Per your interview with JA; unregulated, mass migrations will carry a potential for dangerous epidemics.
There are some very nasty bugs out there that are only kept in check by geography and environment. That is all changing and every year potentials change with a warming planet.
Enjoyed listening.
Tried two different browsers and they both said no file when I tried to open or download your conversation with Jay. Can you look into this- I really would like to hear what you guys have to say.
I listened to the radio show, honestly with quite a bit of frustration.
I felt that you guys were skipping around having a conversation with most of what you were talking about as inuendo, as though you were telepathic old friends who already agree, and that you were preaching to the converted, about how hopeless everything is, and how totally screwed we are, how we can do nothing at all because the left sucks and the right has state violence.
I found at no time did an idea get explored fully, a lot of your sentences and ideas trailed off into nothing or shifted into a change in conversation topic, like a couple of terrifically unprepared and undisciplined speakers..
you were even typing and multitaksing when you should have been listening to the host.
I got so frustrated at one point i literally screamed “You havent yet finished an idea, why don”t you say something CLEARLY”
look, man, slow down. increase your attention span. stick to a few points and go into them in depth — your writing is very good and often clear and to the point, but your talking was elistist, cynical, scattered and didn’t get the love that we deserve.
Interesting points Will, by and large, however the interview is done at Second Life, and I was reading comments there and that distracted me from the host. IOW, I was paying attention to the studio audience. I agree that was a mistake, I should have ignored them.
In fact, I gave specific examples of what the left could do. I also said what wouldn’t work, which is realism, not cynicism.
Overall I’m not happy with the interview, and wasn’t at the time, but I hope it still has value.
I actually found this interview a lot easier to follow than the first, which I would have called scattered. I thought you tied the fundamental relationships oil has with “everything” very clearly and found the political talk fairly optimistic…
Ya know, after much thinking, Ian, you interview horribly.
I really enjoy your writings/postings, but, sorry to say, you really need to up your game in interviews.
And Jay does you no favors, he’s complicit in being a horrible interviewer; he doesn’t get the best out of you. He’s too friendly and amiable to really spark an interview.
I also blame myself for being too soft in my comments regarding your interviews with Akroid.
I hope my candor is taken as it’s intended.
You have a lot to offer; cheers.
Thanks Celcius. My own diagnosis is that my interviews are sporadic: some are quite good, but the ones that aren’t are bad–mostly I talk too fast if I’m not in the right groove.
It might be worth getting some training at some point.
It might be worth getting some training at some point. Ian
First, thanks for taking what I said in the spirit of its intent.
It may help, but Ackroyd needs to up his game as well. I do feel you’re comfortable at the microphone (maybe too comfortable). The only times I’ve blown my speaking gigs has been when I wasn’t nervous. Nervousness helps to keep an edge/focus.
I have done public speaking both in the states (over a 20 year period) and for the 5 years I taught English, here in Thailand. Here, I’ve spoken before teachers, police, government officials, small and medium business owners and municipalities. I also coached high school students for public speaking contests (mostly they won).
It’s important to know the goals of the interview/discussion. Tangents can destroy the continuity. Pot-shoting may make individual points, but it risks losing the overall cogency/continuity of the discussion.
Having an index card (s), with notes, in chronological order of points/subjects to be covered and knowing your subject thoroughly (which you do already).
Lastly, I would suggest you and the interviewer (Ackroyd in this case) agree on a format and stick to it.
There are some important differences between standing up in front of a crowd delivering a talk and that of sitting in a studio/office/desk (skype) and in some ways, for me (I have been interviewed), delivering a talk is the easier of the two.
In summary, it’s about being organized and focused.
Cheers.
Celsius 233
Per your interview with JA; unregulated, mass migrations will carry a potential for dangerous epidemics.
There are some very nasty bugs out there that are only kept in check by geography and environment. That is all changing and every year potentials change with a warming planet.
Enjoyed listening.
Geoff Dewan
Tried two different browsers and they both said no file when I tried to open or download your conversation with Jay. Can you look into this- I really would like to hear what you guys have to say.
Thanks
Celsius 233
@ Geoff Dewan
Here, try this link;
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking/2014/01/10/ian-welsh-virtually-speaking-with-jay-ackroyd
will
I listened to the radio show, honestly with quite a bit of frustration.
I felt that you guys were skipping around having a conversation with most of what you were talking about as inuendo, as though you were telepathic old friends who already agree, and that you were preaching to the converted, about how hopeless everything is, and how totally screwed we are, how we can do nothing at all because the left sucks and the right has state violence.
I found at no time did an idea get explored fully, a lot of your sentences and ideas trailed off into nothing or shifted into a change in conversation topic, like a couple of terrifically unprepared and undisciplined speakers..
you were even typing and multitaksing when you should have been listening to the host.
I got so frustrated at one point i literally screamed “You havent yet finished an idea, why don”t you say something CLEARLY”
look, man, slow down. increase your attention span. stick to a few points and go into them in depth — your writing is very good and often clear and to the point, but your talking was elistist, cynical, scattered and didn’t get the love that we deserve.
you get a C-
Ian Welsh
Interesting points Will, by and large, however the interview is done at Second Life, and I was reading comments there and that distracted me from the host. IOW, I was paying attention to the studio audience. I agree that was a mistake, I should have ignored them.
In fact, I gave specific examples of what the left could do. I also said what wouldn’t work, which is realism, not cynicism.
Overall I’m not happy with the interview, and wasn’t at the time, but I hope it still has value.
Your review gets a C.
Dan H
I actually found this interview a lot easier to follow than the first, which I would have called scattered. I thought you tied the fundamental relationships oil has with “everything” very clearly and found the political talk fairly optimistic…
Celsius 233
Ya know, after much thinking, Ian, you interview horribly.
I really enjoy your writings/postings, but, sorry to say, you really need to up your game in interviews.
And Jay does you no favors, he’s complicit in being a horrible interviewer; he doesn’t get the best out of you. He’s too friendly and amiable to really spark an interview.
I also blame myself for being too soft in my comments regarding your interviews with Akroid.
I hope my candor is taken as it’s intended.
You have a lot to offer; cheers.
Ian Welsh
Thanks Celcius. My own diagnosis is that my interviews are sporadic: some are quite good, but the ones that aren’t are bad–mostly I talk too fast if I’m not in the right groove.
It might be worth getting some training at some point.
Celsius 233
It might be worth getting some training at some point. Ian
First, thanks for taking what I said in the spirit of its intent.
It may help, but Ackroyd needs to up his game as well. I do feel you’re comfortable at the microphone (maybe too comfortable). The only times I’ve blown my speaking gigs has been when I wasn’t nervous. Nervousness helps to keep an edge/focus.
I have done public speaking both in the states (over a 20 year period) and for the 5 years I taught English, here in Thailand. Here, I’ve spoken before teachers, police, government officials, small and medium business owners and municipalities. I also coached high school students for public speaking contests (mostly they won).
It’s important to know the goals of the interview/discussion. Tangents can destroy the continuity. Pot-shoting may make individual points, but it risks losing the overall cogency/continuity of the discussion.
Having an index card (s), with notes, in chronological order of points/subjects to be covered and knowing your subject thoroughly (which you do already).
Lastly, I would suggest you and the interviewer (Ackroyd in this case) agree on a format and stick to it.
There are some important differences between standing up in front of a crowd delivering a talk and that of sitting in a studio/office/desk (skype) and in some ways, for me (I have been interviewed), delivering a talk is the easier of the two.
In summary, it’s about being organized and focused.
Cheers.
Celsius 233
Addendum: Not to drone on, but Ackroyd needs to decide if he’s an interviewer or a facilitator.
Cheers