• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 
Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Tarbaby

#661
Just finished reading the thread. What a ride. Applause.
#662
Quote from: aldousburbank on April 05, 2014, 08:43:01 AM
May the divine smoke of love and compassion always fill your lungs and light your way amigo.
Hey, how 'bout you blow some of that smoke up MY ass, por favor! I want to be filled with love and compassion.
#663
Just watched:
Cat-women of the Moon (1953)

So stupid, so campy, so flawed it's… hilarious. I think I found it on Archive.Org (free) Public Domain. We could actually have an entire thread to discuss the hundreds of plot gaffs. If only I knew what a "gaff" was. :)
#664
22. Breaking out of the UFO I wake up in.
23. Try to find my way home.

J/K, nice thread, Mind-Flayer Monk. Thank you for your service. :) And really good suggestions by all!
#665
The assertion that it is pointless to argue such abstract or unprovale issues isn't entirely true. Man has progressed remarkably by the use of deductive and inductive logic and made many discoveries that are then validated once the hypothesis is tested. But it never undergoes the rigorous testing or analysis if it doesn't get introduced. Or is rejected a priori as unrovable.  But the benefit needn't be pragmatic in that it resolved the issue, it can also be beneficial in that it added to philosophical methodologies themself. Kant, Schopenhauer, Descarte, et al, contributed greatly to man's ability to solve pragmatic issues with reason.

The thread question is ontological as well as epistemological. (What is real, what is knowable and how can we determine what is knowable. Which, BTW, are excellent benefits of pursuing such a question rather than to shrug it off as moot). Yet the thread question has the huge  problem of clarification of terms: What do we mean by "God". Are we talking anthropomorphic? Or 'real' but ineffable? Non-material? And the word "create". Did It create us or did we create It? What if "we" are simply 'cells' of It? Literally or metaphorically.

We certainly couldn't have created a godlike entity with our collective subconscious mind if IT is being credited as the creator of the universe we are relatively new to. Unless, perhaps, we created this time/space ever-expanding bubble that burst into being at the Big Bang and everything inside it is a holographic-like projection INCLUDING time itself inside the bubble.

Nor does this imply that we and material existence was created by a supreme being, either anthropomorphic or not.

There is evidence IMO however to show some sort of nebulous deus ex machina in and around the evolutionary process. (for early prototype see Pierre de Chardin's work, born 1881)

Greatly enjoyed the quality of posts in this thread.
#666
Radio and Podcasts / Re: What'cha listening to?
April 05, 2014, 12:35:41 PM
This week: Some "Paracast" (with Gene & Chris), some "Security Now" (with Steve Gibson), some "Tech Guy" (with Leo Laporte), some Mohr Stories (comedy/interviews with Jay Mohr), some Dom Irrera Live (comedy/interviewst), some Darkness Radio (with Dave Shrader), some Dark Weekend (with Steve), some Joe Rogan podcast, Kevin Pollack (video podcast, interviews) and assorted other podcasts. Was trying "The Nerdist" a longstanding podcast but it's not my cup o' tea. Vapid.
#667
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Dark Weekend
April 05, 2014, 12:18:14 PM
Bateman, it's that kind of attention to perfection that a lot of us notice and admire.

As for Eastern Caribbean I can personally endorse St Maarten, St Juan, St Thomas. I didn't make it to Santa Domingo but I've heard good things!

Just thinking about the fantastic climate, the turquoise waters, the food… makes me want to go back there mañana. There was a bit of anti-American sentiment here and there in San Juan but I avoided any problems during my stays. And that was a long time ago so I don't know how that all shook out over time.

I had heard of the pleasant climate before I got there but I was NOT prepared for how truly fantastic, beautiful, fragrant and warm it was. A bit of paradise. I don't think people here in the states can imagine it unless they get there. Bermuda also but watch out for the jellyfish!

Threaten the Hoover: Great points! Well stated about Art's personality not being subsumed by or outshining the guest. Most of the time, anyway.
#668
Radio and Podcasts / Re: The Spec Sheet
April 05, 2014, 11:35:54 AM
"They wear badly tailored suits" (Jaz)
Yeah! LAW suits! (rim shot)
#669
As I gradually learned about tentative theories about the monn (and the solar system itself) I found it downright alarming how fragile and tenuous the balance is between planetary bodies. And how a relatively minor event could cause a domino effect sending planets crashing into each other.

(PS, apologies for my egregious typo in my previous post. It wasn't so elucidating.)
#670
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Dark Weekend
April 03, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
Quote from: BobGrau on April 03, 2014, 01:52:07 AM
lol, I said this a while ago... I don't think he realised it was a compliment.
For me it's not so much the voice itself as the speech patterns, the way he lays out a question, stuff like that.
Yes. Partly the voice itself but even more the overall style, phrasing, "sound". I kept trying to imagine or project that it might actually BE Ian but, no, it didnt sound quite that similar. Maybe Ian with a cold? Or Ian's brother? :) Oh, and not enough religious references to be Ian. BTW, I had a lot of respect and admiration for Punnett but he drove me off with his overly religious references. Thankfully, Steve doesn't do that. And is smart witha pleasant delivery.
#671
Astroguy, when you return could you tell me if you got a satisfactory range of elusidating answers to the thread you created on gun proliferation (in the Politics forum). It was the catalyst for over 18 pages of responses. Your query was completely neutral so I assume you were simply curious about peoples' position and reasoning. Almost as if it was a scientific inquiry/study.
#672
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Dark Weekend
April 02, 2014, 08:11:36 AM
Bateman, excellent interviewing. I can't believe I haven't noticed it earlier but you sound uncannily like Ian punnett. Enjoying the last two episodes (Aging & Atlantis). Also love the fantastic bumper music, both Threaten the Hoover's and your default  sutff. Where are you heading for vacation?
#673
wr250, yes, I'm aware of all those issues. Thanks for the thorough thoughtful response. All good points.

Juan, thanks. Also good points. But not as directly on the issue of gun abundance. More about crime & punishment which is only part of the problem, granted a huge part. But even if we legalized drugs we'd still have a gun problem. Due to man's nature.  It must not be impossible to control gun possession since many countries manage to do it. E.G., England.

I'm butting back out now; thanks guys!
#674
wr250: Yes, I remember Tuco's words there distinctly. He was "the ugly" (Eli Wallach). Great job by Mr.  Wallach.

However, I still think your position isn't the best because there is still far too much destructive power that can kill or maim by accident. And it doesn't address the issue of stray bullets by gangstas.

Juan, the training issue is only part of the problem. What about guns in the hands of criminals? They steal the guns from the responsible people who've been trained. Also a huge number of people are killed or wounded by families where the gunowner HAS been properly trained.  Just about 3 or 4 weeks ago in the news a tot managed to find the pistol his Dad had hidden and shot his little brother in the face, killing him.

And BTW, there are ways of protecting oneself and one's family that don't require the excessive lethality of fire arms. Which would also result in no more collateral or accidental deaths. We never hear of bystanders getting killed by stray knives, stangulation or poisons, etc. And we as a society could work harder at devising more nonlethal methods of self protection.

wr250 & Juan, did you guys post your answer to this threads opening question from Astroguy? The thread title. What is a reasonable argument for fire arms in light of how easily they kill? Maybe if we had "smart" (CPU guided) bullets that only went only where we aimed them? Someday with technology I can see how that would be possible. E.G., the bullet would only go where the eyes of the gun holder were looking at the time it was fired. (Might have to wear glasses linked to the weapon with something akin to blue-tooth. We have such technology even now. And make it so the gun doesn't even fire unless the glasses are being worn and the blue--tooth circuit is active. That way even the gangstas wouldn't be killing unintended victims). Also a trigger guard would prevent anyone who is not the legal owner from being able to fire the weapon.

Isn't anyone else working on this?  I've only been working on it for 5 minutes and already I have two good starting points.
#675
Quote from: Juan on March 29, 2014, 02:18:20 PM
Why, then,  do you concentrate your energies on eliminating the former and not the latter?
That's not quite correct in that Im not actively pouring energies into either side. Until my previous post I've never stated a position to anyone on this issue. I've just grown tired of lovely innocent kids full of hope and life dying for no reason.I think both sides are valid. Just that the 2nd outweighs the 1st. And it's the excessive number and lethality of fire arms for that reason only I lean toward eliminating the guns.

If the gun industry isn't going to fix the problem ) then society probably has the moral obligation to remove what are in fact excessive forms of destruction. albeit self protection. Probably lasers are effective without being lethal.

Juan, thanks for being civil. You're the first person I've ever talked with about this issue. I've had unspoken evolving thoughts on. Not a crusafer for any position… until now. If the industry could figure out an ingenious method of eliminating inncoent deaths (kids, family members, spouses, etc) I would have to re-examine the issue. 
#676
I've been thinking today about what might be the cause of the entrenched position of gun owners in light of the collateral damage to our children day after day. I don't see deaths due to personal defense, I see year after year of children dying due to being hit by a stray bullet. While I recognize a man's right to protect himself and family with lethal force I'm not willing to ignore the fact that guns kill innocents and the two issues can't co-exist.

We like to think what got us to the top of the food chain was our superior intellect. But what really rules us is our genetic code, the primal mandate buried in the subconscious. IE, EMOTIONS.

Here's what I think it is (and I've introduced this idea twice already elsewhere on the forum and I promise to lay off… unless prodded :) ): Regarding Self-Preservation and Empowerment it's not just the individual self, it's the DNA mechanism that dictates specie's survival that creates and empowers those feelings.

Every need on our "NEED" list is overcompensated for. Because our conscious mind can't anticipate what is "enough" so responds by overcompensation due to fear of deprivation. Thi is consistent with modern psychology.

For example: Sexual attraction (species viability) the root of sexual addiction; Food > can lead to obesity (constant pre-occupation with food, an overcomensation to fend of deprivation).

On down the list of 10 or so until we come to Self Preservation - Safety > the basis for our preoccupation with guns. (And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy because our "enemies" do have guns so we must arm ourselves, even begin wars because the best defense is a good offense)
Seriously, when I've studied the direct cause of various wars throughout history it was fear of attack that caused countries to attack first.

So we don't like to relinquish our guns because doing so threatens or diminishes our need for protection and security. And when it becomes a fixation to the point our children are being killed in the streets and we STILL don't want to abolish guns one can recognize it's clearly a subconscious compulsion or drive.

It's also an issue of our need for empowerment and giving up guns would undermines our sense of power. Whereas owning a gun satiates that feeling. People who shoot guns often mention they like the sense of power. (U used to hunt with my grandpa, for food, I was an excellent shoot right from the start. I also trained with guns and pistols while in the armed mioitary.)
#677
Quote from: astroguy on January 13, 2013, 09:57:24 AM
…I would like to understand - why people feel the need to be able to have all types of guns with no constraints.
Astroguy, did you get any good answers to your question in this thread?

About 4-6 times a year in my metropolitan community a 6 year old girl waiting at a bus stop or a 4 year old boy sitting in his living room is killed by a stray bullet. And that is just the cases that make the morning news. Just last week it was a little kid near a neighborhood basketball court. Thugs firing inaccurately in the streets.

Hmmm, what could we as a society do to stop this?  Well, I suppose we could train the thugs to be better more conscientious shoots.

A popular argument is, well, if people want to kill someone they will find a way. And if there were no guns they would strangle them, stab them, maybe poison them, etc. But they wouldn't be stabbing or strangling or poisoning those kids sitting at the bus stops or in their living rooms, would they.

Oh, wait, there's another good idea, we could arm the 6 and 4 year olds so they could defend themselves. Which is a common gun-owner's argument (that they need the gun for protection). Never ever admits that perhaps fewer guns in the hands of lunatics and thugs might be the most obvious solution.

And before you say yeah, but that's not remotely feasible or do-able. That's a specious response. How difficult something is to do isn't a reason not to attempt it. It's a logical fallacy, usually a strawman argument. Any more than how thoroughly the NRA has entranched itself into the country's lawmaking branch is relevant.

Also a fallacious argument is the case that you yourself may be a fine example of an ethical responsible gunowner. That's not the point is isn't relevant to the overall issue. Because society has no way of ascertaining who is or isn't responsible when they obtain and possess a firearm.

The fact that you yourself may be responsisble does not protect society from collateral damage on innocents or save the lives of those 4 and 6 year olds.

So, while I do agree that responsible gunowners should have the right to possess guns I'm afraid it is outweighed by the vast incidence of gun abuse.

Rather than argue for their rights gun owners should pour their efforts into ways they might find direct causal remedies instead of rationalizing their 'rights'. Like perhaps electronic trigger guards that prevent firing when the registered owner's hand is not on the trigger. Or if the mechanism has been tampered with (after a theft). Assault weapons would be uniformly illegal of course.

Yes, man is by nature a hair's breath away from viscious brutal over-aggression at any moment, fueled by runaway emotions: rage, jealousy, fear, greedy opportunism or just plain insanity. Yes, even 'good' people. But it's the ready availability of fire arms that uniformly facilitates those excessively violent incidents. Not to mention preplanned murders.

I'm innately indifferent to the issue and have come to this position gradually because of the death of innocent people, especially children. I haven't heard any good arguments for a country full of armed citizenry except for the need for a strong self-defense. Problem is in households where a gun is present it more often than not is ineffective or often taken away and used against the citizen. Or a wife or husband goes berzerk and murders the spouse or kids or saleman s/he thought was an intruder.

While I understand and agree with the citizen's right to have strong self-protection (and I have many personal friends in this category) I feel it is outweighed by the practical consequences and by society's inability to get control of the unintended consequences. Or, in the case of outright murder, the intended consequences.
#678
Random Topics / Re: Is Bellgab now doomed?
March 28, 2014, 06:35:02 PM
Quote from: TheMan WhoFell ToEarth on March 27, 2014, 11:40:44 PM
April 24.  Prepare.
Ha! I had to reread that, I thought you said a "mind".
#679
Radio and Podcasts / Re: The Spec Sheet
March 28, 2014, 06:02:16 PM
MV & Curtis: Good to hear you guys again! From the very first strains of intro bumper music I get that great deja vu SpecSheet feeling.

MV: You are one lucky guy to have such a beautiful daughter at 19 months learning to talk. I was grinning from ear to ear; it was such a lovely moment. Could you add her to the host panel? ;)
#680
Quote from: MV on March 28, 2014, 04:51:00 PM
you can't see embedded youtube videos?
Sorry, I thought everyone knew because I'd mentioned it a few times. I have retinitis pigmentosa so can't see anything but general light and dark in the 3D real world. BUT, on a computer screen I can varely make out TEXT iF it is a white font on a black background with a crisp bold font sans serif. I explained this to Area51drone one time months ago but I don't like to keep whining about it all the time; you must have missed it.

I did want to tell you I absolutely LOVED hearing your daughter on the SpecSheet podcast today (on my iPad app) but I can't tell you here because this is the wrong thread for it. (joke alert) That was the cutest thing I've heard in a LONG time.  Treasure those moments! I can tell you do. She was talking fine, we just don't know that language she was using.
#681
Eddie, Imagine, Unscreened Caller, et al, thanks! (blush)

Unscreened Caller: Yes, that thought occurred to me but… we'll see. Not sure if I have the time right now. As you say it's a huge subject.

MV: Sorry, I can't see images. I know you said you were kidding but what was the image? Paint me a word picture! ;)
#682
Mudking: Thanks. I understqnd you've been away for a while? I became awed and impressed with your mind while listening to the podcasts you're on in the archives the last few months! You have that great faculty for being able to think expansively along with the ability to articulate those thoughts.

Not like that idiot, Jazmunda. No, No, NBo, now Jaz, you KNOW I am kidding. :) Love Jazmunda!

Onan: Yes, all the points I mentioned, and more, would need clarification, absolutely. 90% of which is undoing our conditioned assumptions and beliefs to get a fresh perspective on key issues. Including epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. My post unconsciusly drifted largely toward principles of  "nondualism". Which the podcast discussion evoked.

Yes, on your point about a common pool of shared thoughts, memories and minds, no, I too do not think that is exactly the correct picture. Clearly, at least not consciously shared. That sort of implies a two-way flow. I think it would be more like a one-way flow where data flows from the individual TO the Gestalt. But not the reverse. Mostly because the individual minds are unconscious of anything coming from the source; it's so unlinear and abstract. And filtered through the individual's tiny psyche. Only in dreams (which may not be remembered) or maybe meditation or the occasional inspired vision/epiphany.

Yes, regarding your mention of the current moment being more pivotal than past or future, the Vedic tradition called that "the eternal present". There is only now. Be here now. (See Gurdjieff below)

I'm not currently set up to call-in but I was compelled to call you guys when you were soliciting stories about personal psychic experiences. My life has been full of them as well as intense synchronicity but there is one particular event (a blue Mercedes) that I would like to hear your guy's take on   sometime. A real mystery. In one sentence I tried to make something happen (like Eddie was talking about) and it did happen. So then I couldn't figure out if I had caused it (which I couldn't believe) or did I try to do it because I subconsciously "knew" the event was going to occur so my mind conjured up the notion of launching the experiment. But I would love for you, Curtis, Eddie etc to hear the story and  comment on it because it left me confused (on the issue of causality).

Re "soul" yes, I've never had any idea of what the heck that might be exactly.  I think it must be an analogy or metaphor that gradually became an actual "thing" in the mind of mankind. I think they call that "reification". (treating an abstract thing as if it were an actual thing) :)

Re "seeking higher understanding" yes, I get your point. But it might just be that because we do not really fully understand our full nature, are not fully actualized, it's not a matter of attaining higher levels so much as attaining a level we fall short of due to crippling conditioning, a level we should be attaining in life. Remember that old assertion, "We see but through a glass darkly". Even Gurdjieff insisted mankind falls into two categories, those who operate fully cognitively, as you say, aware in the moment and those who go through life 95% on autpilot, by rote, "the unexamined life".

RE Reincarnation: It wouldn't be the daily waking self that is thinking and talking right now it would simply be the life force inside us since energy cannot be created or destroyed. The law of termodynamics. :) The present personality, no. (But that was my murky point, IF the "I AM" is shared with the Gestalt (the collective, "god") and one can establish an identification with it now, while still alive, THAT Self will continue and one may discover it in themself in life. That is the underlying thesis of the Nondual teachings, such as those of Ramana Maharshi or Nissargadata and all the enlightened masters. One doesn't rise to the level of "god" rather one discovers the god consciousness within themself. And this has been a point of contention in the Eastern traditions for hundreds of years.

RE we haven't become more forgiving, I would say I meet both types of people all the time. Primitive aggressive self-centered types and compassionate friendly types. Hey, it's the Republicans and the Democrats! ;)

Thanks for engaging!

Okay, quickly, the beginning of the Blue Mercedes sotry. First part, I was upstairs in my duplex and decided to try an experiment in telepathy. I decided to send an impression to my firlfriend who was downstairs. I picked a clor… yellow. I conctentrated on sending the color yellow, simply that. About 30 second. Then let it go.

I went downstairs, walked into the kitchen. She was doing dishes. I said, "Hi babe! What's up?" My mind was slightly shaken when she said, honest to God, "Oh nothing much. I was just looking at these walls thinking how yellow they were." How such a simple utterance could have such profound effect on me. If that wasn't absolute coincidence doesn't it clearly suggest something. But wait til you hear part II.
#683
Mudking (& Eddie & Onan): I thought you posed some interesting ideas including when you asked what people thought about the "hive mind" i.e. collective.

This post got way too long but I hope you can hang in there for the gist of it.

It's possible that when we go through life 100% identified with the daily waking mind we never distinguish between a personal self and a larger (or collective) Self which is also there. In other words, we have spent our entire life assuming the sense of self we experience upon waking each day and the body it apparently resides in defines our entire SELF. So people generally never look any deeper. And let religions deal with anything deeper.

But suppose there is that collective you posit, Mudking, and we call it the Impersonal Self. Meaning It exists sans personality traits such as those we each have which we think defines our personality. (EG, our personality is based on all the myriad memories, values, decisions and beliefs stemming from our fundamental core want/need heirarachy. As Freud said, our need for shelter, food, sex, companionship, safety, etc. 
Everyone has the same list but everyone's values and personality develop differently. This identification is called personal self.

At a higher level though, where Collective Awareness exists, the daily self is superceded. The local personality traits which define us (we thought) are absent if/when we identify with so-called greater Self.. HOWEVER, the "I AM" phenomenon, which includes our connection to that inner greater Self (Life essence) exists in both states of identification. One could say this "I AM" is our direct tie to the godthing, the collective. It is common to both conscious waking self and the collective as well.

We can "identify" our self as we normally do, the daily waking self. Or we can "identify" with the collective, a real presence accessible within the mind.
So we all feel the "I AM" but we think it only applies to our individual physical self. But suppose no, while our personalities are all individual the "I AM" is that of the collective. Of "LIFE". Of impersonal being. Of the godthing. The thing man has throughout history anthropomorphized as "God".

So, Onan and Mudking, et al, if this is  so (and I have reason to think it is) when we "die" physically we (let's call it "small i") would cease to be as the life experiences get absorbed into the collective (let's call it the large I). All one Unity Awareness entity but with levels. Each of our "I AM" continues on, the same "I AM" you feel right now, but the physical brain and body return to their unintegrated state. IE, stardust. (Studies show our basic components are formed inside suns).

Incidentally, this suggest that we all have lived before and will be reincarnated. But not with the same small-i self which we THINK truly defines us right now. Rather it would be in a different form/body with a personality that is created as that self grows and develops based on that  want/need heirarchy. Similarly the cells in our bodies are conscious to a degree and contribute to the gestalt whole which is our human entirety.

So what we think of as "I" does not fully contain that sense we feel of "I AM". That is part of the ultimate Gestalt. Which holds all the individual selves that have ever existed and will in the future. In an infinite universe.

When I hear you guys talking in the gabcasts I hear you skirting around these issues, especially Eddie and  Mudking. Onan too though he was quick to say "No". As they say in the Vedic tradition there comes a point when the student hungering for self-knowledge is (subconsciously) looking for the door. But he is standing right in front of it and doesn't know it.

He must keep in mind the constant resolve to connect to that collective Mudking mentions. And be ready to abandon conditioned beliefs as new realization appears.

BTW, the daily I is mostly concerned with survival, needs, safety (thus xenophobia) sex and  food and uses aggression to chase these things (and fend off need deprivation). But while I still struggle with what is our true nature I believe the evolving person leaves the nursery of material identification and steps up into compassion, empathy and peace. Embracing others as Self rather than adversary.

The ancients call it "enlightenment" but really it's simply discovering the full nature of the self. (And has to do with unconditional love).

I propose one good source for learning more about personal identification is the Advaita Vedanta (which this post does not represent, these are my own unofficial expressions). But there are other ways. Lucid Dreaming is very good practice for discerning the levels of one's own mind and its relationship to the larger self inside. Through lucid dreaming you can introduce the daily conscious mind which erroneously identifies self with materialism to the vast realms of the subconscious (collective).

I apologise for this lengthy post, I meant for it to be one short paragraph. And I won't do it again. I just couldn't remain quiet since that question Mudking so earnestly asked could be the most important question of your life.
#684
Radio and Podcasts / Re: The Spec Sheet
March 26, 2014, 06:55:54 AM
Quote from: MV on March 25, 2014, 01:41:43 PM
The Spec Sheet will return to a regular weekly schedule very soon.  I'll have a date/time for you guys asap.
Great News! I've been withering from weekly squashed anticipation as I checked for new episodes.
#685
Random Topics / Re: Whats your drug of choice?
March 25, 2014, 06:22:35 AM
I really like Propofol. (in response to the thread topic)
#686
Quote from: jazmunda on March 13, 2014, 04:39:51 PM
Post show we all agreed on this point. Perhaps it was the week off or perhaps it was the change to daylight time or perhaps we are simply winding down.

Thank you for the feedback. Your call is important to us. Please bear with us whilst we try to be more professional in the future for free.
Thanks, Jaz! Like I said I do enjoy the show, have listened since episode one. A huge aspect is the added element of somewhat knowing the players from your posts over a period of time. I would say it adds an extra 75% interest-value. For me, anyway. I'm thinking of writing a thesis on it. :)

b_dubb: Thanks. I always listen closely to what you say on the show, you're very articulate. Smooth and uninhibited. But not overly-effusive. I quite often wish you'd jump in more.
#687
Onan & Jaz: Thanks. Excellent responses. I didn't mean to suggest a podcast about BellGab had to necessarily include negative commentary on specific posters. Although that's entertaining if they deserve it.  I'm going to go listen to this episode again and see if I can focus my feedback. How many separate topics were covered? I think it just seemed like you guys didn't sound excited or energized (or even very much interested) in the topics.

But you've more than addressed my 2 points and broadened my thinking.  Like Onan says it's a podcast by BellGabbers. But… I thought it said somewhere it's also a podcast about bellgab. So that's a bit nebulous I suppose. I was overly fixating on a strict interpretation.

Oh, here it is on the GabCast header: "The GabCast is a podcast about BellGab.com. Yes, that’s right. A show about a forum about a show…".

RE: Noory: Yeah, I was never on the bandwagon about beating up Noory. I don't ever read those threads.  I found, personally, I didn't like Noory's style when he took over for Art years ago so I just quit listening. I don't understand why people spend 12 years bitching about someone they loathe. Why not just find other sources to listen to? It isn't like Noory has a monopoly on paranormal internet guests/talk.
#688
Two points of friendly feedback:
1. The intro says it's about "BellGab" but it doesn't seem to be about BellGab any more.
2. The topics seemed archaic. Which might be okay if the treatment was fresh or unique.

This is not meant to provoke a defensive response. just my honest impression - as a GabCast supporter.

Still, the "flow" is getting better all the time, people are relaxing more and clearly you guys are coming to the podcast armed with talking points. Such as they are.  I mean, I guess they can't all be poop stories! ;)
#689
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on December 27, 2013, 01:11:42 PM

Thirty years ago, if someone had told me you could get from ball cupping to lava cake recipes in two ticks... I'd have asked "what the fuck are you talking about?"
From ball cupping to lava cake to Chinese lamb:

YP, I go in and out of lamb binges from time to time.
I saw "lamb" on a Chinese menu in town here (which raised my eyebrows because I can't remember ever seeing lamb on a Chinese menu) so I ordered it. And it was chef calibre great.
Excellent sauce, nicely sliced tender lamb, I ordered extra spicy AND it was served with fresh real sprigs of Rosemary and other expertly balanced spices. Wow.
#690
Random Topics / Re: Any Good Jokes?
March 11, 2014, 09:41:13 AM
Quote from: pyewacket on March 05, 2014, 12:55:02 PM
Maureen- you're so welcome. I think most boards could do with a joke thread- gives everyone a chance to share a laugh.  ;D
Yes, Pyewacket, I too laughed long and hard at the Lighthouse exchange!
Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod