Lanthanide12.1
Morrissey, do you have any actual consistent or objective measurement for what constitutes a “significant pause” or “extended silence” compared to “pause” or “silence”?weka12.1.1
I take it that’s a rhetorical question.felix12.1.2
As far as I can tell he doesn’t even distinguish between ‘devastatingly pregnant pause’ and the ordinary ending of one sentence followed by the beginning of another.Rogue Trooper12.1.2.1
.miravox12.1.2.1.1
Pfft that made me laugh…ianmac12.1.2.1.2
Hey Rogue. I believe that you would equal the Guiness Book of World Records which claimed that a letter exchange between two angry writers had the shortest well thought out response.
The second to last letter had nothing on the page but “!”
The last letter had nothing on it but “.”
Well done that man!- you are very kind, and it’s a bit of an off day. No rhyme or reason, (well, that would not be entirely true at all)., however, it’s getting better. An excellent therapeutic intervention in my opinion, gardening, so I’ve put in some Kamo Kamo plants, which are generally very productive, and you can koha them around joint.
Morrissey12.1.3
Morrissey, do you have any actual consistent or objective measurement for what constitutes a “significant pause” or “extended silence” compared to “pause” or “silence”?Come on Lanthanide, both you and I are perfectly aware of what constitutes an awkward, pregnant or extended silence, and all the other points on the continuum. I wouldn’t like to attempt to chart them scientifically, of course, but they are real, and undeniable.Ennui12.1.3.1
Carry on Morrissey, you make me laugh whether it is accurate or not. You get the gist right most of the time so regardless of the criticism around here I will treat it as Gonzo, and something slightly more amusing than the dry balls stone faces comments.Anne12.1.3.1.1
+1
Wee bit overly mean sometimes but what the hell…- Thank you, Ennui. I appreciate your support.
muzza12.1.3.1.3
Agree with E & A!Keep at it Moz, it’s entertaining.
- phenomenally so.
Te Reo Putake12.2
“JESSICA MADDOCK: Well, a study shows that when you watch advertisements on TV when you are eating something, you subconsciously mouth the brand names.
GRAHAM BELL: Ho ho ho!
MAI CHEN: I believe it!
MORA: Hang on! So when you watch TV and eat you are subconsciously mouthing the brand names?”Moz, you’ve got this arsebackwards. Maddock correctly said that the study shows that eating in the cinema STOPS people subconsiously mouthing the brand names. Presumably she was quoting the Guardian article, or one of many other news reports on the finding:Your misunderstanding/mishearing of what Maddock said also means that the words you attribute to Bell, Chen and Mora were not actually spoken by them. And what they did discuss was the exact opposite of what you claim.As I suggested the other day, if you listen to the show a second time, you are far less likely to get things like this wrong.- No, TRP. Morrissey’s transcript, as always, is accurate.The only grey areas are what was said, who said what, how they said it and what they meant.
- The only grey areas are what was said, who said what, how they said it and what they meant.You’re quibbling over exact details. Yes, I made a mistake as to the actual findings of a no-account study in the Grauniad, but I got the dynamics of that dreadful conversation just right. As you would know if you had listened to the show.
McFlock12.2.1.1.1
lol – quibbling exact details like the diametric opposite of what they actually said.- lol –Word of advice, my friend: avoid such puerile antics. It makes you look like a teenager—and not a very bright one.quibbling exact details like the diametric opposite of what they actually said.As I’ve already pointed out, the substance of my post was about the vacuity and foolishness of the chit-chat infesting our public radio. The actual details of the trivial subject being discussed are not really important. You know that, of course, perfectly well.
- I’m not you’re friend, buddy.Given that you’ve previously argued that your “transcripts” are “pretty close to word-perfect”, arguing that the details of what was said (like whether they said something completely different) makes you a fucking joke.
- I’m not you’re [sic] friend, buddy.We’re all friends around here, buddy. Except for Brett Dale.Given that you’ve previously argued that your “transcripts” are “pretty close to word-perfect”….They pretty much are. That’s not an “argument”, that’s a fact. And you know it.….arguing that the details of what was said (like whether they said something completely different)What they said was not the point. How they reacted to one another—-especially the way Jessica Maddock reacted to Jim Mora—-was the point.…makes you a fucking joke.Ha! A little bit of swearing just to intimidate, huh? I’m sure that works for you in real life situations, but here in cyberspace it only makes you look foolish.
- Given that you’ve previously argued that your “transcripts” are “pretty close to word-perfect”….They pretty much are. That’s not an “argument”, that’s a fact. And you know it.… except when they say the exact opposite of what actually took place.What they said was not the point.Well, then. It doesn’t matter that your transcripts are grossly inaccurate.
- … except when they say the exact opposite of what actually took place.I have explained with perfect clarity what the point of my post was. It was to highlight the vacuity of that fifteen minutes of excruciatingly poor quality radio chit-chat. Your quibbles about my slip-up over an incidental detail are utterly spurious.Of course, that suits your purpose perfectly well: after all, your aim is not serious discussion, but to assail my integrity. Are you Whaleoil? You certainly write like him.It doesn’t matter that your transcripts are grossly inaccurate.Another wild, swingeing statement by you. My transcripts are pretty much on the money always, and you know it. You are going after me (ineptly) not because you are worried about anything that happened on that awful radio show yesterday, but because I have in the past targeted dishonest people and corrupt organisations that you have, foolishly, chosen to parrot.
- My transcripts are pretty much on the money always, and you know it.Bullshit. They’re bunk.You are going after me (ineptly) not because you are worried about anything that happened on that awful radio show yesterday, but because I have in the past targeted dishonest people and corrupt organisations that you have, foolishly, chosen to parrot.Bullshit. You’re making shit up (again). I’d quite like your transcripts if they were accurate, or satire, but they can’t be both. You’re ego’s writing cheques that your recollection can’t cash.See, I had to transcribe some quotes from an interview today. It was easy: I pressed “play” for a few words, then “pause”, wrote it down, replayed that section to make sure I was word perfect in something other than my imagination. It transcribing is how you get your rocks off, it’s not that difficult.
sockpuppet…
Your are all either mischievous or mistaken.Morrissey’s renditions are always accurate and telling representations, he is truly a Shakespeare of our times.- Your [sic] are all either mischievous or mistaken.“All”? In case you haven’t noticed, a small clique of my ideological enemies are following a strategy of quibbling about nothing of consequence, in order to attack my credibility. Fortunately, I can simply cite my substantial body of work on the internet, both here and elsewhere, and am happy to put my credibility up against that of people who parrot the lies of people and organisations that have been shown repeatedly to be dishonest and even fraudulent.Morrissey’s renditions are always accurate and telling representations, he is truly a Shakespeare of our times.Thanks for that!
- “As you would know if you had listened to the show.”No need to, I can just read your transcript and imagine the opposite.
- I can just read your transcript and imagine the opposite.As we saw last year with your strident and unashamed support for the most obviously nonsensical and bizarre official lies, you are adept at imagining the very opposite of reality to be the truth.
greywarbler12.2.1.2
The only grey areas are what was said, who said what, how they said it and what they meant.
You’re quibbling over exact details.So there.
Priceless.
When this ends I’ll know the Meaning of Lif.- Life, say what you will about it you cant like it…..I think that is what marvin said but hell it is a bit hazy, many years since. Still thats what he meant.
- You mean Marvin the Paranoid Android. He really doesn’t want to know because he knows that if he ever does find out he will be even feel more depressed.
- Moz, you’ve got this arsebackwards. Maddock correctly said that the study shows that eating in the cinema STOPS people subconsiously mouthing the brand names. Presumably she was quoting the Guardian article, or one of many other news reports on the finding:Thanks for that, my eagle-eyed, bat-eared friend. Accuracy, that’s the thing! I’ve GOT to up my game!Your misunderstanding/mishearing of what Maddock said also means that the words you attribute to Bell, Chen and Mora were not actually spoken by them. And what they did discuss was the exact opposite of what you claim.The point of my post, and I’m sure you realise this as well as anybody, was not to critique another vacuous study published in the ever-vacuous Grauniad, but to highlight the vacuous nature of the chit-chat that has been allowed to take over National Radio. Yes, as you so helpfully point out, I did get the earth-shatteringly important findings of that study “arsebackwards”, but that was not really significant. What is significant is: (a) thefaux jollity of Graham Bell, (b) the obvious boredom of Mai Chen, who must have been wondering (yet again) why the hell she bothers with this program, (c) just how incredibly vacuous and annoying Jim Mora is, and (d) the contemptuous silences and curt replies by Jessica Maddock.
- ” … another vacuous study published in the ever-vacuous Grauniad …”If you can’t even read what I wrote, what’s the point of you? I said it was in the Guardian and many other news sites. Which google will confirm. It’s not the Guardian’s study, it’s peer reviewed research from academics at Cologne university and it has major implications for advertising on both the big screen and the one your reading this on.Y’know, it’d be great if you could just say, ‘cheers, I got that wrong’ instead of offering vacuous piffle to try and excuse yourself instead.Indeed, Moz, you are the Jim Mora of the interwebs.
- Y’know, it’d be great if you could just say, ‘cheers, I got that wrong’Errrr, that’s exactly what I did do.….instead of offering vacuous piffle to try and excuse yourself instead.I explained the purpose of my post, and you understand it perfectly well, of course. Instead of acknowledging that, you instead focus on a minor failure to get all the details correct. It’s like picking holes in Citizen Kane because Welles used stock footage in some of the scenes with less than due care and attention.Indeed, Moz, you are the Jim Mora of the interwebs.I’ll take that as a compliment.
- Holy fuck, did you just compare yourself to Orson Welles???Outstanding
- Holy fuck, did you just compare yourself to Orson Welles???OutstandingWell, he had his failures too, don’t forget. I myself have never been so down and out that I have been reduced to providing a voiceover for something as dire as the Future Shock movie.
- Ya reckon. You’d be delusional to even set it as a distant aspiration.
- At one stage about ten months ago, I was banned from Whaleoil, Brian Edwards and The Standard, all at the same time. But I tell ya now, my friend, despite such low-points, I can say with hand on heart that I’ve never been as desperate as this….
- second verse, same as the firstAnother lame failure to respond. You’re not looking too convincing, buddy.
- I’m not your buddy, guy.And the response was simply exactly the same as the previous response.Orson Welles could have advertised vibrators in supermarket ads while wearing a leapordskin onesy, it still wouldn’t excuse the pure-distilled narcissism that let you compare yourself with him.
- Orson Welles could have advertised vibrators in supermarket ads while wearing a leapordskin [sic] onesy, it still wouldn’t excuse the pure-distilled narcissism that let you compare yourself with him.Ha! “Narcissism” is clearly the Word of the Day….
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-16102013/#comment-711105
Monday 8 January 2018
On-air display of dumb insolence by Jim Mora’s producer. (Oct. 15, 2013)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But who can blame her?
The Panel, Radio NZ National, Tuesday 15 October 2013
Jim Mora, Graham Bell, Mai Chen, Jessica Maddock
JESSICA MADDOCK: Well first up is a plan to deliver books in Australia by drone!
JIM MORA: Ha ha ha ha ha!
MAI CHEN: What if they run out of batteries?
GRAHAM BELL: Ho ho ho ho ho!
JESSICA MADDOCK: Two kilos, I think, is the most they can carry.
MORA: [urgently] Can they carry two kilograms?!?!!??
MORA: Mmm-kay. What else?
JESSICA MADDOCK: Well, a study shows that when you watch advertisements on TV when you are eating something, you subconsciously mouth the brand names.
GRAHAM BELL: Ho ho ho!
MAI CHEN: I believe it!
MORA: Hang on! So when you watch TV and eat you are subconsciously mouthing the brand names?
MORA: What else have you got for us?
JESSICA MADDOCK: Well, a study shows that children who go to bed earlier behave better.
MAI CHEN: You reckon?
GRAHAM BELL: Ho ho ho!
MORA: Okay, so it’s like a scientific confirmation of conventional wisdom isn’t it.
MAI CHEN: Good grief!
JESSICA MADDOCK: And it can also lead to a decrease in male fertility!
GRAHAM BELL: Ho ho ho!
MORA: Okay, we’ve got thirty seconds. Anything else?
JESSICA MADDOCK: Well, there is this item is about the rediscovery of seventeenth century beauty practices. For example, the use of tobacco ash will whiten your teeth.
MORA: Tobacco ash?
JESSICA MADDOCK: Mmmm, hmmmm.