quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So what you're saying is that your experience, in this case, is extremely limited, very disjointed, lacking in context, and chosen by whoever created the clips to show Tyson at his most confrontational. Chosen by you, too, since you watched them.
Well, that sounds like a solid basis for forming a sweeping opinion if I've ever heard one. Not in the least bit arrogant, either.
...
if religion comes more than once-briefly-an episode it's unusual.
This is how everyone's opinions are formed. I'm no different. Just be aware that he comes off like this to AT LEAST SOME casual observers. Why would I waste time listening to his podcasts unless I have a reason? I haven't heard any soundbites of intelligent or thought provoking ideas. I can draw one of two conclusions: - He really is just a blowhard. - The people I know aren't sharing anything worthwhile that he's done.
I'm not saying I know everything. And I've stated that my opinion is biased and not "sweeping". And I might just be one of a large number of people who haven't heard him say anything worthwhile. I have only shared that that I've had a very oblique observation of him, and that what I've seen isn't very complimentary. Does this mean that I claim to know everything about him? No. I just shared an apparently unpopular opinion in good faith, only to be abused by the "experts".
I understand that people might critique me for not having studied the entirety of his work before having a casual opinion. That's stupid. Most people don't. I am being lambasted when I distinctly said that my impression was based on a random assortment of shared clips. The problem isn't mine. The problem is that: - Nobody is sharing worthwhile clips. - Ignorant people are criticizing me for adding to the discussion by sharing a casual opinion.
Should my opinion not be of value? Not everyone has the same experience as you do.
This is the problem with Hatrack now. Why are you pouncing on someone for adding to the discussion with some thought that is different from your own? In a polite manner, nonetheless. I am of the opinion that unique opinions should be of value. But ridicule is definitely a way to respond. (By the way, this critique is for more than one user).
On a related note, I wonder where all of the posters have gone? This board is less active now than it's ever been. Strange.... ______
You are saying that religion comes up once in each podcast. Does this sound like someone who is uninterested in discussing religion?
posted
You might be confusing "debate" with "discussion." Tyson has concluded -- quite correctly, IMO -- that it does no good to publicly debate religious fraud with religious frauds.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't know if he debates religion or not. I just know that there are tons of clips where he seems to be disparaging it.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is how everyone's opinions are formed. I'm no different. Just be aware that he comes off like this to AT LEAST SOME casual observers. Why would I waste time listening to his podcasts unless I have a reason? I haven't heard any soundbites of intelligent or thought provoking ideas. I can draw one of two conclusions: - He really is just a blowhard. - The people I know aren't sharing anything worthwhile that he's done.
Actually, an appreciate response to that sort of experience with anything-person, place, idea-is probably to say 'my initial impression is x, but I really know almost nothing about it'. Which is not what you did. You professed an opinion as though you had substantive grounds to hold it-that is, any experience at all, really-and clung to it. Even now you still are, it's just that your defense is 'everyone has as poor a basis for forming sweeping opinions as I do'. Which isn't true, by the way, though it is for many people.
quote:Should my opinion not be of value? Not everyone has the same experience as you do.
Your opinion has value relative to its basis, just like everyone else's. Your opinion on this topic is of very low value not because it's different, but because it's almost groundless. I do admit to my own bias in this, since I'm clearly a fan of the guy, but this idea-that an opinion is judged partly on the experience that prompts it-is one I try to hold to.
quote:This is the problem with Hatrack now. Why are you pouncing on someone for adding to the discussion with some thought that is different from your own? In a polite manner. (By the way, this critique is for more than one user).
'Pouncing'? Really? I didn't realize you were so fragile. If you'd like, I'll take that into account in the future. It's just that my very limited experience with you led me to conclude you wouldn't object to 'pouncing', and I didn't think I needed anything further to hold that opinion.
quote:You are saying that religion comes up at least once in each podcast. Does this sound like someone who is uninterested in discussing religion?
Fair catch. I misspoke. Meant to say 'if it comes up even once an episode'. But by all means, ignore direct relevant quotes from the man in favor of affirming your opinion based on another form of poor experience.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: No. I said "talk / debate about..."
I don't know if he debates religion or not. I just know that there are tons of clips where he seems to be disparaging it.
Of course you do, what with the strident conviction that this is what he does, it's shocking that your opinion would be affirmed.
"There are tons of clips of..." can be translated out of modern mass media English to, "I know very little about this, and what I do know might be very unreliable."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people put quotation marks around the word "experts" when they do, in fact, mean people who know more about something than they do?
Yes, Herblay, the opinions of people who know more about something than you do are more valuable than yours. Their greater experience of something is more worthwhile than your limited experience of something. All opinions are not equal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never claimed to have anything more than a passing opinion on the guy. An opinion that some people probably share, based on the clips of him being shared around. I've stated that from the first. But you're making the community unfriendly.
What's my crime, Rakeesh? Saying that some people with only a casual understanding of the guy might have a bad impression? I'm sorry I don't have a fanboy PHD on the guy.
posted
Also, if you're interested in having a larger context to base your opinion of him on, I recommend watching his show "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" on Fox. It's not heavy duty science, but it's fun to watch and usually very interesting. Last night's episode "The Electric Boy" was great.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, just watch the extended version of anything he's done rather than a collection of clips used to highlight how arrogant he is.
Until he started doing Cosmos I hadn't even heard anyone mention him and religion in the same sentence. He was always just that astrophysicist guy that shows up on all the talk shows.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
r/atheism posts lots of Tyson quotes, and I've seen them long before Cosmos. But that's their job, to highlight any famous person who says atheist stuff and dig it out to circlejerk with. In that same vein, there are just as many Carl Sagan quotes. He's just as big, IMHO from that set. And probably a few from the not-very-religious founding fathers as well.
Even Dawkins has (had?) a day job. We read "The Selfish Gene" in my women's reading group back in grad school. Maybe one other person besides me was aware he was the same guy as "The God Delusion."
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never claimed to have anything more than a passing opinion on the guy. An opinion that some people probably share, based on the clips of him being shared around. I've stated that from the first. But you're making the community unfriendly.
Actually, you didn't qualify your opinion at all until it was challenged. And even when you admitted your opinion was all but entirely without context, you still clung to it. Other people on the internet believe something. That *must* mean your opinion has some valid basis! As for making the community unfriendly, you've certainly been at least as unfriendly as I have. Though I'm not whining about it.
quote:What's my crime, Rakeesh? Saying that some people with only a casual understanding of the guy might have a bad impression? I'm sorry I don't have a fanboy PHD on the guy.
You can climb down off that cross of yours anytime, Herblay. I've criticized your opinion because it had a very poor foundation, and asserted that there was some irony in your accusing Tyson of arrogance based on extremely limited knowledge. That's all. Or should I not do that? Does this all fa under what is (or is it?) your doctrine that all opinions are valid? Accuse me of being a fanboy if you like. There's a good hunk of truth in that, which I've already acknowledged, so I'm not sure why it's such a zinger for you. But my criticism isn't because I'm a fan of Tyson's, it's because you professed a profoundly ignorant opinion. We wouldn't even be in disagreement if you would drop this insistence that a ones-her uninformed opinion has some real value.
quote:Flay me. I don't really care.
Oh, of course you don't.
quote:Oh, sorry, and I know almost nothing about anything. So please disregard my opinions regarding everything.
Is that what you wanted to say? Hopefully that makes your day?
Achievement Unlocked: Rakeesh has unlocked INTERNET FANBOY behavior. <victory fanfare>
I think I'm missing something. The fanboy accusation doesn't sting like I think it should. Anyway, my stance is not that you know almost nothing about anything, but rather that you know almost nothing about *this*. Or shall I hold forth on the sportsmanship of a British football player, and insist my opinions be taken seriously, in spite of knowing almost nothing about it? Coming up next: Rakeesh's thoughts on the merits of styles of boxing! Followed by my thoughts on the quality of person Herblay is in his/her everyday life.
Hint: the very fact that I have to say his/her should indicate that while I might have an opinion, I don't have much knowledge at all, and quite aside from issues of bias my ignorance weakens my opinion's merit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad we all discovered the extent of not caring that has underlay this entire conversation!
But I do really hope I get to see where the Tyson Is Arrogant megacuts are coming from. He's certainly pissed off the right groups.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that Pigliucci's "rebuttal" of Tyson makes all the errors that Tyson observes are endemic to philosophy, thus pretty neatly proving Tyson's point. And I'm saying this as somebody who enjoys philosophy, but will freely admit that, yes, it's comparatively useless when lined up against the scientific method.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Only the middle link seems to have anything to do with religion. And...not sure if you realize...but proponents of "Intelligent Design(tm)"...like to say that it's not religion, it's just another scientific-AHEM-ish theory of why we're here.
But yeah, apparently he CAN be super snarky.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is not to be confused with arrogance, mind. I get the impression he had a lot of fun poking at "Gravity" precisely because a lot of film critics were going around praising it for its hard science. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trolling of "Gravity" was also a continuation of pointing out astronomically related mistakes or oversights in movies and TV. Forgive me for not citing it precisely, but he has mentioned the night sky in "Titanic" being incorrect during the sinking. In that case, the stars are in the wrong positions for that historical date. Another I vaguely recall is something about the set of The Daily Show, which he bantered with Jon Stewart about a couple times (the decorative world map maybe?).
NDT's tone is always light when he does this. Poking fun for the sake of comedy. It's a running joke at this point. I find it hilarious for how uniquely it is his thing.
And about the atheism thing. He gets a lot of flak from atheists for denying the label for himself. How fun for him that he gets the criticism from both sides. Too atheist! Not atheist enough! He can't win. Which is why I respect his position of focusing on science and leaving the god debating to other folks.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why respect his position, when you can watch a few clips and form an opinion? Which you sort of acknowledge is poorly based but stand by nonetheless.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not sure how I am so blatantly wrong and ignorant. My supposition was that he comes off as arrogant. I guess arrogance has nothing to do with: - Telling people there's no value in studying philosophy. - Calling other people's ideas "stupid". - Putting down other people's "hard science" because he obviously has a better understanding than anyone else. Especially when he can't seem to grasp the concept of hair spray (regarding Mrs. Bullock's hair).
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why respect his position, when you can watch a few clips and form an opinion? Which you sort of acknowledge is poorly based but stand by nonetheless.
My opinion isn't that he IS arrogant. Only that he can be viewed as such. I've been trying my best to reframe it myriad ways to try to get that through to you. It's like talking to a wall.
Your argument, on the other hand, is unclear. Why are you here? Why do you refute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My original point was -- in refutation to the negative claims on Nye -- that Tyson seems to be a worse advocate for the science agenda. A lot of people find him more respectful, if a tad eccentric.
Let's drop arrogant for the term "snarky". Michael Moore would have had a much stronger position in the forum of public opinion had he not been so snarky. It is my own personal opinion that Tyson is a little too snarky for his own good. If there were more "pro-science" pundits, it would be fine for him to be the renegade type he's going for. But there isn't. Right now, at least, it just seems to be him and Nye. And neither of them are ideal.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why respect his position, when you can watch a few clips and form an opinion? Which you sort of acknowledge is poorly based but stand by nonetheless.
My opinion isn't that he IS arrogant. Only that he can be viewed as such. I've been trying my best to reframe it myriad ways to try to get that through to you. It's like talking to a wall.
Your argument, on the other hand, is unclear. Why are you here? Why do you refute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard?
You're sending mixed messages. Sometimes he's hyper arrogant and it's completely reasonable to see him that way. Other times, you admit that your basis for that opinion is limited at best. Forgive me for not understanding you, but you're communicating badly.
As for the last line, I don't dispute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard (it seems you are back to thinking that is what he is, rather than what he seems on an extremely limited sample to be, I can't keep up). I dispute that *your basis* for finding him a blowhard is absurd, and I've consistently described why in detail.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're sending mixed messages. Sometimes he's hyper arrogant and it's completely reasonable to see him that way. Other times, you admit that your basis for that opinion is limited at best. Forgive me for not understanding you, but you're communicating badly.
I never called him "hyper arrogant".
My supposition is that most of the public aren't intimately familiar with all of his work. They must make a judgement based on news articles and soundbites. On the same principle, you can call Paula Deen a racist. That doesn't mean that she is, merely that there is a common public perception that she is racist.
So, my claim is that there is a common public perception that his is arrogant / snarky (choose your term).
I have restated this is many ways, but my message has been consistent. Of course the basis for my opinion is limited. So is everyone's that haven't listened to a bulk of his output.
The problem isn't that he's arrogant. The problem is that it's easy to frame him as such based on some of his comments.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for the last line, I don't dispute that a reasonable person might find him a blowhard (it seems you are back to thinking that is what he is, rather than what he seems on an extremely limited sample to be, I can't keep up). I dispute that *your basis* for finding him a blowhard is absurd, and I've consistently described why in detail.
My only point is that a reasonable person might find him as such. He's said some stupid stuff. Why is *my basis* any more absurd than anyone else's? Because you're an expert and you know he isn't?
posted
Herblay: Based on some thing's he has said, he's not a great advocate for science. He can come off as arrogant. Much more so than Bill Nye.
Rakeesh: No way. You have no idea how he can come off. Wait, I see how he can be seen as a blowhard. But he's not. And you can't say that he is. Because you aren't nearly as familiar with his work as I am. Just because he's said some embarrasing things -- which he hasn't!!! -- doesn't mean anything. You're communicating badly. This is absurd. I may be a fanboy, but......
Herblay: <shakes head> I should have shut my mouth on page one.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your stance *is*, then, that a reasonable person might deem someone arrogant/snarky/a blowhard on the basis of extremely limited exposure to material that is chosen for controversy to begin with. Thank you for spelling it out so clearly, finally.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've gone back over my posts. That's pretty much all I've said, all along. Based on my limited experience with you, I could also say a few things. What is the title of this post again?
Are you Mr. Tyson? Is that why you're getting so bent out of shape that someone could find him arrogant? I mean, a lot of reasonable people are Twitter trolls and ridicule others on Nerdist and Twitter (and Hatrack, apparently). Is there anyone else we should avoid having opinions about?
I'll go crawl in a hole now. I guess since Orincoro's been behaving, SOMEBODY has to half-read my posts, get offended, and give me grief over them.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tyson has gone on record to say he's uninterested to talk / debate religion. And he's probably one of the most outspoken atheists around right now.
Guy just seems arrogant as heck to me.
Here it's definitely not a case of 'I know very little about him, but I think he's arrogant as heck'. One might even say 'hyper arrogant', but I wouldn't want to radically misconstrue you.
quote:I saw a series of at least six or seven clips where he'd discussed how ridiculous religion is. Then, I saw a clip where he states that religion is beside the point and that he's uninterested in discussing it. Even though I'd just been inundated with media of him being belligerent.
Again, not a sample of 'my impression is based on very limited knowledge. In fact you were 'inundated'. By yourself, but let's leave that aside.
quote:I'll acknowledge that -- at least from the outside perspective -- he comes off as being extremely arrogant. But again, I've only seen clips and sound bites.
Now it's an 'outside perspective' based on very little. In the same post, mind. You go on to say that you're just a casual observer, but that's how most people form opinions therefore it's a good method. You also throw in a bit about how you're being abused, while also throwing in the first personal insult. *Eventually* you settle on 'it's a passing opinion'. Though you are quite committed to it even while acknowledging its almost baseless nature.
So, yeah, I'm totally misreading you. You're being consistent and not at all inflammatory yourself, so by all means stay up there on that cross!
Anyway, your final stance that a reasonable person can form an opinion that has much value at all based on almost no knowledge is, of course, silly. You're welcome to defend that proposition if you like, when you're done complaining about what a victim you are.
Having some grounds for an opinion, some knowledge or experience or context-preferably all of that and more!-are not guarantees that one's opinion, one's claim is a good one-and please note I'm saying nothing about whether I personally agree with whatever claim or opinion that might be held by a given person. But those things *are* entry level qualifiers to having some idea what one is talking about. I know almost nothing about good soccer etiquette and sportsmanship. Therefore my perspective on the sportsmanship of athletes in the upcoming World Cup will have little merit, unless I see someone stab another player or something. I know quite a lot about hazardous materials shipping regulations nationally and internationally, so if I then say 'that auditor should have caught that', I should probably be taken more seriously.
I might not be right about Tyson. He might indeed be an arrogan as heck snarky blowhard. But if I'm wrong, it's in spite of my experience and knowledge and likely due to bias. If you're right, it's because you got lucky.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ]You also throw in a bit about how you're being abused, while also throwing in the first personal insult.
Dude. You called me arrogant TWICE before I even responded to you. And certainly before I got snippy with anyone.
Yeah. I'm arrogant. So what. I'm not trying to represent the scientific community. He is. There's a difference. Look. He's got the easiest platform in the world to sell. Science. And he's being an (insert pejorative) about it. Just like Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911, he's got a great train of logic -- but he's shooting himself in the foot with his snarky comments.
posted
Is remarking that there is some irony in accusing someone of arrogance based on let's just say very limited information a personal insult?
Well, maybe. I meant it as a shot, though at the contradiction in your argument. Rather than, you know, calling you stupid.
Anyway, this has as you say long since been silly. I'll just keep a quote of you validating the idea of forming an opinion based on almost nothing, and sticking by it for future reference. Maybe in a few weeks or months, you'll have an opinion in something you actually have some basis for, and it'll be a subject I know nothing about. I'll post my knee-jerk response based on almost nothing, and insist my opinion be given equal credibility with yours.
When you correctly scorn such a notion, you'll be 'the problem with Hatrack!'
----
Tyson as Michael Moore. Hah! Serious question, man. Is this just trolling? If it is, fair shakes, you completely got me if it's not...goddamn, you are *committed* to this idea, aren't you? Or...wait, aren't you? I forget. I guess we're back at this being more than a passing opinion now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Actually, Tyson might be more arrogant than Deen. I only ever knew a little about her, and that was when her story was big (in some circles) news, and my only exposure to her was brief news headlines and radio blurbs."
Huh. Apparently it's not impossible! Same goes for Michael Moore, incidentally, whom I despise, so it's hardly a fanboy thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Public opinion is moved by sound bites and quips. Not by facts.
Moore had some solid facts building up the 911 video. He buried them in snark and stretched accusations. Nobody could take him seriously. You can have a seriously well engineered foundation -- and still ruin a building with a Las Vegas facade.
I want to like Tyson. He's a smart dude. But it's a dangerous world for ideas. If he gives the Fox News crowd ANY fodder to poke fun ... he's not doing his job. Yes, I said HIS JOB. He has taken up the mantle of science crusader. And I feel like he could be doing a better job of it.
<shrug> But if the best we have ends up being Nye? An eccentric in a bowtie? It'll have to suffice. Einstein's dead. And we live in an intellectual wasteland where entire cities in the Golden State refuse immunizations. Too much information and too few people thinking original thoughts.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to say it, but the power is in the hand of the plebes. Why do you think that the Republican party plays down to the church-going farmer? Or the Democrats to the welfare recipient?
The thinkers only hold power as long as they're able to keep the masses placated. And it's rather disconcerting that Washington is increasingly being filled with the latter rather than the former. I the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I [think?] the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
I hear statements along these lines often. But aren't most Senators and Presidents Ivy League grads? You don't get into those schools with D's. Or perhaps are you referring to other gov't workers like FBI/CIA/NSA? Or military soldiers? Or bureaucrats in other depts?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I [think?] the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
I think it's far truer that the D students have all gone into business, and are paying the salaries of those intelligentsia who went into politics.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: But aren't most Senators and Presidents Ivy League grads? You don't get into those schools with D's.
Most presidents, yes. But not the VP. And a preponderance of the Senate actually went to state colleges.
I attended an Ivy League school. It doesn't mean anything. Would you truly qualify George W. as a member of the intelligentsia?
Riddle me this: if you're a "top of the class" lawyer, do you go into politics? Maybe it's an easy answer if you have a lot of family money....
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Riddle me this: if you're a "top of the class" lawyer, do you go into politics? Maybe it's an easy answer if you have a lot of family money....
If you are top of the top I'm pretty sure you go into the Supreme Court...
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The thinkers only hold power as long as they're able to keep the masses placated.
or, as a specific example, distract the masses from the validity and importance of a person's argument by image hampering them and making them out to be arrogant
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I [think?] the intelligentsia are increasingly moving to business, leaving our country in the hands of the "D students".
I think it's far truer that the D students have all gone into business, and are paying the salaries of those intelligentsia who went into politics.
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you, Tom. I think at this point I know more Princeton physics PhDs who work as high-frequency traders than ones who work as scientists.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
i mean honestly nye's recent conversations on TV have been well more arrogant and dismissive than the way tyson composes himself, yet
Can you qualify this? We've cataloged Tyson saying that philosophy is a waste of time, calling intelligent design stupid, and making fun of other people's science.
Do you have a single example of Nye being other than patient? Or of him ridiculing someone else for their beliefs?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anti-philosophy quip was a howler, but no different from most other physicists.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I find it interesting that Pigliucci's "rebuttal" of Tyson makes all the errors that Tyson observes are endemic to philosophy, thus pretty neatly proving Tyson's point. And I'm saying this as somebody who enjoys philosophy, but will freely admit that, yes, it's comparatively useless when lined up against the scientific method.
I don't think it's any different from the scientific method, if you think of philosophy in the right way. It's just that the questions that philosophers ask are harder to reach definitive final answers about. But the good ones use the same method scientists do, essentially.
What were your specific problems with Massimo P's reply? I thought some of it was overly flippant in tone, but I basically agreed with everything he said.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. He seemed to be the calm, sane one in the room. He was being ridiculed from the very first, but he refrained from doing the same. Is there a specific part of the clip you're referring to?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
