Topic: Ian Punnett

[onan]

What's intention physics? I've never heard of this effect before.

Good question. From what I can gather it is a blend of the philosophy of intentionality which is too ethereally complex to explain in a couple sentences. It became a philosophical benchmark in the 19th century. If I understand it at all (and I do not claim to), it has to do with consciousness either having intent or being some abstract meaningless contention... what did I just say? I have no clue.
 
Also intention physics attempts to take the supposition that if one observes, one changes the dynamic. Although this is true on the quantum level... not so much in the everyday world we inhabit. But don't let facts get in the way of new age thinking.
 
I would be willing to bet that statistically there would be a similar number of non-saints that have not decomposed. But I dunno it is a weird world. But I do not buy for a second that supposed holy thought has anymore effect on some corpse than thoughts of titties do.

[onan]

That's my shortmouth (like shorthand only verbal) term for the quantum phenomenon wherein the intention or desired outcome of the observer influences the experiment.  Physicist William Tiller describes experiments on water (raising/lowering pH) and on influencing fruit fly reproduction by altering the (electromagnetic) condition of the room, i.e., filling it with energy from human expectations.

It is being postulated that some discoveries which are not replicable (like cold fusion) are influenced by this condition effect. The seminal book on the topic is "Conscious Acts of Creation- The emergence of a new physics" by Dr. William A. Tiller, Ph.D, Stanford University professor emeritus. 

Anagrammy

Sorry Ana this is just bad science. Observing a quantum event takes an electron beam which introduces energy into the environment. That is what changes the "behavior" of the observation. Not some random thought or wish.
 
Also electromagnetism is not the same as thinking... yes thinking produces electrochemical reactions which does generate electricity but not enough to produce a magnetic field no matter how many thinkers you put together.

[Agent : Orange]

It is being postulated that some discoveries which are not replicable (like cold fusion) are influenced by this condition effect. The seminal book on the topic is "Conscious Acts of Creation- The emergence of a new physics" by Dr. William A. Tiller, Ph.D, Stanford University professor emeritus. 

:O

This should all be taken with more than one grain of salt. In fact you may need a whole shaker!

[b_dubb]

I don't get it.  Why would they take a dead pope to the beautician?

LOL

'you're a dude playing a dude who's playing another dude'

[b_dubb]

Sorry Ana this is just bad science. Observing a quantum event takes an electron beam which introduces energy into the environment. That is what changes the "behavior" of the observation. Not some random thought or wish.
 
Also electromagnetism is not the same as thinking... yes thinking produces electrochemical reactions which does generate electricity but not enough to produce a magnetic field no matter how many thinkers you put together.

what i've read about the Schroedinger's Cat .... um ... i didn't really understand.  but i see what you're saying here Onan

[aldousburbank]

what i've read about the Schroedinger's Cat .... um ... i didn't really understand.  but i see what you're saying here Onan

Didn't that cat die, or am I just seeing it that way?

[b_dubb]

Didn't that cat die, or am I just seeing it that way?

yes. you killed it ... with your MIND!!!!!

[Agent : Orange]

There is no term in the quantum Hamiltonian that represents "wishing really hard".

Schroedinger's cat is in some sense an interesting example of wave function collapse but it has nothing to do with consciousness affecting the outcome of the experiment. A quantum observation does not imply the need for consciousness- a geiger counter can make an observation just as well as a human. There are many ways around the "paradox" of Schroedinger's cat, many of which make more sense than taking quantum mechanics to the extremes that discussions of the infamous cat bring about.

[Agent : Orange]

Needless to say I was already a fan of Ian but comparing teaming up solar and wind power with the Justice League of America only serves to make me more of a fan.

[valdez]

     The first segment with Fred Burton was interesting. Right now, anything Bin Ladin is interesting and has my attention, but Mark Z. Jacobson, on renewable energy did nothing for me.  I've noticed that c2c guest who begin answering a question with "so" ( like "how long before we no longer need oil?"  "so, the question really is about..") are usually people who have their noses in the air and think they're too smart for the rest of us.  Being smart is fine, but don't forget to pack a little personality to go with it.  It's probably a good thing these environment freaks don't have a charismatic leader or else we'd be screwed.
     So Ian plays "Mother and Child Reunion", and I'm listening, thinking about how nice a song it is, and how Paul Simon did a lot good stuff post Garfunkel, and then it occurs to me that Ian is playing it for a reason.  Duh.
     Happy Mother's Day, coastgabbers.
 

[anagrammy]

     The first segment with Fred Burton was interesting. Right now, anything Bin Ladin is interesting and has my attention, but Mark Z. Jacobson, on renewable energy did nothing for me.  I've noticed that c2c guest who begin answering a question with "so" ( like "how long before we no longer need oil?"  "so, the question really is about..") are usually people who have their noses in the air and think they're too smart for the rest of us.  Being smart is fine, but don't forget to pack a little personality to go with it.  It's probably a good thing these environment freaks don't have a charismatic leader or else we'd be screwed.
     So Ian plays "Mother and Child Reunion", and I'm listening, thinking about how nice a song it is, and how Paul Simon did a lot good stuff post Garfunkel, and then it occurs to me that Ian is playing it for a reason.  Duh.
     Happy Mother's Day, coastgabbers.
 

Thanks for the Mother's Day card, Valdez.  I love elephants and this photo is touching.  I am having an Open House this afternoon for my children and I'm serving all nosalgia foods from the 70's, playing Led Zeppelin.  Did you know if you play that backward it says "Smoke Marijuana?"

Anagrammy

[b_dubb]

party at Anagrammy's

[aldousburbank]

party at Anagrammy's

If only he wasn't so far off in El Salvador.

[Agent : Orange]

If only he wasn't so far off in El Salvador.

lol!!

[anagrammy]

Wait, wait, it was "Snowblind!"  that played backwards and said "Smoke Marijuana!"   

I had four boys who were curious, so when I told them that, they immediately located their tape and unscrewed and rewound it and sure enough, an eerie Satanic voice chanted "Smoke, smoke, smoke marijuana."  I felt so vindicated in my righteous endeavor to protect their little ears from those words.

Unbenownst to me, they went into my private spiritual Mormon tapes and violated my privacy by unscrewing the case and rewinding backwards my Janeen Brady "I'm a Mormon, Yes I am" tapes of children's songs.  They gleefully played it for me.  You guessed it, she warbled "Smoke, smoke, smoke marijuana.

This is a true story, I swear on the Holy Koran.

Anagrammy

[Silent]

Wait, wait, it was "Snowblind!"  that played backwards and said "Smoke Marijuana!"   

Do you mean the Black Sabbath song that is about cocaine when played forward?

Funny story though.  I think you can play anything backwards and find something if that's what you're looking for.  There's a lot of those accusations in rock music that I've heard but only a few were ever proven to be real.

Of the real ones this has always been my favorite: (cut from wikipedia)

Iron Maiden's 1983 album Piece of Mind features a short backwards message, included by the band in response to allegations of Satanism that were surrounding them at the time.^[66] Between the songs "The Trooper" and "Still Life" is inebriated drummer Nicko McBrain doing an impression of Idi Amin Dada: "'What ho', sed de t'ing wid de t'ree bonce [said the thing with the three heads]. Don't meddle wid t'ings you don't understand," followed by a belch.

[Silent]

Completely unrelated to the topics at hand but my last post brought a question to mind and maybe one of you guys knows the answer.

What is the deal with the accents that people like Ozzy have?  Nicko McBrain talks in a similar way (although he's lesser known so not as good of an example).  Both are very hard to understand even though they're speaking english.  Most everyone has heard Ozzy speak and heard all the jokes about it.  I have some recordings of Nicko talking and I can make out about half of what he's saying.

I've had someone tell me that this accent is common in England among some poor or lower class people and carries a certain stigma or mark.  Does anyone know if this is true?

[M. Knight]

Completely unrelated to the topics at hand but my last post brought a question to mind and maybe one of you guys knows the answer.

What is the deal with the accents that people like Ozzy have?  Nicko McBrain talks in a similar way (although he's lesser known so not as good of an example).  Both are very hard to understand even though they're speaking english.  Most everyone has heard Ozzy speak and heard all the jokes about it.  I have some recordings of Nicko talking and I can make out about half of what he's saying.

I've had someone tell me that this accent is common in England among some poor or lower class people and carries a certain stigma or mark.  Does anyone know if this is true?

It is an English accent merged with a swiss cheese brain due to decades of hard drug use.  It is called "Druglish".

[Eddie Coyle]

Do you mean the Black Sabbath song that is about cocaine when played forward?

    I'm guessing the Styx song from 1980. Their "Snowblind" was accused having backmasking.

[onan]

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.

[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.