Steve Warner's Dark City

[AZZERAE]

Would people be interested in hearing a JonBenét Ramsey show or is that too creepy?

Here's a suggestion: get a channeler, and use him or her as a vessel to conduct the interview with JonBenét Ramsey herself.

[Soylentblue]

It's been so long, I've forgotten most of the details, except I think it happened in Colorado.  Don't remember what city.

Kind of like the last DarkCity podcast?

[bateman]

Kind of like the last DarkCity podcast?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[AZZERAE]

Good things come to those who wait.

That's the problem with people nowadays, they want everything on the double, for free.

[effluenza]

I think it's safe to say that Heather won.

[cweb]

If that is winning, I'll be a loser any day.

[bateman]

I think it's safe to say that Heather won.

Won what, nightly derision and contempt? Thanks but no thanks.

[bateman]

If that is winning, I'll be a loser any day.

[nooryisawesome]

I wish Bateman and Heather would get along. There is really no comparing the shows, they are too different.

[nooryisawesome]

Any news Bateman? Still planning on continuing the podcast or are time constraints to pressing? At any rate hope your having a good summer. I'm glad Batchelor is more or less on the Trump train.

[AZZERAE]

I wish Bateman and Heather would get along. There is really no comparing the shows, they are too different.

There's no comparing? Heather fucking sucks ass, and Bateman's work is brilliant. Seriously, she's worse than Noory.

And putting out a show every night doesn't make her any better.

[god of thunder]

I think it's safe to say that Heather won.

No, it's safe to say that the hosts who; were offered, and refused to enter this horrible situation won.

[bateman]

I wish Bateman and Heather would get along. There is really no comparing the shows, they are too different.

[ItsOver]

I wish Bateman and Heather would get along. There is really no comparing the shows, they are too different.

Yeah, one show sucks and the other doesn't.

[bateman]

I've been attempting to listen to some other podcasts lately, and wow, even the 'better' ones are fucking terrible. Total amateur hour, even if the production is halfway decent. I'm not going to name any in particular, but when I hear these shows, I realize why I'm still getting emails every day about when mine is coming back. My problem is, the show was growing so steadily that I had to take a step back and figure out if I actually wanted to be a public figure in any way, shape or form. There's no putting that back in the bottle, so to speak.

There's also the issue of feeling pigeonholed - I've been so focused on politics and terrorism for months now, and I'm pretty sure most of my audience just doesn't want to hear about that - you get enough of it during the day, which I totally understand. But it feels false to get on the air and not acknowledge it, pretending like the show exists in some alternate dimension. If I were to have Milo Yiannopoulos on to talk about Twitter censorship for example, would half the audience freak out? Maybe. It's not the type of thing I've talked about in the past, so it's not what people have come to expect. But I do find if the topic can be massaged into the framework I've set for the show, it can work.

Ultimately the question is, do I continue the show and incorporate things that haven't been touched on previously, or leave them out entirely. Authenticity is important - the hosts I detest are the phonies.

[albrecht]

I've been attempting to listen to some other podcasts lately, and wow, even the 'better' ones are fucking terrible. Total amateur hour, even if the production is halfway decent. I'm not going to name any in particular, but when I hear these shows, I realize why I'm still getting emails every day about when mine is coming back. My problem is, the show was growing so steadily that I had to take a step back and figure out if I actually wanted to be a public figure in any way, shape or form. There's no putting that back in the bottle, so to speak.

There's also the issue of feeling pigeonholed - I've been so focused on politics and terrorism for months now, and I'm pretty sure most of my audience just doesn't want to hear about that - you get enough of it during the day, which I totally understand. But it feels false to get on the air and not acknowledge it, pretending like the show exists in some alternate dimension. If I were to have Milo Yiannopoulos on to talk about Twitter censorship for example, would half the audience freak out? Maybe. It's not the type of thing I've talked about in the past, so it's not what people have come to expect. But I do find if the topic can be massaged into the framework I've set for the show, it can work.

Ultimately the question is, do I continue the show and incorporate things that haven't been touched on previously, or leave them out entirely. Authenticity is important - the hosts I detest are the phonies.

A big decision. Especially in these days of hackers, crazies, Muslim terrorists, etc to become a public figure. Ghost etc seem (although there are rumors) to have been able to hide their true identity but his show is pretty underground (at least to the none BG and Chan worlds.) Apparently actors and porn stars have had careers using fake names if you wanted to go that route (not acting or going into porn but taking a stage name.) If you buy, rent, or lease your stuff and property under some company name, maybe form an LLC or something, you can keep a bit more distance from revealing your true identity or location? But experienced and dedicated stalkers/hackers from their basement can dig out the info. But I don't think you are that "controversial" in that I haven't heard you take any radical positions yourself, either way on stuff. But, yes, people these days don't appreciate free speech or a show that allows guests a controversial opinion or a political opinion not popular with the government or society at large. Personally, I hope you choose to have a show and shows- however you decide to go direction-wise in terms of subjects. Or, as before, a wide variety of subjects. Good luck, either way.

[ShayP]

I've been attempting to listen to some other podcasts lately, and wow, even the 'better' ones are fucking terrible. Total amateur hour, even if the production is halfway decent. I'm not going to name any in particular, but when I hear these shows, I realize why I'm still getting emails every day about when mine is coming back. My problem is, the show was growing so steadily that I had to take a step back and figure out if I actually wanted to be a public figure in any way, shape or form. There's no putting that back in the bottle, so to speak.

There's also the issue of feeling pigeonholed - I've been so focused on politics and terrorism for months now, and I'm pretty sure most of my audience just doesn't want to hear about that - you get enough of it during the day, which I totally understand. But it feels false to get on the air and not acknowledge it, pretending like the show exists in some alternate dimension. If I were to have Milo Yiannopoulos on to talk about Twitter censorship for example, would half the audience freak out? Maybe. It's not the type of thing I've talked about in the past, so it's not what people have come to expect. But I do find if the topic can be massaged into the framework I've set for the show, it can work.

Ultimately the question is, do I continue the show and incorporate things that haven't been touched on previously, or leave them out entirely. Authenticity is important - the hosts I detest are the phonies.

*sigh*  No offense, but people who support you have been clamoring for a new show from you for some time and have been quite patient.  In fact, I think the peeps have been quite understanding of the difficulties of getting the show at full tilt.  I dig where you are coming from.  Nonetheless what you just posted seems like someone who isn't committed and is looking for an "out."  It's simple...commit to a show and own it, or DON'T and that's that. "Pigeonholed!?" Gimme a break!  You own your show and do your thing.  Fuck everybody else and their Podcasts, et al.  And yes...you have a job and a life, etc.  We get that.  Get your head straight Steve and get pumped!  Dammit man!  You're in or not. CAPEESH!!!?    Cheers brutha. 

[bateman]

*sigh*  No offense, but people who support you have been clamoring for a new show from you for some time and have been quite patient.  In fact, I think the peeps have been quite understanding of the difficulties of getting the show at full tilt.  I dig where you are coming from.  Nonetheless what you just posted seems like someone who isn't committed and is looking for an "out."  It's simple...commit to a show and own it. "Pigeonholed!?" Gimme a break!  You own your show and do your thing.  Fuck everybody else and their Podcasts, et al.  And yes...you have a job and a life, etc.  We get that.  Get your head straight Steve and get pumped!  Dammit man!  You're in or not. CAPEESH!!!?    Cheers brutha. 

No offense taken. To clarify a little bit - there are shows I've done in the past that aren't currently where my interests lie. Continuing down that narrow path would be inauthentic and would not make me happy, though it's clear there's an audience for it. Doing new things is going to alienate some people - it just is. Do I take that risk, knowing full well some people aren't gonna like it? Why screw up a good thing? There are plenty of bands that put out an amazing first album, decide they want to go in a new direction and experiment a bit, and the second album drops with a thud. The fans go "what the fuck is this, and why doesn't it sound like the first album??"

[Element 115]

No offense taken. To clarify a little bit - there are shows I've done in the past that aren't currently where my interests lie. Continuing down that narrow path would be inauthentic and would not make me happy, though it's clear there's an audience for it. Doing new things is going to alienate some people - it just is. Do I take that risk, knowing full well some people aren't gonna like it? Why screw up a good thing? There are plenty of bands that put out an amazing first album, decide they want to go in a new direction and experiment a bit, and the second album drops with a thud. The fans go "what the fuck is this, and why doesn't it sound like the first album??"

But just like talented musicians, true fans never abandon them just because of a few tracks.

[albrecht]

No offense taken. To clarify a little bit - there are shows I've done in the past that aren't currently where my interests lie. Continuing down that narrow path would be inauthentic and would not make me happy, though it's clear there's an audience for it. Doing new things is going to alienate some people - it just is. Do I take that risk, knowing full well some people aren't gonna like it? Why screw up a good thing? There are plenty of bands that put out an amazing first album, decide they want to go in a new direction and experiment a bit, and the second album drops with a thud. The fans go "what the fuck is this, and why doesn't it sound like the first album??"

Do what you want to do. Then, like bands, later go on tours with your old stuff for the people who are older know and have money and want to relive their younger, wilder days by hearing that old music. And don't forget the Cruiseship racket (captive audience:) Bateman on the Dark City Cruise will be playing the hits of Dark Weekend on the Sundeck at 1 and in the Lounge at 7m Dark City hits.

[Inglorious Bitch]

Why screw up a good thing? There are plenty of bands that put out an amazing first album, decide they want to go in a new direction and experiment a bit, and the second album drops with a thud. The fans go "what the fuck is this, and why doesn't it sound like the first album??"

Why have to make a decision either way? You could do what has a greater audience appeal half the time and do the topics that appeal to you the other half. If you have a fanbase, they will tune in. If it is not something they want to listen to, will tune in again the next time to see what the topic is then.

[ShayP]

No offense taken. To clarify a little bit - there are shows I've done in the past that aren't currently where my interests lie. Not all of them, but some. Continuing down that narrow path would be inauthentic and would not make me happy, though it's clear there's an audience for it. Doing new things is going to alienate some people - it just is. Do I take that risk, knowing full well some people aren't gonna like it? Why screw up a good thing? There are plenty of bands that put out an amazing first album, decide they want to go in a new direction and experiment a bit, and the second album drops with a thud. The fans go "what the fuck is this, and why doesn't it sound like the first album??"

Well, do a show based solely on your interests.  You clearly have talent.  You also have a following.  Again, I say it seems like you're looking for an "out."  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Regardless, YOU are in control of YOUR show and the content.  Why worry about who likes what at this point?  Like Nike's slogan stated...just do it.   

[bateman]

Well, do a show based solely on your interests.  You clearly have talent.  You also have a following.  Again, I say it seems like you're looking for an "out."  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Regardless, YOU are in control of YOUR show and the content.  Why worry about who likes what at this point?  Like Nike's slogan stated...just do it.   

It's not so much an 'out' as it is not wanting to alienate listeners because I want to mouth off about some political issue or other.

[bateman]

Do what you want to do. Then, like bands, later go on tours with your old stuff for the people who are older know and have money and want to relive their younger, wilder days by hearing that old music. And don't forget the Cruiseship racket (captive audience:) Bateman on the Dark City Cruise will be playing the hits of Dark Weekend on the Sundeck at 1 and in the Lounge at 7m Dark City hits.

Reminds me of something Noel Gallagher said recently:

While he's been performing in Australia with his solo project, he still plays Oasis hits on stage.

"I give the people what they want as long as I can play what I want, everybody goes home happy," he said.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/noel-gallagher-on-downside-to-independence/ar-BBr4mCY

[bateman]

Why have to make a decision either way? You could do what has a greater audience appeal half the time and do the topics that appeal to you the other half. If you have a fanbase, they will tune in. If it is not something they want to listen to, will tune in again the next time to see what the topic is then.

That is the beauty of radio, I suppose.

[Element 115]

Well, do a show based solely on your interests.  You clearly have talent.  You also have a following.  Again, I say it seems like you're looking for an "out."  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Regardless, YOU are in control of YOUR show and the content.  Why worry about who likes what at this point?  Like Nike's slogan stated...just do it. 

http://youtu.be/ZXsQAXx_ao0

[ShayP]

It's not so much an 'out' as it is not wanting to alienate listeners because I want to mouth off about some political issue or other.

You're alienating me just by your indecision. LOL!  No fear man.  If you're opinion pissed me off I'd still listen to you.  Just sayin. 

[starrmtn001]

It's not so much an 'out' as it is not wanting to alienate listeners because I want to mouth off about some political issue or other.

Oh, go ahead and mouth off Bateman, you won't alienate us, we're adults . . . well, most of us are.
:

[bateman]

But just like talented musicians, true fans never abandon them just because of a few tracks.

[trostol]

do what ever you like...as long as i get my dino show!!!!

oh and cthulhu show


or better yet..chtulhian dinosaurs!!!!