idiotic intro
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| devnet Jun 02, 2006 8:59 PM EDT |
Wow...the intro to tllts is absolutely ridiculous. But the show isn't half bad :) Though I'd like them to refrain from the cursing...afterall, Linux and Open Source isn't just used by adults...my son who is 9 uses Linux and I wouldn't want him thinking Linux and cursing were 'the cool thing' just because he heard it on a podcast. |
| salparadise Jun 02, 2006 9:30 PM EDT |
Is this the American equivalent to lugradio?
Seems very similar in presentation (a bit coarse and infantile). |
| greggh Jun 03, 2006 7:41 AM EDT |
Actually tllts.org were doing their show before LugRadio. As far as them being coarse and infantile... you could say the same thing about Howard Stern, but somehow he managers to hold onto a few listeners. By the way, the Tech Show guys wanted to remind the community here that Tom from LXer was also interviewed on llts.org not too long ago... http://tllts.org/dl.php?episode=121 |
| hackmeister Jun 03, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
As one of the presenters on The Linux Link Tech Show we do our best on a non existent budget. We don't claim to be professionals. We do the show because we love it and want to spread the word about Linux to as many people as possible. We don't go out of our way to curse but the occasional f-bomb might happen. We believe in freedom of expression and don't censor our guests or each other. To Sal, Just a couple of points: TLLTS was started before LUG Radio and is the oldest continually running web cast on linux. We've done a total of 142 episodes. The show streams out live unlike podcasts. The archives of the show are available free of charge via RSS feeds for convenience to those who can't listen during the webcast. Some of the guests we've had on the show include Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, Ian Murdock, Bruce Parens, Nat Friedman, Miguel De Icaza, Doc Searls, Leo Laporte, Aaron Seigo and many others. In fact we had Dave Whitinger and Tom Adelstein on the show back in February. As far as being infantile we can't always be serious. Forgive us if we have a sense of humor and like to have fun. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 8:44 AM EDT |
I remember that show with Dave & Tom both. I like that you guys have fun. I think that makes the show. I just don't care much for the language. I respect freedom of speech. With that in mind, we can offer feedback and hope you guys take it into consideration. I want you guys to keep up the "playful banter". I would like to offer two points regarding the language: (1) Young people may be listening (2) I've never heard anyone say "Gee, I don't listen to that show because there's not enough coarse language." OTOH, I know quite a few people who would drop the show after they heard the first "f" word. Personally, I can listen to the show. I know others who would have difficulty with it. There's a difference between censorship and being considerate. I would ask you guys to be considerate. If you still curse on the show, I'll probably still listen. Just think about it. That's all. ;-) |
| Judland Jun 03, 2006 8:51 AM EDT |
People who name-call never get much respect from me. It's just a sign of envy, rather than possessing actual knowledge of a topic or situation. I'm curious as to why people who live in glass houses are always the first to start throwing stones. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 9:12 AM EDT |
Judland, you lost me. Are you referring to name-calling on the show? I don't see that in this thread. Someone made a comment about not wanting his son to think that cursing is cool. One of the hosts has responded and I took the opportunity to say, "we're not attacking, but trying to offer feedback". I just don't see the name calling and stone throwing. Hopefully, you can clarify your comment for me. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 9:18 AM EDT |
And for what it's worth, I like the intro. I think it's great! |
| tuxchick2 Jun 03, 2006 9:21 AM EDT |
The coarse language is a turn-off. Anytime a person goes public, whether it's the written or spoken word, it's helpful to ask: do I want to reach as many people as possible? Or be self-indulgent, and unconcerned with getting my message across? Asking that question settles the issue of when it's helpful to use coarse language. |
| shopRatt Jun 03, 2006 11:21 AM EDT |
I can see what you are saying, devnet. I have an 11 year old daughter who uses linux and I wouldn't want her to hear some of the language either, however this show is not meant for little children. The show streams live at 8:30 p.m. (in their home time zone). I don't want to speak for them, but I am sure they are not gearing their show for kids to listen too. That being said, on the main website they have links to other shows that also talk about Linux... http://www.thelinuxlink.net/ Many of the shows listed there have no curse words on the podcast. I listen to most of them. Check'em out and I am sure that you can find something for your son to listen too. :) I think the show is great, I have been listening for a year and a half. |
| Judland Jun 03, 2006 11:28 AM EDT |
When words like "idiotic", which is the title of this thread, and "infantile" appear... I'd consider that name-calling. Anyway, I think some of the new listeners of TLLTS are not understanding the format of the show. This show is four friends sitting around talking about Linux, technology and general life. They are not producing a show for commercial purposes or anything like that. It's four guys (and a multitude of guests) sitting around chatting about stuff. It's down to earth; it's real. I guess that why we, the regular listeners, like it so much. There's no fluff or hidden agendas, or a host (or hosts) telling you only about technology that sponsors are trying to get you to buy. The guests that come on the show are under no obligation to talk about anything other than what they want to discuss. They are not getting paid... they are there to say what's on their minds. To me, this the best kind of "journalism" (if you want to call it that) that anyone could ask for. It's not pretty all of the time, but it's honest and it's true. Getting guests, like Mark Shuttleworth, says something about what they're doing. Even the Ubuntu community have complained that they can't even get Mark to sit down to do an interview with them... yet the guys at TLLTS did. They must be doing something right. I think many "average" people these days miss out on these concepts. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 12:48 PM EDT |
That helps clear up your view a bit. I just happen to think of name-calling in narrower terms. Had devnet actually called the hosts idiots, I would have seen that as name-calling. Since he was describing the introduction, I didn't see that as name calling. In short, devnet did not attack the hosts. He criticized their intro. Hence my confusion. I hope you didn't miss the part of his comment where he said thought the show wasn't half bad. (1) He thinks the intro is idiotic - he may be one in a million (and can safely be ignored) (2) He doesn't care for his son to hear the language - He's definitely not alone (3) Other than that, the show is decent - sounds like a potential new listener You have to realize that people's tastes vary. I love the intro; devnet thinks it's idiotic. If people aren't allowed to voice criticism of the show, then how else do the hosts get feedback? And if they don't appreciate the feedback they get, what's the point? How do you grow your audience without understanding where your whole audience is? It's true that there are other shows people can listen to - and it may be that those who don't want to hear coarse language will have to turn to one of the other shows. The flip side of that coin is that TLLTS will have to be willing to lose those listeners. Hackmeister's response was respectful and worth considering. Hopefully he and any other hosts reading this thread will find something in our comments worth considering as well. |
| thetza Jun 03, 2006 12:54 PM EDT |
And here come the liberal media nazi free speech police. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you petition the FCC to fine TLLTS every time they drop the F bomb! And picket their houses everytime they make politically incorrect comment, because apparently none of you have jobs or lives. And lets not forget to lecture them on how to run a "podcast" because they've only done a measily 142 episodes. GRRRR must silence free speech at any means necessary to please red masters. /vent Also, if you think your young children (I'm talking ages 10+) will be somehow scarred because they listened a few swear words on an internet linux radio show, you need to wake up as a parent. Your kids are exposed to the much worse language at school and on the net (If you let them use the internet unsupervised, which you shouldn't... but how else would they find the show?). Furthermore I guarantee you they have access to pornography, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and even weapons. If you are foolish enough to let them have a myspace account or something, they are also at high risk of being prey to pedophiles. So next time you scream "OH THINK OF THE CHILDREN" try to put things in context. |
| panickedthumb Jun 03, 2006 1:19 PM EDT |
thezta- First paragraph: That's a little over the top don't you think? All they were doing was asking for them to be a little more accessible to more audiences. Nazi? That's just plain sensationalism. Second paragraph: Great points. I'm 24, and when I was in second grade I was exposed to worse language than this by my classmates. I can only imagine it's gotten even worse. The first time I was exposed to the availability of alcohol and cigarettes, I was about 8 or so. Porn, about 10. So yes, the material is out there, and if your kid wants to get it, it's very easy. That said, I don't think it would hurt to tone down the language, but I don't care either way personally. |
| Judland Jun 03, 2006 1:36 PM EDT |
I'm fine with free speech. I support it one hundred percent. Just as I stated in my first post... people who resort to name calling don't get much respect from me. That's my freedom to voice my opinion on the subject. Take it for what it's worth, or ignore it... I really couldn't care less. If the use of curse words is such an issue with some people, and if those people really like the show other than for this issue, then why not do something constructive? The show is released under the Creative Commons, so take the show and "bleep" out the parts where curse words occur. I'm sure the guys at TLLTS wouldn't have any problems with that and you could then post the censored version for all the kiddies to listen too. Much more helpful than calling them idiots or infantile; Or even worse, asking someone to change the way they do things just because you don't approve. Thankfully, the guys at TLLTS don't restrict people from accessing or improving upon their content (like every other "professional" newspaper or broadcasting organization). So, make a contribution. |
| thetza Jun 03, 2006 1:57 PM EDT |
>> Nazi? That's just plain sensationalism. just wait until the FCC starts regulating internet radio and shutting them down. We're heading in that exact direction. |
| grouch Jun 03, 2006 6:23 PM EDT |
thetza: >"And here come the liberal media nazi free speech police. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you petition the FCC to fine TLLTS every time they drop the F bomb! And picket their houses everytime they make politically incorrect comment, because apparently none of you have jobs or lives. And lets not forget to lecture them on how to run a "podcast" because they've only done a measily 142 episodes. GRRRR must silence free speech at any means necessary to please red masters. /vent" I couldn't resist quoting that entire, insane, buzzword-laden paragraph. Please continue foaming at the mouth so that no one with any sense will take note of any legitimate complaint that might be hidden within the rhetoric. I particularly like the nonsensical phrase "liberal media nazi free speech police". After conjuring up the strange beast of a liberal nazi, you then invent "red masters" for it. Perhaps you have partaken of too many of Rush's drugs? >"(If you let them use the internet unsupervised, which you shouldn't... but how else would they find the show?)." Thanks, but I don't see any reason to accept child-rearing advice from anyone who spouts such bumper sticker ideological sound bites as you just did. My children are grown and pretty much self-sufficient, in spite of my having allowed them unsupervised access to the Internet. They received warnings regarding the dangers and were required to read a few reports on stalkers, phishers, etc. Neither appears to have turned into a psychopath, yet. >"Furthermore I guarantee you they have access to pornography, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and even weapons." We've had C-band satellite access since my oldest was a toddler. Back then, several porn channels were in the clear. He was more interested in finding "action" movies. Cigarettes? I've been an addict for over 30 years. My children have never even sampled one, probably due to the fact that they were told the truth. The same holds true for alcohol, drugs and weapons. Each was allowed to sample various alcoholic beverages, on condition that it be done only at home, to curb their natural curiosity. Such education worked as neither has ever driven under the influence nor ridden with anyone else who was impaired. As for weapons, I was always able to depend on my children to tell me where I left the ammunition. Continual, truthful instruction coupled with close involvement by parents with children eliminates a lot of troubles before they can start. Using tv as a substitute parent eventually produces adults who are reflections of the sound bite mentality of tv. This helps perpetuate the power brokering and rabble-rousing carried out through purchased media. Back to the subject at hand after that little parenting 101 interlude, I personally do not object to the use of words many find offensive. I've never felt a need to shield my children from them, nor have I had to chastise my children for rudely using such words in conversations involving people who do find them offensive. Many times such words are used as a substitute for clear expression. Sometimes they are used simply as spice. In the former case, they obscure or detract from the intended message. In the latter case, it is easy to over-spice and thereby reduce the number of people whose palate matches what is served. I would not ask TLLTS to censor themselves nor their guests, but neither would I censure those who proclaim personal objections to spicey language. The dangers to free speech do not come from such personal objections, they come from governments such as the current U.S. regime, which rationalizes violations of the Constitution in many well-reported ways. |
| dcparris Jun 03, 2006 8:30 PM EDT |
Judland:
> And here come the liberal media nazi free speech police. Take note. This is a much better example of name calling. We did not have that here until this line. Your definition of name calling is too broad. I guess you missed that subtle point earlier. To say an intro is "idiotic" is fair criticism - not a personal attack. Devnet did not say the hosts were idiotic. Salparadise said the *show* was "infantile" - not the hosts. If it were a personal attack Devnet - to borrow your phrasing - is "not pretty all of the time, but..." he was being "honest..." ;-) I left off the word "true" since his statement reflects his personal taste. None of the hosts seem to have taken the comments nearly as personally as you are. Are you one of the hosts? If not, then you shouldn't take it personally either. Judland, you've offered a reasonable suggestion with respect to editing the show on our own. There's no question about that. I think that's a great idea. I don't have the time, personally, but it's still a good idea. However, telling people you don't know to "make a contribution" is fairly presumptuous. If either of you guys (Judland, thetza) are hosts of the show, please do let me know. thetza: > Hey, I have an idea, why don't you petition the FCC to fine TLLTS every time they drop the F bomb! That's pretty reactionary considering a few listeners simply said they don't care for the coarse language. The listeners have asked the hosts to consider their language. One host responded. > GRRRR must silence free speech at any means necessary to please red masters. You seem to have it backwards, considering it's usually conservatives who work to keep the airwaves clean. The Red Masters want to censor the truth. Puritans want you to keep pure. :-) Still, no one is talking about "censorship", though it certainly sounds like some want part of the audience to censor their own opinions. Look, this whole debate is going overboard. I've said it once and I'll say it for the last time. A guy expressed his opinion in a fair, if not "pretty" way. A TLLTS host responded in a reasonable manner. Step #1 - Listener offers opinion Step #2 - Host responds Step #3 - Listener knows what decision to make Step #4 - Unfortunately, people keep pushing the issue and hounding the critical listeners Accusing listeners of being part of the speech police nazi liberal whatevers for expressing their opinion about the language on the show is wrong. They did not threaten to call the FCC. They are entitled to express their concerns, and should be treated respectfully when they do so. Suggesting alternative solutions is fine. Pointing out pertinent facts (kids being exposed to foul language and worse elsewhere) is fine. But attacking someone for objecting to coarse language is attacking them for exercising their freedom. No one is doing TLLTS any favors by attacking their critics. Hackmeister did not attack the show's critics - neither should anyone else. One final point: being critical of one aspect of the show doesn't mean the person doesn't like the show or is trashing the show. They are pointing out what they object to. LXer readers don't like to see Microsoft ads. When they see them, they point them out - and we don't attack them for it. |
| panickedthumb Jun 03, 2006 9:11 PM EDT |
dcparris, how dare you be the voice of reason?!? Seriously, that's just disrespectful to the people that are enjoying the pointless argument ;) No, really, you do a fine job of stepping out of the situation and being rational. It's refreshing. |
| hackmeister Jun 04, 2006 5:02 AM EDT |
Ok, everyone take a deep breath. It's ok really! Being critical is fine as long as it's being done in a constructive manner. Don't like the occasional cursing. Fair enough. Some of our supporters are being a little defensive right now. I posted the links to the interviews on the Ubuntu forum figuring the Ubuntu users might like to hear the interview with Mark. People on that forum then proceeded to attack the show. We often hear the same complaints over and over. One of the biggest complaints is that the audio quality of the interviews is poor with long pauses between questions. Welcome to the world of voip. Most of the time our Asterisk server works great but sometimes there are latency issues. Also we can't control what kind of phone the interviewee uses. In previous interviews it was apparent the guest was using a cell phone or cordless phone. We really can't demand much from our guests since they are doing us a favor by coming on the show. We don't pay them. Then you get issues with conflicting compression. Short of upgrading to a T3 line there is not much we can do. Also the show is live and our listeners expect the archives of the shows to be up ASAP. We could take a couple of days to edit out the pauses but that would significantly increase our work especially since shows are around 2 hours long. We don't do this full time and for the most part we're footing the bills ourselves. Bottom line is we are trying our best. It's not perfect. I welcome constructive criticism. I also welcome donations to help us pay for our expenses. :) |
| Judland Jun 04, 2006 6:40 AM EDT |
To Dcparris: Nope, not a host, myself. These guys I consider friends of mine. I suppose I wouldn't have found this thread offensive if we were being asked for our opinions in the first place. But that's not what this post was about. It was simply stating that an interview was available. Instead of being thanked, Hackmeister was criticized. Kind of rude, if you ask me. But that's just me. I would have just settled for saying "thanks." P.S. Maybe Devnet would have been smart to start off with some encouragement, instead of a bunch of negativity. There is this thing called "manners", which many people on the Net seemed to have lost these days. |
| jdixon Jun 04, 2006 8:09 AM EDT |
> But that's not what this post was about. It was simply stating that an interview was available. Instead of being thanked, Hackmeister was criticized. The post was a set of comments on the posted article, giving the writers opinion for the benefit of other LXer readers. It was neither about, nor directed to, Hackmeister. The post was critical of the show's content, not the people. > There is this thing called "manners", which many people on the Net seemed to have lost these days. Agreed, but I'd say your concept of manners is somewhat skewed if you think devnet was being rude in his post. |
| dcparris Jun 04, 2006 10:47 AM EDT |
> I suppose I wouldn't have found this thread offensive if we were being asked for our opinions in the first place. But that's not what this post was about. It was simply stating that an interview was available. Instead of being thanked, Hackmeister was criticized. You must be new here. Every article written can be commented on, just like at other sites around the web. Hackmeister submits the show announcement every week. I'm guessing this is devnet's first time hearing it, or he finally just got around to commenting on the show. If you post an article or announcement on LXer, you should be prepared for people to comment - whether that's positive or negative feedback. That happens with most of the articles I write. I don't ask for feedback - it just happens. I find that feedback invaluable. Sure, it can sometimes be painful to discover that not everyone thinks my articles are the most brilliant pieces of literature ever written. Still, I have to take their criticism into consideration. When I took English Composition in college, they taught something known as crticism. Criticism takes on various forms and need not always be negative, though it certainly sometimes is. It is generally intended to be beneficial, regardless of its nature (positve or negative). JDixon is correct in that Hackmeister was not criticized - the content of the show was. I keep trying to point out that devent criticized the show and Hackmeister responded. Obviously, other people can chime in as well. That's how LXer works. I believe Hackmeister probably appreciated Devnet's comments in a way that you apparently cannot. Since devnet hasn't responded, not much else can be said. Chances are, Devnet is weighing Hackmeister's response, or simply doesn't see any point in taking the conversation further - especially since we have carried on quite well on their behalf. I made an appeal to Hackmeister that they give their listeners' concerns a little more thought. Tuxchick seconded the motion. When one or two people have a concern about a show, the show can safely ignore them without too much negative impact. However, when a wider audience starts raising the same concerns, the hosts need to take that into consideration. They obviously are not required by law or much else to change the nature of the language they use. However, they could gain a wider audience in doing so. People have found flaws in the logic of my articles at times - and have been fairly blunt in saying so. If someone says my article is "idiotic", they are not saying I am idiotic. Indeed, Devnet has been critical of my articles at times. Guess what? He still visits LXer and still reads my articles (at least some of them). |
| Judland Jun 04, 2006 1:40 PM EDT |
I've "said" what I had to say. How you justify your conduct is your own problem. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 04, 2006 2:28 PM EDT |
my goodness Judland, what happened to your 100% support for free speech? As thin as your skin is, I hope you're using at least 30 SPF before you expose yourself to other people's comments. |
| jimf Jun 04, 2006 2:45 PM EDT |
Sorry guys. We're back to the 'no one can say anything without offence to someone' scheme. |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 5:20 PM EDT |
jimf - Hey, if nobody ever gets offended, there's not likely much free speech going on. It's a pretty decent barometer for freedom. |
| jimf Jun 04, 2006 5:36 PM EDT |
My point exactly dino. |
| Judland Jun 04, 2006 5:44 PM EDT |
Nothing has happened to my support of free speech, tuxchick. Did I post something that offended you? My apologies. I guess constructive criticism is not something that readers at LXer appreciate. I guess I should have just said this thread was idiotic and moved on. ;o) |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
>I've "said" what I had to say. How you justify your conduct is your own problem. Justify your conduct? Talk about interesting. The only "conduct" I've seen here from jdixon -- to whom I think your comment was directed, but I could be wrong -- was a pretty reasonable response to your comment on manners. If the discussion in this thread represents conduct which somebody must justify -- conduct that is a problem -- I dare say your support for free speech is thinner than your skin. |
| jdixon Jun 04, 2006 6:29 PM EDT |
> Interesting. The first time, yes. The second and third times, no. OK, let's see if I've got this straight: Anything you like is free speech and above being criticized. Anything you don't like is "name calling" and "rude". Yeah, that seems to be a fairly accurate summation of your comments so far. > Can't I express myself around here, too? Sure, but given your record so far it's probably best to keep in mind the quote about removing all doubt. |
| jdixon Jun 04, 2006 6:33 PM EDT |
Dino: > ...was a pretty reasonable response... Thanks. It's a shame I can't maintain it. Well, on second thought, maybe not. |
| dcparris Jun 04, 2006 6:42 PM EDT |
> I've "said" what I had to say. How you justify your conduct is your own problem. Yes, now that you have save free speech for all Americans you can ride off into the sunset. :-) |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 7:05 PM EDT |
>Yes, now that you have save free speech for all Americans you can ride off into the sunset. :-) But surely there'll be a parade! After all, saving free speech is a pretty big deal. Wait -- Am I allowed to say that? |
| dcparris Jun 04, 2006 7:17 PM EDT |
> Wait -- Am I allowed to say that? Well, I did count two 4-letter words in that statement. Someone's bound to be offended. |
| dinotrac Jun 04, 2006 7:18 PM EDT |
Rev - ;0) |
| devnet Jun 04, 2006 7:38 PM EDT |
Wow...I guess a can of worms opened. Sorry bout that guys...I just felt the intro was a bit lame and that the show was cool other than that. I really appreciated a chance to hear Shuttleworth...it was an interesting interview albeit, better when mark was talking and the hosts were listening...they asked some odd questions...especially when they got off on the ipod tangent. Good lord that was funny. Anyways, sorry I offended everyone and caused such a fuss... If anyone wants me to go in more depth as to why I said the things I said, please do let me know and I'll clarify to the best of my ability. Please don't assume to know. I normally don't say what everyone else thinks...because that is extremely easy to do. It's much harder to say what everyone else isn't thinking. :D |
| dcparris Jun 04, 2006 8:00 PM EDT |
> I just felt the intro was a bit lame and that the show was cool other than that. That was the way I took it. Although I haven't heard back from Hackmeister, I suspect he was less offended than the others who were. ;-) I actually wonder if he was even offended. Hard to say. > I guess a can of worms opened Well what would LXer be without a can of worms to go with all the grey matter flying around? :-D > If anyone wants me to go in more depth as to why I said the things I said, please do let me know O.k., I'll bite. Since I disagree with you on the intro being lame, what makes you say it's "idiotic"? |
| hackmeister Jun 05, 2006 4:43 AM EDT |
I'm not offended. As a native New Yorker I am not easily offended or intimidated. Everyone is entitiled to their own opinion. As far as the intro being lame well we didn't produce it. One of our faithful listeners created the intro. Personally I think it sounds very professional, unlike the rest of our show!! We're all for other people doing their own shows. If you have a linux related audio show please send us an email and we'll list you on this page:
http://www.thelinuxlink.net/ The more linux related shows the merrier. I would love it of it we had a dedicated linux channel on the net or even satellite radio. What's get us and most of our supporters riled up is that we tend to get tagged as a podcast. No offense to podcasters but we're not a podcast. We stream the show live and interact with our listeners via IRC. We occassionally do listeners calls-ins via voip. The show is more closer to now defunct "The Linux Show". We have RSS feeds of the archives available because that's the easiest way for people to download our show. Pat from TLLTS |
| devnet Jun 05, 2006 5:38 AM EDT |
DCParris, I just didn't dig "link it up and take it away" as done by the guy who does movie intros. It made me laugh out loud. Before that however, "playful banter" made me smirk. Anyone describing themselves or their show as having 'playful banter' implies that you find yourself quite amusing...which implies a self righteous attitude...just a pet peeve of mine...if someone thinks themselves funny...they generally aren't. And I didn't find the hosts funny at all. Perhaps if I had listened to the show from 2003 until now I'd be all about joking and having a good time...but picking up the show during the last 3 episodes means that I'm not privy to the inside jokes that are tossed around during the show...which excludes me from becoming entrenched into the show. Am I saying to be boring? Nope...I'm not. I'm saying to appeal to your audience...don't exclude them. If you can't have fun in a show without excluding your audience with inside jokes and 'playful banter' then your show is in dire need of help. These two things above made me think that the intro needed a rewrite. I voiced my opinion. I thought the content of the show was cool (topics covered and interview) but that the intro wasn't fantastic and that I could have done without hearing A$$h0l3 and $h17 dropped within the first 3 minutes of the show. Honestly, if I want people to take me seriously, I don't start dropping Fbombs...if I want respect, I garner it by looking and acting the part. This cursing immediately turned me away (and I was in the Air Force...where cursing happened daily) from the show. You might be saying, "get over it, your son will hear that stuff in school." Maybe so. But he won't hear me listening to it. I am supposed to provide an example of how to be for my son and that won't include listening to cursing...it just doesn't set a good example for him to follow. I become the same as those kids at school that curse up a storm. So if it is something I can't do with my son, I'm not going to do it. Which is a shame, because the content of the show was rather good. Funny thing about that, they could become all inclusive by not dropping swear words...it's not hard. I went from cursing daily when I first came into the Air Force to not uttering a single swear word six years later when I got out. Should they have to stop cursing in their show? Of course not. However, they should keep in mind that they aren't going to win audience by cursing. Just my thoughts and feelings on the subject(s). Take it or leave it...right or wrong. |
| dcparris Jun 05, 2006 8:41 AM EDT |
Kackmeister:
> What's get us and most of our supporters riled up is that we tend to get tagged as a podcast. In that case, you're probably going to run up against a lot of the kind of people who still don't knwo the difference between Windows and Office - it's all just "Microsoft" to them. Likewise, everything's a "podcast" to some people. :-) BTW, I know Linc from a listserv he moderates - good to meet you. That makes two of you guys I know now. Devnet: Now that I understand your position a little better, I still like the intro - guess it's a matter of taste. The one thing I think would be really good is if the hosts said their own names in the intro. Possibly, the hosts could start off each show saying, "this is Pat/Allen/Dann/Linc or better yet, a seriously geeky change of order = Linc, Dann, Allen, Pat (LDAP). :-) Might be corny, but I can be pretty darned corny myself. Anyway, not everyone knows which voice goes with each name yet. I recognize Pat's voice and Dann's voice, but am not sure about Linc or Allen. Just my thoughts. |
| jimf Jun 05, 2006 9:55 AM EDT |
Everyone else has commented on this, so I thought I would throw in my two cents. I care little about the use of coarse language as a moral dilemma. Is anyone going to hell for this... I really doubt it. A long time ago, an appropriately placed expletive could do wonders to drive home an idea. As a rare and selective tool it could actually enhance the scope of one's expression. All that has changed. The illiterates and mentally retards of the world decided (in their infinite wisdom) that, since they couldn't use real words, a plethora of vulgarity was a superior substitute for intelligent vocabulary. The more repetitions and creative combinations of profane and rude words was thought to make one really stand out... Well, it really did... What comes to mind now when we hear that kind of garbage spewing form someone's mouth? Well, how about unimaginative, ignorant, rude, crude, and just plain stupid. In other words, we all just loose respect for the individual who tries to communicate(?) in this manner. I always find that kids respond to this explanation very well... No one likes to be perceived as stupid. I'm not saying that one can't still get away with an occasional curse in a known group, or among friends, but it is highly inadvisable to do it in a public setting or forum... I know that the guys at TechShow are doing an important thing here. I know they want to present Linux in a good light, but, I think they need to understand that they are not just presenting their show to an 'in group' anymore. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 05, 2006 10:20 AM EDT |
You don't need to cuss to be an offensive jerk. I listened to the intro again, and heard "...open source... open legs." Then a "cute" crack later about "female server." The world has such a shortage of misogynistic garbage and juvenile antics, thanks fellas for stepping up to plate and meeting this need. The crudeness and disrespect add so much value to the show. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 10:41 AM EDT |
tc - Oh goodness, tc, don't tell me you're going to get into that "women are people, too" rant of yours again! Now -- be a good girl and fetch me some coffee. (Anguished scream follows splashing sound of superheated coffee meeting parts whose notion of "hot" means something other than 212+). |
| tuxchick2 Jun 05, 2006 10:56 AM EDT |
geez dino, it was straight from McDonald's. I thought you liked it hot enough to melt gold. Some people are impossible to please. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 11:22 AM EDT |
tc - Coffee good. Anything you say good. You rock. Please don't hurt me!!!! |
| jimf Jun 05, 2006 12:15 PM EDT |
> You don't need to cuss to be an offensive jerk Absolutely tuxchick. Same criteria applys to all that imature garbage. Oh, and watch out for that dino guy,... he likes that 212+ coffee just a little too much ;-) |
| dcparris Jun 05, 2006 12:15 PM EDT |
> Please don't hurt me!!!! I'll bet you say that to all your dominatrices. |
| dinotrac Jun 05, 2006 1:17 PM EDT |
Rev - But none of them listen, especially my wife! |
| dcparris Jun 05, 2006 2:14 PM EDT |
> But none of them listen, especially my wife! Yeah, tell me about it. |
| thetza Jun 05, 2006 10:12 PM EDT |
>>I've been an addict for over 30 years. My children have never even sampled one, probably due to the fact that they were told the truth. The same holds true for alcohol, drugs and weapons. I was a drug counselor for juvenile for 6 years, and I've met countless clueless parents like yourself. So many normal, white suburban middle class parents have no idea whats going on in their children's lives. But hey, for me its job security. >> You seem to have it backwards, considering it's usually conservatives who work to keep the airwaves clean. Ahh yes, liberals are the defenders of freedom, the champions of social equality, and the only only thing stopping conservatives from establishing a dictatorship. (Please ignore the fact that liberals and conservatives alike voted the patriot act, dmca, and other laws which trample on the rights of us all) >> I made an appeal to Hackmeister that they give their listeners' concerns a little more thought. Tuxchick seconded the motion. When one or two people have a concern about a show, the show can safely ignore them without too much negative impact. However, when a wider audience starts raising the same concerns, the hosts need to take that into consideration. They obviously are not required by law or much else to change the nature of the language they use. However, they could gain a wider audience in doing so. No offense (seriously, I don't intend any, this time) but how would you know what would gain a wider audience? Are you the host of a more popular radio show? Did you know they've been running longer than most "podcasts" today, including Twit? Would R rated movies automatically become more popular if it were toned down to PG-13 or PG? And also note that one of the hosts (not hackmeister) also does a linux gaming cast, and it is kept clean (at least the first few episiodes that I've listened to) presumably so his kids can listen. >> Before that however, "playful banter" made me smirk. Anyone describing themselves or their show as having 'playful banter' implies that you find yourself quite amusing...which implies a self righteous attitude...just a pet peeve of mine Did you ever consider the possibilty that "Playful banter" is meant to be taken sarcastically? I mean, "playful" is a word you would use to describe little children and kittens, not 4 sweaty computer geeks in an small, unventilated room talking about tech. |
| dinotrac Jun 06, 2006 3:38 AM EDT |
thetza - > I was a juvenile drug counselor for the 6 years, and I've met countless clueless parents like yourself. I've met countless "counselors" who presume all parents are clueless and that no one can possibly love and communicate with their children. You start from the proposition that parents are the children's enemies, and that life can only be made good through a counselor's godlike minstrations. You are making the Freudian mistake: You see a stream of children in trouble and parents without a clue, therefor, all children must be in trouble and no parents have a clue. Unless your client list is tens of millions long, I suspect that you haven't met us all. |
| dcparris Jun 06, 2006 6:37 AM EDT |
Thetza:
> No offense (seriously, I don't intend any, this time) but how would you know what would gain a wider audience? Are you the host of a more popular radio show? Did you know they've been running longer than most "podcasts" today, including Twit? Would R rated movies automatically become more popular if it were toned down to PG-13 or PG? You may not have intended offense, but if you didn't consider me an idiot, you wouldn't have asked such an assinine question in the first place. Dino: > You are making the Freudian mistake: You see a stream of children in trouble and parents without a clue, therefor, all children must be in trouble and no parents have a clue. Unless your client list is tens of millions long, I suspect that you haven't met us all. Thank you Dino. I share the counselor's role frequently. Most parents I run into are well aware of the challenges they face, even if they don't want or know how to face them. I think someone is on his high horse today. |
| jimf Jun 06, 2006 8:13 AM EDT |
> I was a juvenile drug counselor for the 6 years, and I've met countless clueless parents like yourself. So many normal, white suburban middle class parents have no idea whats going on in their children's lives. But hey, for me its job security. With that attitude, you are obviously part of the problem rather than the solution. |
| tuxchick2 Jun 06, 2006 8:44 AM EDT |
thetza, I don't understand your perspective at all: "No offense (seriously, I don't intend any, this time) but how would you know what would gain a wider audience? Are you the host of a more popular radio show? Did you know they've been running longer than most "podcasts" today, including Twit? Would R rated movies automatically become more popular if it were toned down to PG-13 or PG? " First of all, that's pretty darned condescending considering you don't know a thing about any of us. How nice of you to assume we're all ignernt rubes. I've done radio and TV, I write several weekly tech columns, I've written an O'Reilly book and have a second one almost finished. So yes, I know a thing or two about audiences. There are several other folks here with a lot of smarts and experience in all kinds of arenas. Hey, you might have noticed dcparris & crew are running a popular Linux news site- what's your claim to fame? Even so, none of that matters all that much, because the important factor is the audience. The first rule of any kind of communication is "decide if you want to communicate your message, or just have a friendly circle-jerk with your buddies." Please explain to me how multiple f-bombs, gratuitous insults and coarse language add value to the show. It's just plain stupid to alienate your audience with such self-indulgences; it doesn't matter how great the content is because the stupid stuff drives listeners away. You can rail all day about "frea speach" and how listeners just need to be more tolerant, it won't change a thing. Because, and here's a free clue, they don't need to be more tolerant. There is no shortage of great tech and Linux information sources; nobody needs to tolerate idiotic juvenile antics. Secondly, comparing a Linux tech show to R-rated movies is stupid. What's to compare? R-rated movies are targeted to a certain audience. Most folks, when they tune into a tech show, don't expect it to be R-rated. If that's the audience that TILTS wants, they ought to post that prominently on the front page of the site. Thirdly, being on the air all this time is a noteworthy achievement- but it is a volunteer show, there is no one to make them go away but themselves. In a nutshell, your viewpoint is everything is someone else's fault, and they just need to get over it. I hope you are not really a counselor, the very idea gives me the willies. Just once I would like to hear someone promote free speech as vehicle for interesting ideas and information, instead of an excuse to be a jerk. It's also worth pointing out that the comments on the coarse language, ands requests to tone it down, were polite, unlike the responses to them. |
| grouch Jun 06, 2006 5:41 PM EDT |
thetza: >"I was a juvenile drug counselor for the 6 years, and I've met countless clueless parents like yourself. So many normal, white suburban middle class parents have no idea whats going on in their children's lives. But hey, for me its job security." I would believe you if you claimed to be a presumptuous, pompous ass, but "juvenile drug counselor" is just too far-fetched without a comma or period after "juvenile". You imagined that I fit the pigeon-hole you prepared for me in order for you to make your further arrogant assumptions. Since your commentary contains no logic and no facts, but rather consists of nothing more than inflammatory phrases, I conclude you are simply a troll. Maybe we'll get lucky and whatever stray cat dumped you here will return to cover its mess. |
| thetza Jun 06, 2006 10:53 PM EDT |
> you to assume we're all ignernt rubes ... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!