Topic: Ian Punnett

[Paper*Boy]

...  IP all too frequently seems incapable of rational thought when it comes to understanding the critical differences between, oh, say, religious faith and scientific principles...

 
For Ian, they are the same.  Both (or most of what he is knowledgeble about) come from books written by experts in the field.  Ian is very impressed with degrees and credentials - so whether it's someone writing about some pointy-headed aspect of religion, or some scientific essay, if it's from a source Ian respects, that's good enough.
 
And if anyone doesn't like it, they can consider themselves hung up on.

[AlaskaGuy]

It's not his 'faith' that I have a problem with.  As someone once said, I can 'respect' his faith/beliefs to the same extent that I can 'respect' another person's assertion that his/her spouse the most beautiful in the world, or that his/her kids are the smartest in the world, etc.  It's when such assertion has implications beyond oneself that I draw the line, so to speak.  I also blurt out obscenities directed towards the radio/IP whenever IP insists (while interrupting) to a guest that he/IP "totally gets it" (whatever point the guest is attempting to make/clarify)...and then immediately goes on to say things that starkly demonstrate just how severely IP most certainly does *not* "get"/grasp the concept at hand.  Maddening stuff, and a poor substitute for  quality, if it's simply that bleakly masturbatory/masochistic "keep listening just because it's so awful" listenership that Premier is deliberately aiming for. 

[999]

Sunday:

4/8/12

Joining Ian Punnett in the first half, historian and Bible expert, Bart Ehrman confronts the question 'Did Jesus exist at all?' He provides a compelling argument for the existence of the man from Nazareth, but perhaps not the Jesus you'd hoped to meet.

In the latter half, scientist Charles Pellegrino talks about how after a century, the Titanic's infrastructure is set to collapse in the next few years. He'll share untold stories about the sinking and exploration of the "unsinkable" ship.

[DangerousBlossom]

Sunday: 4/8/12

Joining Ian Punnett in the first half, historian and Bible expert, Bart Ehrman confronts the question 'Did Jesus exist at all?' He provides a compelling argument for the existence of the man from Nazareth, but perhaps not the Jesus you'd hoped to meet.

Gosh, the "real" Jesus isn't going to be on?  He was on a few years ago.  Why isn't he He a regular?  Ian has such great connections.

[Paper*Boy]

... I also blurt out obscenities directed towards the radio/IP whenever IP insists (while interrupting) to a guest that he/IP "totally gets it" (whatever point the guest is attempting to make/clarify)...and then immediately goes on to say things that starkly demonstrate just how severely IP most certainly does *not* "get"/grasp the concept at hand.  Maddening stuff...

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.  If you listen for them, you'll hear him use these techniques with guests and callers almost constantly.
 
'I totally get that' is simply a method used to dismiss what the guest is saying and move on to the points he wants to emphasize. 

[b_dubb]

I'd like to officially declare George Knapp my favorite host. Previously I'd declared that IP was my favorite. While I still like IP I find myself wishing he'd just let the guest continue when he feels compelled to interrupt. It seems like he's trying to prove himself to be the egghead he is

[Eddie Coyle]

In the latter half, scientist Charles Pellegrino talks about how after a century, the Titanic's infrastructure is set to collapse in the next few years. He'll share untold stories about the sinking and exploration of the "unsinkable" ship.

                Another discredited phony who is slinking his way back into the garden. I wouldn't trust Pellegrino as far I could throw Rosie O'Donnell.

[b_dubb]

                Another discredited phony who is slinking his way back into the garden. I wouldn't trust Pellegrino as far I could throw Rosie O'donnell

bullshit. your post indicates that you can throw Rosie O'Donnell. clearly not possible

[Eddie Coyle]

bullshit. your post indicates that you can throw Rosie O'Donnell. clearly not possible

          I'm about 240...yeah, you're right.

[Ben Shockley]

          I'm about 240...yeah, you're right.

240?  Coyle, tell me you're at least proportional, like 8 feet tall...?

I always pictured you as a medium-sized slender guy like the select few Army buddies who were able to totally crack me up     Which you routinely do.

[Oversoul]

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.  If you listen for them, you'll hear him use these techniques with guests and callers almost constantly.
 
'I totally get that' is simply a method used to dismiss what the guest is saying and move on to the points he wants to emphasize.

Is that Punnett expression similar to Noory's "That's true, very true." remark everytime he wants to move on to another point?

[Lovely Bones]

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.

There's nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric.  The word has taken on a negative connotation because it's been associated so often with things like "political rhetoric," where rhetoric is all about "taking advantage," "inflating value," "devaluing the opposition," etc.  But true rhetoric is a much fairer, much less negative enterprise, and I happen to think you're too quick to brush Ian's approach with the negative connotation of rhetoric. 

He has always said he wants his time with a guest to be a conversation.  That's a distinctly different style than Knapp, coming from an investigative journalism background.  Knapp does what journalists do--asks questions and stays in the background, out of the way, while the guest expounds.  Ian's style seems more or less a dialectic. 

Personally, I don't find one style superior to the other, merely different, and enjoy both these hosts for what they do and how they do it.  But that's just me. 

[Lovely Bones]

Is that Punnett expression similar to Noory's "That's true, very true." remark everytime he wants to move on to another point?

I would say no, the difference being this: when Ian says, "I totally get that," chances are good he's a) read the guest's book/other material; b) listened to whatever the guest has just said; and c) actually thought about what the guest has just said.

When Noory says, "Well that's true," he has no concept of what the guest has just said because he was busy playing Angry Birds, wasn't listening to the guest, and wouldn't care even if he had been listening.

IOW, for Noory, almost everything that comes out of his mouth is mere meaningless filler. 

[thefamilyghost]

When Noory says, "Well that's true," he has no concept of what the guest has just said because he was busy playing Angry Birds, wasn't listening to the guest, and wouldn't care even if he had been listening.

 

[texaskdog]

C2C definitely declined with Ian cutting back.  Remember the David Letterman interviews where they made the fake cut ins?  That's how I picture Noory, or just staring at the internet while his guest talks.

[Ben Shockley]

There's nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric...  I happen to think [Paper*Boy is] too quick to brush Ian's approach with the negative connotation of rhetoric.

I think P*B was using the term appropriately.  Punnett is the Debate Team nerd who loves to hear himself speak, and I'm sure he is conscious of and self-assured in that Rhetoric degree as he goes to each caller.
 

[Ian] has always said he wants his time with a guest to be a conversation...  Ian's style seems more or less a dialectic.

Unless you're being self-contradictory, you must be suggesting that Punnett wants something "new" to arise from his "conversations."   Theoretically possible, but...
The implication of a dialectic is that one side will destroy the other, or that there will be mutual destruction in creation of a synthesis, which I've never really heard happen in any talk radio, including Punnett's.


I'm another one who thinks his "I totally get it" line means "shut up with your drivel from your book which isn't some goofy shit about dogs; let me tell the rubes what's really important."

[EnterDragon]

I would say no, the difference being this: when Ian says, "I totally get that," chances are good he's a) read the guest's book/other material; b) listened to whatever the guest has just said; and c) actually thought about what the guest has just said.

When Noory says, "Well that's true," he has no concept of what the guest has just said because he was busy playing Angry Birds, wasn't listening to the guest, and wouldn't care even if he had been listening.

IOW, for Noory, almost everything that comes out of his mouth is mere meaningless filler.

That's true sometimes, but I could tell when George is bored and when he's personally into a topic and puts effort into his interviews.

[blackshap9]

That's true sometimes, but I could tell when George is bored and when he's personally into a topic and puts effort into his interviews.

I totally get what your saying..hehehe, kidding 

Is George just bored? Perhaps he is sometimes. There are other times when the conversation just goes over his head. Like when Kaku is on or any other scientist. George can go up to high school level, maybe community college dropout level. Art Ian and Knapp can actually lead the conversations. Snorry and Smells can't even spell physics, never mind understanding what the word means.

[EnterDragon]

Yeah, that's why some callers tell him to take a day off now and then. Many talk show hosts take off once in a short while, but Noory never does! But As ditzy as he is, Noory is definitely smarter then Wells. And although he's nowhere near as articulate as Knapp is or Punnet, Noory knows more about the paranormal than they do. With the exception of Knapp's UFO knowledge.

[blackshap9]

Good point. Snorry does have a keen interest in the paranormal, it seems to be his comfort zone. But is Snorry smarter than Ian? A question for the ages. I lean towards Ian.

Ian these days does seem to be rambling a little too often these days. I preferred him when he had his own show. He was more aggressive back then.

[b_dubb]

...  IP all too frequently

said another way ... I pee all too frequently

They have a pill for that

[Lovely Bones]

I think P*B was using the term appropriately.  Punnett is the Debate Team nerd who loves to hear himself speak, and I'm sure he is conscious of and self-assured in that Rhetoric degree as he goes to each caller.
 Unless you're being self-contradictory, you must be suggesting that Punnett wants something "new" to arise from his "conversations."   Theoretically possible, but...
The implication of a dialectic is that one side will destroy the other, or that there will be mutual destruction in creation of a synthesis, which I've never really heard happen in any talk radio, including Punnett's.


I'm another one who thinks his "I totally get it" line means "shut up with your drivel from your book which isn't some goofy shit about dogs; let me tell the rubes what's really important."

Ben--I'm thinking of "dialectic" in the Greek sense of refutation (as in an integral part of any argument or "conversation" about an issue), and I'm thinking of rhetoric as shaping a discussion to meet the needs of a particular audience, controlling the response of that audience as one goes.  In those circumstances, refutation is not a nasty business, and rhetoric is not a bag of tricks to deceive an audience. 

Obviously, you see things differently, and I am not going to bother to argue with you. 

[Paper*Boy]

For me it was more like why does Ian act like a jerk to callers so often, and even to guests on occasion.  I noticed he sure is good at manipulating the language, especially when the caller is just calling in to make a point or ask a question and isn't prepared for verbal battle.  Then one day I see on Wiki that Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  That's when it clicked.  So I didn't notice his undergrad degree first, then make up something negative around it.
 
Interestingly, not long after I first posted about it, the Rhetoric degree detail disappeared from his wikipedia page.  I wonder who made that edit and why.

[blackshap9]

For me it was more like why does Ian act like a jerk to callers so often, and even to guests on occasion.  I noticed he sure is good at manipulating the language, especially when the caller is just calling in to make a point or ask a question and isn't prepared for verbal battle.  Then one day I see on Wiki that Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  That's when it clicked.  So I didn't notice his undergrad degree first, then make up something negative around it.
 
Interestingly, not long after I first posted about it, the Rhetoric degree detail disappeared from his wikipedia page.  I wonder who made that edit and why.

Tiptoeing through the tulips; I'll post this and let people make up their own minds.

Rhetoric:  A program that focuses on the scientific, humanistic, and critical study of human communication in a variety of formats, media, and contexts. Includes instruction in the theory and practice of interpersonal, group, organizational, professional, and intercultural communication; speaking and listening; verbal and nonverbal interaction; rhetorical theory and criticism; performance studies; argumentation and persuasion; technologically mediated communication; popular culture; and various contextual applications.

[CoastCanuck]

I usually skip Ian's shows (he's not my cup of tea).  But, I listened to his recent show about the Wrecking Crew and also last Sunday's 2 hours on the Titanic.  I'll give him credit for doing a good job with these 2 interviews. 
This past Sunday when he started his show, it only took 12 seconds for him to start talking about following him on Twitter again.  And Twitter came up several times during the show.  Annoying in my books.

[preston]

I usually skip Ian's shows (he's not my cup of tea).  But, I listened to his recent show about the Wrecking Crew and also last Sunday's 2 hours on the Titanic.  I'll give him credit for doing a good job with these 2 interviews. 
This past Sunday when he started his show, it only took 12 seconds for him to start talking about following him on Twitter again.  And Twitter came up several times during the show.  Annoying in my books.

Back before Twitter when he did the same with his blog.We used to do the drinking
game whenever he mentioned it.Got pretty drunk by the end of the show.

[Oversoul]

Ian's undergrad degree is in Rhetoric.  In other words, he's been trained to use the language to his advantage to win debates, inflate the value of his points and devalue yours.  If you listen for them, you'll hear him use these techniques with guests and callers almost constantly.

I so totally agree with your observation here.  It sounds disgusting when Punnett makes the show his little collegiate debating club.  It's at the worst when he starts injecting his personal religious or moral views (I suppose he can't control the religious ministerial side of him.) and imposes them upon the guest or caller.  The host should not be debating his guests or callers in an informative show, which C2C is supposed to be, unless he is carrying out a hidden agenda in the show as in the case of political shows or many Christian fundamentalist shows.   

[Scully]

I just gotta add my 2 cents here about Ian's obsession with Twitter.  It annoys the heck out of me that he mentions it over and over each time he's on.  To me, it has the feel that he's speaking only to his own personal little group of suckups. 

On the positive side, I do think Ian should be given an award for being the most idiosyncratic individual on the planet.

[blackshap9]

It annoys the heck out of me that he mentions it over and over each time he's on. 

Well since he is on only once a month, hopefully he will coincide with your other monthly friend. 

[Scully]

Well since he is on only once a month, hopefully he will coincide with your other monthly friend. 

Cute.  Really, really cute.