Art Bell

[HumanBeing]

Me and him are tight. Just takes some lubrication.

[pate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov4HjDHWUe4

[Meister_000]

I caught your post from last night and am still going over it.  Seems to be a passion of yours where I really am just wandering through...

An interesting observation at the human rights museum that was pointed out to me by a co-worker... They had dozens of major events posted on a timeline- philosophies and writings that influenced human rights and moved them forward.  Conspicuous by their absence was the constitution and the American civil war.  The war kind of makes sense (otherwise you would have to include many wars fought on "humanitarian" grounds.)  However, it was interesting to see that the curator did not consider any writings or documents produced in N. America to be worthy of mention as moving human rights forward.  I wonder to what extent the 3/5 of a person played in the decision...
Anyhow, I will join you in wishing Gabbers a Happy New Year.

Hi WOTR.  (Ok, glad you saw it -- I knew you were going off to bed). I guess I love learning in general and trying to link threads of history together. I had been been studying Moral philosophy primarily, which is the Duty Talk half of the equation, and by back-door came upon the Rights Talk half of the story, and it's history, and only then did many of the holes in my bigger picture understanding of events become better filled in.

I'd like to see a copy of their timeline in the evolution of Human Rights. [Their web site is unimpressive, but the building is.] And I am VERY surprised at the omission of any USA contribution. That's nuts!  Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and his later Rights of Man, Jefferson and friends in The Declaration of Independence, the thousands of revolutionary Pamphlets and Sermons. The French are the ones who gave a bad name to Natural Law and Natural Rights (in the aftermath of their Revolution). If it weren't for the birth of America, imperfect as it was and remains, the entire Enlightenment enterprise would have been for naught, a failure! Jeez!

Declare:
". . . the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . .
. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."

If that above doesn't qualify and warrant inclusion in any such timeline of key events and documents, nothing does!  [and right there in that snippet you see the proof, the real world presence, application, and connection of the prevailing Idea of that Age: "Laws of Nature" and "Unalienable (Natural) Rights"]

And you're right, some of Lincoln's speeches at least should be mentioned (the Dred Scott case, Springfield Ill speech, June 26, 1857, comes to mind).

Since the 1960's its been nothing but Rights Talk and Chronic Narcissism (me me me,.and every special-interest group under the sun), and combined then with Relativism and Extreme Tolerance. In the late 1800's we cast aside both Religion and Philosophy (of the Practical kind) leaving a void where any kind of Morals Talk and Duty Talk once lived. Not Good!  We must have a good balance of Rights-Talk and Duty-Talk at all times and (also) passed-on to each successive generation.  It has been said that, it only takes one generation to loose your culture. I think we're pressing our luck! 

[Value Of Pi]

Actually, one is doing schtick, the other is doing a very small time podcast.  Unless things have changed significantly in the last few days, no radio stations carry her.  While I don't have access to the stream numbers, I would think it is only in the thousands.

Hey... Didn't you host a similar streaming show recently?  Have you posted your bio yet?  First name, last name, mailing address, marital status, names of your parents and children along with their ages and your educational background will do just fine as a start, thanks.

Fact is that she probably knows that it will be short lived and may not want to open herself up to idiots going after her in her real life.  (Not that I am suggesting that there are idiots on this board who would do such a thing. : )  If she is still on the "air" in a year and has picked up a few affiliates we can probably revisit this.  For now, she is probably filling in for a few weeks and then will be gone as the network disintegrates (unless something changes.)

If doing this show is not part of her real life, what is it part of? A fake life? A virtual life? A hallucination? Work that people did at night used to be called night jobs. What do we call this, a hobby?

First, she was a disembodied virtual person with a screen name and an avatar of an actual person who is not her. Now she is a disembodied female voice with no discernible identity whatsoever -- in a job that requires one. You see the problem for those of us who live in the real world, as you must do, and notice the absence of tangible reality when it is suddenly removed from our favorite radio show and replaced by a shadow of a person?

People here joke about Amy being a machine or a software program. Is there really a difference between Amy and Siri and Heather? I'm not so sure there is.

[SredniVashtar]

Actually, one is doing schtick, the other is doing a very small time podcast.  Unless things have changed significantly in the last few days, no radio stations carry her.  While I don't have access to the stream numbers, I would think it is only in the thousands.

Hey... Didn't you host a similar streaming show recently?  Have you posted your bio yet?  First name, last name, mailing address, marital status, names of your parents and children along with their ages and your educational background will do just fine as a start, thanks.

Fact is that she probably knows that it will be short lived and may not want to open herself up to idiots going after her in her real life.  (Not that I am suggesting that there are idiots on this board who would do such a thing. : )  If she is still on the "air" in a year and has picked up a few affiliates we can probably revisit this.  For now, she is probably filling in for a few weeks and then will be gone as the network disintegrates (unless something changes.)

Nice try. Actually, it wasn't all that good, but my New Year's resolution is to be more tolerant of idiocy, so it's your lucky day.  I don't see the point of 'filling in' in if the overwhelming likelihood is that the network will fold after a a few weeks. You may as well cut your losses in that situation. As I said, though (and that's the bit you so notably failed to quote), not revealing anything about yourself means that you will always be small-time. That's fine, and entirely her decision, but it all feels a bit redundant to me.

You can't call a couple of sketchy appearances on a podcast 'hosting' either. I was one of four other people, I was unpaid (well, hookers and coke, but they don't count) and I didn't have paying subscribers to satisfy. Heather was taking over from a fully-fledged radio personality with a subscriber base. Is it any wonder people are likely to be curious about who this mystery person is?

[SredniVashtar]

I don't think she expects this to remain her regular job any more than WFMU jocks expect to make $ at it.

One the one hand Heather's supporters maintain that she is getting better by the day and will be a worthy replacement for Art, but when you challenge them they immediately say that she doesn't want to do it and knows it won't last very long anyway.  You can't have it both ways. If it was made clear at the outset that this was a short-term deal while Art gets things straightened out then nobody would have said a word and would have applauded her giving something a go that she was not ready to do. But we are told that she is the new full-time host, and if we are lucky Art might pop on once in a while if he feels like it.

Don't put yourself in the position of knowing what is going on, because you are guessing like everyone else. The main problem is that there is no leadership there and everyone is making it up as they go along, leading to all this confusion. The moral of this story seems to be 'don't have any business dealings with Art if you have any sense'.

[onan]

Nice try. Actually, it wasn't all that good, but my New Year's resolution is to be more tolerant of idiocy, so it's your lucky day.  I don't see the point of 'filling in' in if the overwhelming likelihood is that the network will fold after a a few weeks. You may as well cut your losses in that situation. As I said, though (and that's the bit you so notably failed to quote), not revealing anything about yourself means that you will always be small-time. That's fine, and entirely her decision, but it all feels a bit redundant to me.

You can't call a couple of sketchy appearances on a podcast 'hosting' either. I was one of four other people, I was unpaid (well, hookers and coke, but they don't count) and I didn't have paying subscribers to satisfy. Heather was taking over from a fully-fledged radio personality with a subscriber base. Is it any wonder people are likely to be curious about who this mystery person is?

Why are you so invested in this? And when I use the term you, it is directed at you, but not only you. Think of it as a large target area grenade.

To me it seems there are many suppositions here that are either based on one of several faulty premises or some arbitrary policy/rule that in reality, doesn't exist. There are several radio "personalities" that we know little about or we know what their publicist and their PR want us to know.

Heather is not a celebrity. Nor do I think, (merely a conceit) she wants to be.

But to your point of what the audience wants and expects... perhaps that can be learned by listening to her. All I need to know it whether or not I like what I hear. This other stuff seems more to build several facets of umbrage.

[Value Of Pi]

Why are you so invested in this? And when I use the term you, it is directed at you, but not only you. Think of it as a large target area grenade.

To me it seems there are many suppositions here that are either based on one of several faulty premises or some arbitrary policy/rule that in reality, doesn't exist. There are several radio "personalities" that we know little about or we know what their publicist and their PR want us to know.

Heather is not a celebrity. Nor do I think, (merely a conceit) she wants to be.

But to your point of what the audience wants and expects... perhaps that can be learned by listening to her. All I need to know it whether or not I like what I hear. This other stuff seems more to build several facets of umbrage.

Not much substance here, I think. Why not spell out the faulty premises and and non-existent rules and explain why you think they're faulty or non-existent? Also, this forum and this thread in particular are media-focused and deal primarily with a prominent radio personality. Why do you perceive that people who are interested in these subjects are somehow invested? We're interested for sure, but invested?

[onan]

Not much substance here, I think. Why not spell out the faulty premises and and non-existent rules and explain why you think they're faulty or non-existent? Also, this forum and this thread in particular are media-focused and deal primarily with a prominent radio personality. Why do you perceive that people who are interested in these subjects are somehow invested? We're interested for sure, but invested?

Well, I don't want to spend that much time.

Please, there are over what 400 pages of pissing and moaning, invested is precisely the right term.

As for not much substance, this entire thread is nothing but opinions based on other opinions. There wasn't a police report, the threat wasn't reported. Like it makes a difference in your or anyone's life. This became a dog pile for no other reason than it became a dog pile.

[Value Of Pi]

Well, I don't want to spend that much time.

Please, there are over what 400 pages of pissing and moaning, invested is precisely the right term.

As for not much substance, this entire thread is nothing but opinions based on other opinions. There wasn't a police report, the threat wasn't reported. Like it makes a difference in your or anyone's life. This became a dog pile for no other reason than it became a dog pile.

If you don't want to put the time into your questions, don't expect answers. Personally, I'm only responsible for the stuff I write, not over 400 pages of pissing and moaning. So that is all I can answer for. The last several pages, I've noticed, have moved on from police reports and such. Other things are being talked about.

[onan]

If you don't want to put the time into your questions, don't expect answers. Personally, I'm only responsible for the stuff I write, not over 400 pages of pissing and moaning. So that is all I can answer for. The last several pages, I've noticed, have moved on from police reports and such. Other things are being talked about.

Thank you for the lecture. Of course things have moved on, it may well circle back. Now discussing the Heather, her privacy, voice, and appointment by Art (which seems to be a sin on both) and then of course the vulgar suggestion of some tawdry sexual business. Is Heather of Asian decent? (yeah that matters).

Here is the faulty premise suggested in the last few hours, and perhaps over several pages, I skip and I mean I skip most of this thread. Back to the premise. Heather is supposed to be transparent to everyone that listens to her. No she isn't. Would openness help her popularity? We don't know. We do know she doesn't want that.

[SredniVashtar]

Why are you so invested in this? And when I use the term you, it is directed at you, but not only you. Think of it as a large target area grenade.

Calling me 'invested' sounds like a rhetorical tactic to put me on the defensive. I am not 'invested', although I am interested, which is quite another matter. I was critical of the new Star Wars film,  but I didn't notice you asking me why I was so 'invested' in rubbishing that. Forums - as you know far better than me - throw up topics of interest that either engage us or don't. This one does, that's all; although it's not something we can debate forever, thank goodness! I'd rather you didn't characterise me as some kind of weirdo for taking an interest in this, because that is both untrue and unfair.

To me it seems there are many suppositions here that are either based on one of several faulty premises or some arbitrary policy/rule that in reality, doesn't exist. There are several radio "personalities" that we know little about or we know what their publicist and their PR want us to know.

She can say as much or as little about herself as she wants, it is none of my business. I have said this enough times, and hopefully it should have got through by now. I can't think of many radio personalities who virtually amount to a silhouette with a question mark, but perhaps you can. That is not sustainable, if you want to make the show a long (-ish) term proposition. If it's a short-term deal then someone ought to come out and say it. No one is taking any responsibility, or giving the audience much respect for their opinion or expectations.

This isn't about Heather herself (who I have no opinion about, personally), or even the show. I have never liked the idea of people getting to positions without paying their dues first. It almost never ends well, and is unfair on everyone, especially the one thrust into the hot seat. If you go to the theatre and the guy playing Hamlet is ill, you will get an understudy who has learned the part and is a professional actor. If not they will call off  the show. I can't think of any other area of life (certainly in entertainment) where they will put someone out who has never done anything comparable in their life and expect the audience to wear it. It's like Pavarotti cancelling and being replaced by a guy who does karaoke. Actually, I can think of one occasion in the seventies when an opera singer called off sick and a member of the audience stepped in to take the part, but that was the exception that proved the rule. In the case we are discussing, it is as though little details like experience, talent etc are optional extras. I think it's fair to question the decision to install her in that place, even if you don't. Yes, it's an academic point (like most topics of discussion) but that doesn't mean it should be off-limits.

Heather is not a celebrity. Nor do I think, (merely a conceit) she wants to be.

Tut-tut. Who is dealing in suppositions now? I am not convinced by people who claim to be backing into the limelight, but perhaps that says more about me than her. Nobody has a gun to their head here. I think there is a rather patronising attitude underlying all this, an element of special pleading, that does Heather a disservice. I think her 'fans' are trying too hard to be supportive, because there is a happy medium between support and honest criticism. There is also a reluctance on the part of women to say anything critical of Heather, because they fear the fatuously predictable response that they are 'jealous'.

But to your point of what the audience wants and expects... perhaps that can be learned by listening to her. All I need to know it whether or not I like what I hear. This other stuff seems more to build several facets of umbrage.

I don't want to paint Heather as some sort of villain here. Art has put her in this situation. Yes, she could have declined to accept the hospital pass, but I can imagine the pressures that she was under to accept. She is not being given a fair shake, unfortunately, but she really ought to have started in a small way before taking something like this on. She would have learned from her mistakes (like every other radio personality who has come up through the ranks) and been all the better for it. In this situation, Art has stupidly nominated her as his dauphin and we are expected to go along with it.

Yes, ultimately you have the option to like something or not, but parachuting Heather into this job is a) unfair on her, and b) is unfair on you, because you are hearing a work-in-progress rather than a finished article. She needs time (everyone does) to hone her skills, but she probably won't get it because she has been over-promoted too quickly.

Anyway, there you are. I thought I'd give your pointed comments the attention they deserved.

Happy New Year! 

[HumanBeing]

[SredniVashtar]

Here is the faulty premise suggested in the last few hours, and perhaps over several pages, I skip and I mean I skip most of this thread. Back to the premise. Heather is supposed to be transparent to everyone that listens to her. No she isn't. Would openness help her popularity? We don't know. We do know she doesn't want that.

I am going to find fault with your 'faulty premise'. If anyone has suggested that she should be 'transparent' it certainly wasn't me, but Heather isn't Thomas Pynchon, or JD Salinger. If you have placed yourself in a position where lots of people have the possibility of hearing you, it would be naive to imagine that you will not have to field questions about your identity. If you have a fear of publicity - and she is perfectly entitled to feel that way - then it would be simpler to avoid situations where that might be compromised. However, lots of people feel that way in entertainment, but they have to do it because it's the business they have chosen. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways, and there seems to be a reluctance - even among some intelligent people - to recognise this.

[HumanBeing]

[stargazr1976]

You would fuck up the rotation

[stargazr1976]

HAHAHAHAHA  Just like my fiance just said....Bellgab is just like a jar of bees. Barely shake em and piss off the the site.

[onan]

Calling me 'invested' sounds like a rhetorical tactic to put me on the defensive. I am not 'invested', although I am interested, which is quite another matter. I was critical of the new Star Wars film,  but I didn't notice you asking me why I was so 'invested' in rubbishing that. Forums - as you know far better than me - throw up topics of interest that either engage us or don't. This one does, that's all; although it's not something we can debate forever, thank goodness! I'd rather you didn't characterise me as some kind of weirdo for taking an interest in this, because that is both untrue and unfair.

She can say as much or as little about herself as she wants, it is none of my business. I have said this enough times, and hopefully it should have got through by now. I can't think of many radio personalities who virtually amount to a silhouette with a question mark, but perhaps you can. That is not sustainable, if you want to make the show a long (-ish) term proposition. If it's a short-term deal then someone ought to come out and say it. No one is taking any responsibility, or giving the audience much respect for their opinion or expectations.

This isn't about Heather herself (who I have no opinion about, personally), or even the show. I have never liked the idea of people getting to positions without paying their dues first. It almost never ends well, and is unfair on everyone, especially the one thrust into the hot seat. If you go to the theatre and the guy playing Hamlet is ill, you will get an understudy who has learned the part and is a professional actor. If not they will call off  the show. I can't think of any other area of life (certainly in entertainment) where they will put someone out who has never done anything comparable in their life and expect the audience to wear it. It's like Pavarotti cancelling and being replaced by a guy who does karaoke. Actually, I can think of one occasion in the seventies when an opera singer called off sick and a member of the audience stepped in to take the part, but that was the exception that proved the rule. In the case we are discussing, it is as though little details like experience, talent etc are optional extras. I think it's fair to question the decision to install her in that place, even if you don't. Yes, it's an academic point (like most topics of discussion) but that doesn't mean it should be off-limits.

Tut-tut. Who is dealing in suppositions now? I am not convinced by people who claim to be backing into the limelight, but perhaps that says more about me than her. Nobody has a gun to their head here. I think there is a rather patronising attitude underlying all this, an element of special pleading, that does Heather a disservice. I think her 'fans' are trying too hard to be supportive, because there is a happy medium between support and honest criticism. There is also a reluctance on the part of women to say anything critical of Heather, because they fear the fatuously predictable response that they are 'jealous'.

I don't want to paint Heather as some sort of villain here. Art has put her in this situation. Yes, she could have declined to accept the hospital pass, but I can imagine the pressures that she was under to accept. She is not being given a fair shake, unfortunately, but she really ought to have started in a small way before taking something like this on. She would have learned from her mistakes (like every other radio personality who has come up through the ranks) and been all the better for it. In this situation, Art has stupidly nominated her as his dauphin and we are expected to go along with it.

Yes, ultimately you have the option to like something or not, but parachuting Heather into this job is a) unfair on her, and b) is unfair on you, because you are hearing a work-in-progress rather than a finished article. She needs time (everyone does) to hone her skills, but she probably won't get it because she has been over-promoted too quickly.

Anyway, there you are. I thought I'd give your pointed comments the attention they deserved.

Happy New Year! 

If I am attacking, it isn't meant as mean spirited. Perhaps it is unfair of me to use the term invested. It is however how I see it. There are several posts from several people I immensely respect here regarding this Art Bell fiasco. His story, true, untrue or some of both seems strange in certain aspects, looking back. Sometimes the full story isn't there for any of us. I can remember several times in the past needing to recount my actions. I was able to give a fair report but was unable to answer every question to everyone's satisfaction. Certainly that isn't such a rare experience that no one else has never experienced it. To explain about invested a little more, the term interested suggests a raise of the eyebrow and giving some attention. Invested suggests spending energy to continue a subject past just noticing. If I am considering a drive to the beach, I am interested. If I buy gas and plan a route, I am invested.

I really don't know how to answer about Star Wars and Heather, maybe apples and oranges?

Heather as a celebrity? she isn't a celebrity. She may well want to be a celebrity, that is a different point. How she or anyone becomes a celebrity is beyond my skill set. I am not best friends with Heather, not even really friends. We do know each other, at least over the phone, skype, and PM's on this forum. I like her. I don't find a disingenuous bone in her body. It seems obvious to me, that her strategy is to remain voice only. I can only imagine why, and I don't care to do that.

I don't think you are trying to make Heather a villain. I think highly of you and that would not cross my mind. I am befuddled however with ongoing mish mash within this thread. And I ask you, because I know I will receive a well thought out and honest answer.

And finally with Heather being dropped in to do a job that is at minimum a huge challenge, it comes down to a simple statement by Art. He made a statement that he believes Heather has what it takes. And yes I have opened up the "he gets it" position from every nay sayer out there.

I have only one other thing to say, I hope you just take me at my word. Early on Heather showed a level of courage that many of us would simply not choose to do. From that moment on, I have had nothing but respect for her.

[rangerdavid]

Happy 2016!!

[HumanBeing]

You would fuck up the rotation

[PB the Deplorable]

I caught your post from last night and am still going over it.  Seems to be a passion of yours where I really am just wandering through...

An interesting observation at the human rights museum that was pointed out to me by a co-worker... They had 100 major events posted on a timeline- philosophies and writings that influenced human rights and moved them forward.  Conspicuous by their absence was the constitution and the American civil war.  The war kind of makes sense (otherwise you would have to include many wars fought on "humanitarian" grounds.)  However, it was interesting to see that the curator did not consider the constitution to be worthy of mention as moving human rights forward.  I wonder to what extent listing slaves as 3/5 of a person and allowing slavery to continue played in the decision...

Anyhow, I will join you in wishing Gabbers a Happy New Year.

That says more about who is making decisions at the Human Rights Museum than it does about the Constitution and the Civil War.  Thanks for pointing this out, I won't bother visiting it if I'm in the area.

By the way, this is the second time the 3/5ths of a person has been mentioned on this thread, without any context. 

The reason for the Constitutional Convention was to create a document forming a Federal Government the states would accept and ratify, not to free the slaves - those who would have done so didn't have the power or votes to do that.  When the Framers decided the members of the House of Representatives would be allocated among the various States by population, the issue of the black slaves came up.  The Southern slaveholding states wanted them to be counted for purposes of allocating House Members.  The Northern non-slaveholding states said for this purpose they shouldn't be counted at all, as that would allocate a third more House Members to those states than they would otherwise have, and allow slaveholding interests to dominate the new Federal Government (surely those forever bringing up the 3/5ths Compromise aren't proposing that is what should have been done?)

Counting the black slaves as 3/5ths was the compromise.  Without that, the Constitution would very likely not have been ratified.  Had the slaves been counted fully, the southern slaveholding states would have dominated the House and the Presidency (under the Electoral College).  There would have never been a Lincoln. 

For all the times the 'Progressives' have used the 3/5ths of a person to bash our country and our Constitution, not one has ever provided the context.  You may want to think about why that is.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  It has been said that, it only takes one generation to loose your culture our liberty and freedom. I think we're pressing our luck! 

FIFY

[Inglorious Bitch]

Happy 2016!!

[stargazr1976]

Lol man. happy new year.

[Mizak]

Not sure how I found this or who these guys are, however some of you may be interested in listening to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWPsPB6v15s

...not new...from Dec. 11, 2015

[Meister_000]

That says more about who is making decisions at the Human Rights Museum than it does about the Constitution and the Civil War.  Thanks for pointing this out, I won't bother visiting it if I'm in the area.

By the way, this is the second time the 3/5ths of a person has been mentioned on this thread, without any context. 

The reason for the Constitutional Convention was to create a document forming a Federal Government the states would accept and ratify, not to free the slaves - those who would have done so didn't have the power or votes to do that.  When the Framers decided the members of the House of Representatives would be allocated among the various States by population, the issue of the black slaves came up.  The Southern slaveholding states wanted them to be counted for purposes of allocating House Members.  The Northern non-slaveholding states said for this purpose they shouldn't be counted at all, as that would allocate a third more House Members to those states than they would otherwise have, and allow slaveholding interests to dominate the new Federal Government (surely those forever bringing up the 3/5ths Compromise aren't proposing that is what should have been done?)

Counting the black slaves as 3/5ths was the compromise.  Without that, the Constitution would very likely not have been ratified.  Had the slaves been counted fully, the southern slaveholding states would have dominated the House and the Presidency (under the Electoral College).  There would have never been a Lincoln. 

For all the times the 'Progressives' have used the 3/5ths of a person to bash our country and our Constitution, not one has ever provided the context.  You may want to think about why that is.

Thanks, informative. And I think that's the best post I've ever seen from you.

[wr250]

Thanks, informative. And I think that's the best post I've ever seen from you.

you havent read his eyepad comics then (which most of ,strangely, have disappeared).

[Meister_000]

. . . It has been said that, it only takes one generation to loose your culture our liberty and freedom. I think we're pressing our luck! 

FIFY

And a scary fix it is!

[Meister_000]

you havent read his eyepad comics then (which most of ,strangely, have disappeared).

No I haven't. Would an enchore request be in order?

[Insert: But hittin the hay now, so will check back later.]

[Dateline]

Here is my take on why Heather does not want to expose herself beyond a voice on the radio.  We create an online presence through our avatars and our postings.  She was Redacted, with the suave and sultry Emma Peele from the early Avengers as her avatar.  That is how we remember her and her image.  Could it be that her real life appearance is very contradictory to her online screen presence, and she might be afraid of unhealthy critiques?  You know how this forum processes unattractive people.  Go find a picture of Walmart shoppers and post them as they are often presented as Coast Insiders. 

Would anyone have expected Norry to look like he does?  I remember I loved the voice of a disc jockey on one of the local shows, it was very deep and clear.  Well, I ended up working with him at one point when I was doing temporary work and he was a scrawny little man.  The voice does not always coincide with the physical features.

This is a thread about Art Bell.  Well, Art Bell is who I am compromised with.  Compromised with my choice of people to sit in his seat as a replacement and compromised as to my choice in talent.  To think, that I as an avid listener would be all right with mediocrity to replace him makes my tail go up and down in anger. That's not all right and I don't listen, and I will not listen.  I am insulted as an Art Bell Fan that this would be the answer to all things on MITD.  Just because he says something and he endorses that person is not enough for me.  That person must have the talent and experience to back it up. 

It is like because, I Art Bell, pass the seat on to this person, it is the answer.  Well, it is not an adequate answer for me and it makes my blood boil to be insulted in that manner.