire sound changed, the nature of Eddies finger work changed, Alex got new drum skins...thanks for taking the time to correct the error of my ways.

Although in a minority opinion I have always liked Van Hagar more than Van Halen. I believe Roth is more personality and less talent... to each their own.

Is there a mind set here revising Art Bell's C2C? I suppose there may be some "out of focus" softening of the features of what was C2C as opposed to c2c with noory. I am not sure that is of much weight with the continuing of evidence that noory is... umm... untalented.

I don't think many here get Bell's politics wrong. The point has been made on more than one occasion Bell's ability to interview raised the show above his political bent. And let's be honest more than once Bell did show his political feathers. Noory on the other hand, uses simplistic euphemisms which I doubt he clearly understands.

I really can't speak to Well's positions since I do not listen to c2c, and frankly it annoys me that anyone here does listen to c2c.

Simply put c2c is a piece of shit compared to the worst days of Bell.


Addendum: In case it isn't clear, this isn't an argument against your post RCD. I simply used your post to anchor mine.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1077 on: July 12, 2012, 03:09:57 PM »
Personally, I like Wells. I don't understand the hate that some have for him here. True, he is no Art Bell or Knapp, but he is a much better interviewer than Snoory and I find him interesting to listen to.
Wells' hosting is turning Saturday C2C into a political wedge platform.  Wells manages to get his crank fringe right politics into every topic.  He's given hardcore creeps a national platform; like the two a few months back who said McVeigh was framed. He'll be welcoming misunderstood, MSM-censored neo-Nazi "patriots" one of these nights. A few converts every weeks is all it takes.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1078 on: July 13, 2012, 12:43:12 AM »
Although in a minority opinion I have always liked Van Hagar more than Van Halen. I believe Roth is more personality and less talent... to each their own.

Is there a mind set here revising Art Bell's C2C? I suppose there may be some "out of focus" softening of the features of what was C2C as opposed to c2c with noory. I am not sure that is of much weight with the continuing of evidence that noory is... umm... untalented.

I don't think many here get Bell's politics wrong. The point has been made on more than one occasion Bell's ability to interview raised the show above his political bent. And let's be honest more than once Bell did show his political feathers. Noory on the other hand, uses simplistic euphemisms which I doubt he clearly understands.

I really can't speak to Well's positions since I do not listen to c2c, and frankly it annoys me that anyone here does listen to c2c.

Simply put c2c is a piece of shit compared to the worst days of Bell.


Addendum: In case it isn't clear, this isn't an argument against your post RCD. I simply used your post to anchor mine.
I think we are pretty much on the same page, Onan (well, except for Sammy vs. Dave).  The hosts have changed, but the show format, topics, regular guests, etc. remain pretty much the same, IMHO.  I certainly don't agree with Morph that Wells is dangerous - or rather, any more dangerous than Art or the other hosts were/are. Coast has always catered to the fringe - the Lunatic Fringe sometimes, like the Red Rider bumper tune that Art used to play. 


The real danger is folks taking the show too seriously.  To me, it was always about entertainment, and I think art got that. I seem to remember him saying (in a Wired interview?) that 99% of the stuff on the show was BS, but the fun was in finding the 1% that was real (rough quote, garbled by my age and lifestyle, no doubt).  I think Morph, a coastgab member I am fond of, BTW, Does what a number of the members here do - lashes out at the current hosts out of anger because they miss Art.  Well, I do too, but I am ok with notion that others will pick up the franchise, and do their best to keep the format alive. I would like the show to still be around when Noory finally retires.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #1079 on: July 13, 2012, 12:43:40 AM »
Some of us have taste.
Are you the Gene Shalit of radio broadcasting? It's a long way down from that perch you are roosting on. :P