Author Midnight In The Desert With Heather Wade  (Read 1877319 times)

2 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #180 on: December 13, 2015, 06:11:29 AM »
Sure.  That's called a personal attack, or ad hominem.  Anyone can childishly cuss and throw out insults, as you ably demonstrate.   It's what we teach our students not to do because it's the last refuge of someone who has no reason, intelligence, or argument.  So, no problem.  You're just proving the case for me and why it's so important that those with an education make sure that those without don't keep taking the human race two steps back.  If you want, I can post some of their responses after we meet again next week.

Think of it this way:  All you're doing is helping me to do my job better.  I will not only be just as successful as I was before, but probably more so since the best you can do is prove my case for me.   ;D

And whatever tantrum you throw, Heather is still not qualified for the job, too.
gassy bag, you keep declaring "not qualified for the job". But it's an empty point. Have you heard the other dark matter programs? None of those gregarious goobers are the least bit qualified or professional not anywhere near as good as Heather. She's glib, she's intelligent, she's smooth. She asks excellent questions. Frankly, I like her style and abilities better than art's. There, I've said it.
  I suggest your "qnot qualified" banner is based, not on direct observation but, rather, subjective ideation. ie, you assume she's not technically qualified therefore you imagine you see signs of it. This is an easy thing to do if you're not careful about objectivity.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #181 on: December 13, 2015, 06:20:26 AM »
gassy bag, you keep declaring "not qualified for the job". But it's an empty point. Have you heard the other dark matter programs? None of those gregarious goobers are the least bit qualified or professional not anywhere near as good as Heather. She's glib, she's intelligent, she's smooth. She asks excellent questions. Frankly, I like her style and abilities better than art's. There, I've said it.
  I suggest your "qnot qualified" banner is based, on direct observation but, rather, subjective ideation. ie, you assume she's not technically qualified therefore you imagine you see signs of it. This is an easy thing to do if you're not careful about objectivity.

There is that of course; but we all know it will fall flat with the die hards. Icons is icons even if they're not supernatural.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #182 on: December 13, 2015, 06:54:31 AM »
Yes, but who should I be true to, the ones who say they love the emperors new clothes or Heather? :-)

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #183 on: December 13, 2015, 06:56:28 AM »
Yes, but who should I be true to, the ones who say they love the emperors new clothes or Heather? :-)


You may ask that, I couldn't possibly comment.... ;)

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #184 on: December 13, 2015, 07:07:43 AM »
Gassy Man and the other one who made those erroneous markings in brackets [didn't bother to remember your nick]:

An ad hominem attack seems to be whatever you guys think it is, not what it really is, an attack on the personal attributes of the arguer in lieu of a real response to the argument. You two believe the ad hom attack not only involves the person, but what the person has done in the past, especially if it has value in assessing what the person is saying today.

Under your definitions, if I refuse to believe you because you have told repeated lies in the past, I am attacking you personally.  If I say your repeated use of "logical fallacy" identification to shame people makes you look petty, I'm committing an ad hominem. I have judged you based on your past actions and I'm not to do it.

So if I'm to act logically, I can't consider your past actions or statements. That's an ad hominem. I'm to be used as an example in these classes if I describe my thinking on bellgab.


Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #185 on: December 13, 2015, 07:22:36 AM »
Gassy Man and the other one who made those erroneous markings in brackets [didn't bother to remember your nick]:

An ad hominem attack seems to be whatever you guys think it is, not what it really is, an attack on the personal attributes of the arguer in lieu of a real response to the argument. You two believe the ad hom attack not only involves the person, but what the person has done in the past, especially if it has value in assessing what the person is saying today.

Under your definitions, if I refuse to believe you because you have told repeated lies in the past, I am attacking you personally.  If I say your repeated use of "logical fallacy" identification to shame people makes you look petty, I'm committing an ad hominem. I have judged you based on your past actions and I'm not to do it.

So if I'm to act logically, I can't consider your past actions or statements. That's an ad hominem. I'm to be used as an example in these classes if I describe my thinking on bellgab.
, Ah, Now you're getting it.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #186 on: December 13, 2015, 07:42:30 AM »
She was tossed into ONE show. Give her a chance.

I am super stingy, and I am willing to pay $5 for the next month to give her a shot.


All things considered (being tossed into the show, lousy guest etc.....), I think she did pretty well on Friday night.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #187 on: December 13, 2015, 08:07:48 AM »
Actually, it's a lot like trying to teach some college freshmen, especially ones who know very little, read very little, and learn very little, and yet are eminently convinced they are correct simply because they say so.  They're almost always the ones to resort to logical fallacies like personal attacks, straw man, circular reasoning, begging the question, and hasty generalization.  Even when you point out the problems, as well as resources they can consult, the response is usually the same:  They're not the problem.  You're the problem, their parents are the problem, society is the problem, their boss is the problem, life is the problem, and so on.  Of course, they routinely fail at other things in life, too, but it's easier to blame than to face reality.   It partially explains the high failure rate in both individual classes and graduation, as well as why some people -- often the most in denial about their own incompetence -- never go to college at all, under the pretense that they're "too smart for that" and don't need formal education.  Age is not the issue, either.  An 18-year-old's ignorance and hubris might make some sense, as perhaps they're too inexperienced in life to often know better.  But we get them these days at 30, 40, 70, or whatever with the same attitude.   There are people who earn their confidence through their accomplishments.  And then there are just people who are confident, even if deep down (and sometimes not so deep), they are just reacting from insecurity.   And that often motivates them to attack people who do know more.

Couldn't had said it better myself.  Thank you! 8)

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #188 on: December 13, 2015, 09:49:05 AM »
1.Art is gone.
2. WGAF why!
3. Heather is going to do a 30 day trial podcast.
4. She is not Art and is not going to fill his shoes.
5. I listened to Fridays Podcast.
6. I cancelled by subscription today, and put my $5.00 into CTM.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #189 on: December 13, 2015, 09:50:14 AM »
She was tossed into ONE show. Give her a chance.

I am super stingy, and I am willing to pay $5 for the next month to give her a shot.


All things considered (being tossed into the show, lousy guest etc.....), I think she did pretty well on Friday night.
+1


Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #190 on: December 13, 2015, 10:50:15 AM »
Funny thought about her guest that may have already been mentioned..if he was legit, and was sent back in time to talk to Art Bell, he messed up.. he was on the show after AB quit.  Maybe he should have done his homework and traveled back to when Art was on C2C.  ::)

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #191 on: December 13, 2015, 10:51:26 AM »
She was tossed into ONE show. Give her a chance.

I am super stingy, and I am willing to pay $5 for the next month to give her a shot.


All things considered (being tossed into the show, lousy guest etc.....), I think she did pretty well on Friday night.

Yeah, I don't know what she did before now, but hell.. if someone told me I was going to be live on the air, I might need several drinks before I could seem half as professional. 

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #192 on: December 13, 2015, 11:24:12 AM »
She was tossed into ONE show. Give her a chance.

I am super stingy, and I am willing to pay $5 for the next month to give her a shot.


All things considered (being tossed into the show, lousy guest etc.....), I think she did pretty well on Friday night.

I think her harshest critics would have to agree; the timing of her first show was bad. Real bad. However, she's not unknown audibly. She's co-hosted on the GabCast many times. That's why I believe I have license to be critical of her. I've heard her tone, demeanor, brevity, and so on. She's "Okay" at best. Heather, should always want to be better. That's how professionalism works. If that makes me a hater, meh.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #193 on: December 13, 2015, 11:29:39 AM »
I think her harshest critics would have to agree; the timing of her first show was bad. Real bad. However, she's not unknown audibly. She's co-hosted on the GabCast many times. That's why I believe I have license to be critical of her. I've heard her tone, demeanor, brevity, and so on. She's "Okay" at best. Heather should always want to be better. That's how professionalism works. If that makes me a hater, meh.

Criticism is one thing, criticizing in an open forum is quite another. It is probably the least helpful way to guide someone. Critiques to help would more than likely come from professionals that are working with her. Whereas making the point that her voice isn't to one's liking does nothing helpful.   

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #194 on: December 13, 2015, 11:45:41 AM »
Criticism is one thing, criticizing in an open forum is quite another. It is probably the least helpful way to guide someone. Critiques to help would more than likely come from professionals that are working with her. Whereas making the point that her voice isn't to one's liking does nothing helpful.
thanks for being a voice of reason in the utter chaos that is occurring dumbass conspiracy theories that alex jones wouldnt even touch are being spouted.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #195 on: December 13, 2015, 12:03:54 PM »
Criticism is one thing, criticizing in an open forum is quite another. It is probably the least helpful way to guide someone. Critiques to help would more than likely come from professionals that are working with her. Whereas making the point that her voice isn't to one's liking does nothing helpful.

*translation* I don't like what you're saying, so stop saying it...

I don't expect her to change anything because I posted it. This forum was created to bash Art's successor George Noory. She is now in the same position. The only difference now is; you're fond of her. She may become better than Noory. And I hope so for her sake. She's fair game. Anything else would be hypocritical.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #196 on: December 13, 2015, 12:32:17 PM »
*translation* I don't like what you're saying, so stop saying it...

I don't expect her to change anything because I posted it. This forum was created to bash Art's successor George Noory. She is now in the same position. The only difference now is; you're fond of her. She may become better than Noory. And I hope so for her sake. She's fair game. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I didn't criticize noory for more than two years. I waited to see if he would improve. So I don't think I am being hypocritical. Not regarding broadcasting skills.

To jump out of the gate with criticisms after one show seems untoward. But that's me.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #197 on: December 13, 2015, 01:18:12 PM »
Going to dinner now, and happy to enjoy spending some of that hard-earned money!  ;D

Hi. I just found this thread and I don't really give two shits about either side of the "argument". It does strike me as quite hilarious, however, that you think acting like a pedantic asshat serves in any way to support your position. A competent orator knows when best to shut the fuck up and let the opposing side bury themselves in inconsistency, deceit and illusion.

It was, apparently, more important for you, to put yourself forward as a pedantic asshat. Well done.

Argumentum ad hominem, blah, blah, blah... No, simply an impartial observation. You sir, are an asshat. Ask any of your students.  ;)

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #198 on: December 13, 2015, 10:25:31 PM »
gassy bag, you keep declaring "not qualified for the job". But it's an empty point. Have you heard the other dark matter programs? None of those gregarious goobers are the least bit qualified or professional not anywhere near as good as Heather. She's glib, she's intelligent, she's smooth. She asks excellent questions. Frankly, I like her style and abilities better than art's. There, I've said it.
  I suggest your "qnot qualified" banner is based, not on direct observation but, rather, subjective ideation. ie, you assume she's not technically qualified therefore you imagine you see signs of it. This is an easy thing to do if you're not careful about objectivity.
So . .  . your argument is that she's the least incompetent of their hosts?  How about this -- we'll see how long the show lasts with just her at the helm.  Maybe Art will come back in some way and save the show, and I truly wish her no ill will, but she's just not professional enough for the assignment.


Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #199 on: December 13, 2015, 10:35:51 PM »
Gassy Man and the other one who made those erroneous markings in brackets [didn't bother to remember your nick]:

An ad hominem attack seems to be whatever you guys think it is, not what it really is, an attack on the personal attributes of the arguer in lieu of a real response to the argument. You two believe the ad hom attack not only involves the person, but what the person has done in the past, especially if it has value in assessing what the person is saying today.

Under your definitions, if I refuse to believe you because you have told repeated lies in the past, I am attacking you personally.  If I say your repeated use of "logical fallacy" identification to shame people makes you look petty, I'm committing an ad hominem. I have judged you based on your past actions and I'm not to do it.

So if I'm to act logically, I can't consider your past actions or statements. That's an ad hominem. I'm to be used as an example in these classes if I describe my thinking on bellgab.
What?   :o

Seriously, look up the definition.  Then read it.  Then read it again and again until you get it (or don't).  Maybe take a college class in it. 

So, here's an example:  The fact that someone lied 99 times does not mean that they lied the 100th time.  It would be illogical to conclude that.  Instead, you would want to prove they are lying -- in other words, deal with what they are saying and not them.  If you simply attack them by calling them a liar without knowing that they lied, you attacked the person, not what they said.  That's an ad hominem attack.

You can decide whether or not you believe someone is credible based on reputation, but even that is a weak argument, and it does not prove logically that they are doing anything presently.  It is all about your belief, or prejudice, not about logic.

Here's an even better example:  In quite a few places on social media, people are saying Art is a liar and manipulative "drama queen" because he has pulled stunts like this five or more times before.  Therefore, what he claims now must also be a lie because, by definition, he's a liar.  That's an ad hominem attack.  Art could well be telling the truth regardless of anything he's done int he past.  The way to determine this is to determine the veracity of the claim -- and not simply to dismiss the claim because people say Art is a liar.


Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #200 on: December 13, 2015, 10:37:12 PM »
Hi. I just found this thread and I don't really give two shits about either side of the "argument". It does strike me as quite hilarious, however, that you think acting like a pedantic asshat serves in any way to support your position. A competent orator knows when best to shut the fuck up and let the opposing side bury themselves in inconsistency, deceit and illusion.

It was, apparently, more important for you, to put yourself forward as a pedantic asshat. Well done.

Argumentum ad hominem, blah, blah, blah... No, simply an impartial observation. You sir, are an asshat. Ask any of your students.  ;)
Hey, look in the mirror if you want to find the same thing. 

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #201 on: December 13, 2015, 10:40:59 PM »
And getting back to the point at hand -- Heather is not yet a good broadcaster, not professional enough, not polished enough, and unlikely to last very long at the post.  We'll see how long she lasts at it, but unless Art jumps back in to help, I don't see the show lasting very long, regardless of the limited support on this board.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #202 on: December 13, 2015, 10:41:35 PM »
Heather has sacrificed a lot and put her faith into this experiment. Try to be a kind group of human beings and give her a chance.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #203 on: December 13, 2015, 10:46:49 PM »
And getting back to the point at hand -- Heather is not yet a good broadcaster, not professional enough, not polished enough, and unlikely to last very long at the post.  We'll see how long she lasts at it, but unless Art jumps back in to help, I don't see the show lasting very long, regardless of the limited support on this board.

But she has the genetic pedigree. Apparently her parents did radio for a long time and were quite good at it. So the concept is not foreign to her.

I will tune in if the topic and/or guest is interesting to me. But that's basically how I listened to MITD anyways. Also, her voice is kind of creamy  ;)

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #204 on: December 13, 2015, 10:50:41 PM »
the only criticism i had was..she reminded me too much of Lisa Garr with her..tone/cadence..just a touch too laid back sounding..i am sure thats just who she is which is fine but it's a touch..hard to listen to

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #205 on: December 13, 2015, 10:54:41 PM »
She needs to convince the non BellGab crowd. From what I remember, her co-host debut didn't go over so well with that audience. Art's giving her a shot. She has to execute. Being popular persona on BellGab isn't enough.

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #206 on: December 13, 2015, 10:58:57 PM »
But she has the genetic pedigree. Apparently her parents did radio for a long time and were quite good at it. So the concept is not foreign to her.

I will tune in if the topic and/or guest is interesting to me. But that's basically how I listened to MITD anyways. Also, her voice is kind of creamy  ;)
For me, she's just too amateur.  Her voice, her delivery, her instincts, her rapport with the guest.  She really comes across like one of the kids at the college's radio station.  They mean well, they have some talent, and they can talk, but all that doesn't make for a professional.  The difference is they're getting their training.  They're going to make mistakes.  She, on the other hand, is already on a professional show.  So, many people, though obviously not all, will expect more.  She has an in with Art, and maybe that's because of her parents or whatever, but he's being generous.  Or maybe just wants the contrast to be great between himself and his successor.  Can she get better in time?  Sure.  Given enough time and opportunity, probably anyone with the basic talent can.  But I won't be listening, and neither will the people I know.  So, her support here may help get her through.  Or not.   

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #207 on: December 13, 2015, 10:59:46 PM »
She needs to convince the non BellGab crowd. From what I remember, her co-host debut didn't go over so well with that audience. Art's giving her a shot. She has to execute. Being popular persona on BellGab isn't enough.
I'd say not even remotely. 

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #208 on: December 13, 2015, 11:01:14 PM »
Heather has sacrificed a lot and put her faith into this experiment. Try to be a kind group of human beings and give her a chance.
All that may be true, but unlike some of the posters around here, no one is attacking her personally.  People are commenting on her performance.  Some liked it.  Others did not. 

Re: Heather sucks. Discuss.
« Reply #209 on: December 13, 2015, 11:02:48 PM »
the only criticism i had was..she reminded me too much of Lisa Garr with her..tone/cadence..just a touch too laid back sounding..i am sure thats just who she is which is fine but it's a touch..hard to listen to
That's what's funny to me -- many people have torn into Connie Willis, Lisa Garr, etc. and what I heard last night and a few months ago certainly was no better, if not worse.