Ian Punnett

[aldousburbank]

So number nine, turn me on dead man, and others say much more about our imagination.

I... buried... George...

[anagrammy]

I used to think that there was the possibility of intelligent verbage however unintentional the occurrence was.

But I must confess to an to a couple of recent events that have changed my mind. Over the last few years a trilogy of movies came out starting with the Bourne Identity. All of them have a song by Moby. I had no idea who this Moby was. My only certainty was that no whale could produce that kind of music with today's tech. (I digress)

Listening to the song I have now learned is called Fell Apart, or something similar. Until talking with someone about that song I had always heard the word "telephon" at the end of one of the lines in the chorus. I like the bourne movies and have seen each of them a few times and always, always heard "telephon".

Well the actual wording is "fell apart". And once learning that I now have a difficult time understanding how I mispercieved. But I did.

The other occurrence happened while I was watching a nova episode about how the brain works (don't waste your time). There was a brief bit about how we recognize speech. Much of it is contextual. And if there is little to reference in the wording, the imagination goes into overtime to make sense by translation.

So number nine, turn me on dead man, and others say much more about our imagination.
Also, when did we just accept that reversing speech was some legitimate form of communication? Cuz its not.

This is both hilarious and terrifying at the same time...

Ana

[aldousburbank]

Also, when did we just accept that reversing speech was some legitimate form of communication? Cuz its not.

I was just getting used to the idea of forward speech being a legitimate form of communication.

[onan]

I was just getting used to the idea of forward speech being a legitimate form of communication.

+1!!!

aldousburbank ftw

[IanSucks]

Ian needs to be replaced.

The thing about Art or George is at least they ask questions. They don't flaunt their supposed knowledge.

They respect their guests.

Ian Punnett's transgressions:

1) Ian does not respect his guests.
2) Ian appears to think he is smarter than almost everyone he interviews.
3) Ian is constantly talking over Coast to Coast guests.
4) Ian is constantly interrupting Coast to Coast guests.
5) Ian is constantly giving advice Coast to Coast guests like he is some oracle or guru that knows all.
6) Ian has little respect for his callers questions.
7) Ian goes on tirade about little things that don't matter. Such someone calling a guest a doctor. Ian proceeded to tell the audience that the guest was not a Dr. but people kept calling the guest a Dr. Ian insinuated Coast audience was stupid and incapable of understanding. 15 mins later...

I definitely hope Ian changes because right now he comes off as an arrogant, know it all, that has no respect. Ian believes he's at the pinnacle of his career and nothing can touch him.

If Ian was so interesting I'm sure George would have interviewed him.

STFU Ian. Damn.

[morphiaflow]

See, while I agree with or at least get some of your points, I actually think Ian is the quickest apologize and recognize or acknowledge if he's made a mistake or put his foot in his mouth. I think he has a self-conscious humility that GN certainly knacks. I see many of your criticisms as having to do with the fact that Ian seems the most..."homey", or comfortable of the hosts. That doesn't invalidate your conclusions, I just don't necessarily think he's coming from the place you think he's coming from. On the other hand, I'll listen to Ian over GN any day of the freakin' week.

[Eddie Coyle]

    I'm not a huge fan of Ian, but I do have respect for his skepticism. He challenges guests far more than any other host(including Art) like his infamous Steve Quayle stand-off and a time(summer 2007) where Jim Marrs kept insisting that there wouldn't be a 2008 Presidential election and Ian called bullshit on him and Marrs got very annoyed...as we know, the election of 11/4/2008 did occur. So while Ian is quite flawed, his skepticism is appreciated here.

[morphiaflow]

Quayle and Marrs are both interesting examples of how different hosts treat different guests. George sounds like he believes pretty much everything every guest has to say, even if two different guests have wildly contradictory views on the same topic (unless of course it's about climate change, abiotic oil, or any other tea party darling topics). Quayle and Marrs are both pretty much "George" guests--I don't know if Art ever interviewed them and if he did I suspect he'd chew them up and spit them out. Ian called them out, rather clumsily in Quayle's case, but still--he deserves props for that, even if the producers made him give a phony, ass-kissing apology (which as far as I'm concerned wasn't necessary since Quayle is an absolute nutjob and all Ian did was point it out).

[Eddie Coyle]

Quayle and Marrs are both interesting examples of how different hosts treat different guests. George sounds like he believes pretty much everything every guest has to say, even if two different guests have wildly contradictory views on the same topic

    On one of his JFK anniversary shows, George had three guests have three differing theories about the assassination, and basically endorsed each entry "the truth". It was hysterical, one guy says it's the Mob, the other guy says it's the Cubans/Soviets,the other guy says the military industrial complex/oilmen did it and George agrees with all three. It's Noory in a nutshell.

[IanSucks]

The guy just needs to relax. I'd be surprised if half the people he interviewed would want to do an interview with him again.

I'm not saying moxy doesn't exist. I'm saying chill out, don't run at the mouth all the time.

You know what I want to see from Ian some damn finesse.

[zensunni]

I've been lurking on this forum for a year; I first came here because I wondered if anyone else found Ian as pretentious and annoying as I do. It's nice to know I have compadres!

Here's the thing: Ian is an intelligent and well-read guy, and I appreciate that about him. But that DOESN'T MAKE HIM BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. Ian goes weak in the knees for someone who had a doctorate or, better yet, a background in theology. He assumes we all will give such people's words more weight, and value their opinion more highly.

Actually, I share some of Ian's background. I studied theology in college (although I only minored in it), and for a while was very active in the Episcopal Church, serving as Lay Eucharistic Minister. And I can tell you that people in such fields get very comfortable with their academic-approved version of spirituality, which frequently uses buzzwords like "orthopraxis" and "panentheism". There is a definite tendency to feel that one trained in such fields may have a deeper understanding of faith, which is in no way true. It's pure elitism.

Last week, I heard Ian correct a listener on a fairly technical term, "It's septuagint, just so you know". Ok, Ian, you're right, but how insufferable can you be? Really, do you expect your audience to be amateur biblical scholars?

And what's with the shows about organized crime, or Jimmy the Greek? Who cares?

[Agent : Orange]

And what's with the shows about organized crime, or Jimmy the Greek? Who cares?

Oh man, those are some of the most interesting shows imo. I like that Ian has such a wide range for the weird or just general strangeness, like sports fixing and pop culture stuff. In my opinion that's one of his strengths, not a weakness. He casts a farther net than the other hosts and sometimes it's nice to hear about stuff that's off the beaten path. Just my $0.02.

[Eddie Coyle]

Oh man, those are some of the most interesting shows imo. I like that Ian has such a wide range for the weird or just general strangeness, like sports fixing and pop culture stuff. In my opinion that's one of his strengths, not a weakness. He casts a farther net than the other hosts and sometimes it's nice to hear about stuff that's off the beaten path. Just my $0.02.

  Agree,but I do think he can get tunnel-vision at times, the DB Cooper and Smiley Face Killer tales became redundant. However, Ian's pop culture knowledge is a great contrast to Noory's, who really is absolutely elementary on ALL subjects.

[zensunni]

Oh man, those are some of the most interesting shows imo. I like that Ian has such a wide range for the weird or just general strangeness, like sports fixing and pop culture stuff. In my opinion that's one of his strengths, not a weakness. He casts a farther net than the other hosts and sometimes it's nice to hear about stuff that's off the beaten path. Just my $0.02.

Well, I'm glad someone's enjoying those shows. They're some of Ian's best work, but they don't interest me in the least. To each his own.

[El Kragen]

Oh man, those are some of the most interesting shows imo. I like that Ian has such a wide range for the weird or just general strangeness, like sports fixing and pop culture stuff. In my opinion that's one of his strengths, not a weakness. He casts a farther net than the other hosts and sometimes it's nice to hear about stuff that's off the beaten path. Just my $0.02.

I'm with you. This is where Ian shines and it's why I like listening to his shows. I just listened to his show discussing the book Renegade History. That's interesting stuff (to me) that I won't hear anywhere else.

[Eddie Coyle]

I just listened to his show discussing the book Renegade History. That's interesting stuff (to me) that I won't hear anywhere else.

    I picked up that book because of the interview Russell did with Ian. And you're right, I haven't heard Russell or that book discussed anywhere else...

[IanSucks]

You act like Ian lines up his own guests... or writes his own questions...

Sure improv is used but the majority of interviews in media are pre-scripted. The interview questions are given the interviewee before the interview.

Lets give credit where credit is due...  :

[Treading Water]

Wasn't Ian the host who booted someone from his show because he was handed a list of questions from the guest? 
I'm sure they get "suggestions" from the top, but I think they can add whatever they want.  However, that might be changing. After listening last Saturday I thought George was filling in for Ian.  Guest just rambled and rambled and it seemed that Ian had fallen asleep.
At least he reads most of the books.  But I do get a crawly feeling after some of his pithy comments.
Not an excellent host, but still better than the Muuuuuuustttttaaaaaaccccchhhhiiiiiioooooeeeeddd one.

[Coasted2astop]

Quayle and Marrs are both interesting examples of how different hosts treat different guests. George sounds like he believes pretty much everything every guest has to say, even if two different guests have wildly contradictory views on the same topic (unless of course it's about climate change, abiotic oil, or any other tea party darling topics). Quayle and Marrs are both pretty much "George" guests--I don't know if Art ever interviewed them and if he did I suspect he'd chew them up and spit them out. Ian called them out, rather clumsily in Quayle's case, but still--he deserves props for that, even if the producers made him give a phony, ass-kissing apology (which as far as I'm concerned wasn't necessary since Quayle is an absolute nutjob and all Ian did was point it out).

I would have loved to have heard that one.

And yes, Art would have never cozied up to quayle or corsi and the whole worldnetdaily news bunch either.

[morphiaflow]

I would have loved to have heard that one.

And yes, Art would have never cozied up to quayle or corsi and the whole worldnetdaily news bunch either.

You can find it in the archives I'm sure, if you look hard enough. I want to say it was summer of 2007.

Art may have suffered fools, but he did so with his own tongue in cheek, and he either had fun with them or he subtly or not so subtly put them in their place. Quayle, Corsi, Marrs, Austin-Fitts...all these jokers wouldn't last half an hour with Art before their bluffs would be called. If I remember correctly Art finally saw through Hoagland, and as for Alex Jones....whenever a Noory listener has ever mentioned Jones to Art, he's pretty much given the equivalent of "No comment". I suspect he regards Jones in the "moonhowler" category. As he should. (On the other hand I do believe Art thinks highly of Icke; but then so do I, even if he is an absolute nutjob, at least he's an INTERESTING one. Of course, the accent helps his credibility. Maybe Noory should try that...)

[Scully]

Oh man, those are some of the most interesting shows imo. I like that Ian has such a wide range for the weird or just general strangeness, like sports fixing and pop culture stuff. In my opinion that's one of his strengths, not a weakness. He casts a farther net than the other hosts and sometimes it's nice to hear about stuff that's off the beaten path. Just my $0.02.

Just to continue the balance, here's my nickel's worth.  Ian's off-topics are too far afield for the Coast audience.  Obviously any topic will be welcomed by part of any audience, if that's the argument.

While I'm very much interested in politics, for example, I don't want to hear about it in the middle of the night on a program which is still, by reputation at least, about the mysterious and unexplained.

As far as comic books and sports are concerned, they don't come under that category, and I don't want to hear about them. ... Ever.   

[anagrammy]

You can find it in the archives I'm sure, if you look hard enough. I want to say it was summer of 2007.

Art may have suffered fools, but he did so with his own tongue in cheek, and he either had fun with them or he subtly or not so subtly put them in their place. Quayle, Corsi, Marrs, Austin-Fitts...all these jokers wouldn't last half an hour with Art before their bluffs would be called. If I remember correctly Art finally saw through Hoagland, and as for Alex Jones....whenever a Noory listener has ever mentioned Jones to Art, he's pretty much given the equivalent of "No comment". I suspect he regards Jones in the "moonhowler" category. As he should. (On the other hand I do believe Art thinks highly of Icke; but then so do I, even if he is an absolute nutjob, at least he's an INTERESTING one. Of course, the accent helps his credibility. Maybe Noory should try that...)

Icke has a lot of facts and background research that are verifiable and he gets you going with that and then draws a completely preposterous conclusion.  Which is why I forked over the money and saw him in person.  Those of us who love fringe people, well, we love David.

Anagrammy

[IanSucks]

You act like Ian lines up his own guests... or writes his own questions...

Sure improv is used but the majority of interviews in media are pre-scripted. The interview questions are given the interviewee before the interview.

Lets give credit where credit is due...  :

[Coasted2astop]

You act like Ian lines up his own guests... or writes his own questions...

Sure improv is used but the majority of interviews in media are pre-scripted. The interview questions are given the interviewee before the interview.

Lets give credit where credit is due...

I always figured it was more like there were questions that were not allowed and the hosts stay away from those topics.

[Saffy]

Just to continue the balance, here's my nickel's worth.  Ian's off-topics are too far afield for the Coast audience.

Agreed, though it's not just Ian. Even more than the ineptitude of Mustache Mouth, drifting away from more traditional C2C subjects pushed me away from the show. I realize that C2C often has a different "take" on political and mainstream topics, but that "take" is nothing new or even all that radical. Back in the old days, Ian pretty much covered most of the religious and many of the spiritual topics - few of which I'm interested in - so I rarely ever listened when Ian was host.

I even enjoyed listening to people like Hoagland back in the day. Even if your logical mind was screaming bullshit, the part of you that wanted to believe was sufficiently titillated.

I've only heard one or two of Icke's shows. I always skipped them since the conspiracy theory genre wasn't my cup of tea. Now I regret missing them.

I think all the hosts have their darling guests and sacred cows.

[valdez]

     About two hours into the show Ian goes on a well deserved rant against Mr. Camping, about all the money waisted on hyping the event that could have fed the poor, healed the sick, etc.  Somebody said something about suing the old guy.  A Camping follower called in from Texas, she sounded dazed, and her husband was yelling something in the background.  Bizarre.  Somebody else called in saying he was Gods messenger, and then somebody else claimed to be the Messiah.  I passed a dead opossum on my way home this morning and thought, "it ended for him."  The sun comes up.  The world goes on.  At least for a few days I think I'll treasure it. 

 

[HorrorReporter]

Ian redeemed himself in my mind with his May 21 show of logic. It was intelligent and interesting..

[zensunni]

I'm not an atheist, but Richard Dawkins may have responded to Ian this way: "If you're upset that Camping and his followers don't spend enough time and money helping others, then what about the enormous cathedrals other churches build? What about their huge bureaucracies? What about the gold candlesticks and fancy vestments? What about the Vatican and Canterbury Cathedral? Shouldn't all of that money be given to Second Harvest?"

Personally, I understand how Ian feels. But very few forms of faith pass that test. Where I live, it's actually the Catholic Church that does the most for the community.

[anagrammy]

I'm not an atheist, but Richard Dawkins may have responded to Ian this way: "If you're upset that Camping and his followers don't spend enough time and money helping others, then what about the enormous cathedrals other churches build? What about their huge bureaucracies? What about the gold candlesticks and fancy vestments? What about the Vatican and Canterbury Cathedral? Shouldn't all of that money be given to Second Harvest?"

Personally, I understand how Ian feels. But very few forms of faith pass that test. Where I live, it's actually the Catholic Church that does the most for the community.

As they should, given the past and present crimes they've committed.  It passes the five Our Fathers and five Hail Marys level and, now that I think about it, passes the community service level too.

Anagrammy

[b_dubb]

i think if someone gave money to Camping .. they should either get their money back ... or get to kick Camping in the balls