On 30/09/2021 01:06, Brian Gregory wrote:
> On 20/09/2021 21:38, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> I was thinking that this morning.
>>
>> **** all about Clive Sinclair on the BBC, even though he introduced
>> millions of people to computers. (and how to fix them!)
>>
>> But a damn great long article about some footballer who died.
>>
>> The trouble is I suspect that the people making the decisions identify
>> more with entertainers than engineers.
>
> I agree. Who cares about some footballer.
>
> But at the same time I feel I must point out that pretty much everything
> Sinclair ever produced was more trouble than it was worth.
>
> I soooo glad I got an Oric 1 instead of the ZX Spectrum.

I eventually developed a purchasing philosophy from buying Sinclair (Z12
amp in the early 70s and QL in 1984), and it's something which has
served me well ever since. That is, when buying something, make
reliability the top criterion. Something may be cheap, or expensive (but
still score highly as "value for money"), multi-functional, wonderful to
look at, be the fastest in its class, etc. But it it's not working and
doing what it was bought for, it's an expensive paperweight.

It amuses me when reading reviews of articles intended for repeated
usage - if you can believe them anyway - that they're written five
minutes after opening the pack and using the article once.

--

Jeff

In article <irjibqFq66lU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 28/09/2021 10:08 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <sitdiu$1pi1$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive
> > <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What's the gripe with Laura Kuenssberg?
> >
> >> Simply that she works for the BBC, and there are quite a lot of
> >> bigoted right-wingers here who don't like the BBC and never pass up a
> >> chance to moan about them.
> >
> > Interesting that various left wingers also moan about her.

> My point exactly.

> AAMOF, it's *usually* the left going on about her (eg, Guardian BTL).

Maybe you've missed the specific Tory moans about her due to their whining
about the BBC more generally.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <XnsADB38B9DE7B9137B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was trying to understand how you can sell amplifiers by specifying
> peak power to a technical audience who would instantly know better than
> to rely on that.

Uncle Clive's amps tended to be initially dodgy kits, etc, for people
willing to use a soldering iron. Then the 'boom' in interest in Hi-Fi grew
and brought in people who had no real clue about specs.

The advantage for me of the 2000 was that it was cheap. At the time it was
all I could afford. I suspect others bought it for the same reason. Didn't
want much output power, but was taken aback by the live exposed metal and
the dodgy power switch! When I could afford it, I got something better.

It also had a gain that was modulated by the signal level. That had a very
interesting effect on some Jimi Hendrix tracks which had some heavy bass.

The other point worth bearing in mind, though, is that those who have a
real technical knowledge of home audio will know that the time-averaged
power levels people actually play at is often quite modest. Likely the
order of a few watts. With peaks going maybe 15dB higher for a lot of
material. So for real music the peak levels are a useful guide to
know if the amp will cover transients. But mags generally quote RMS
sinewave into an 8 Ohm resistor as it is easier to measure. Which,
of course, also ignores the reality that most speakers are far from
an 8 Ohm resistive load! Alas, for most people this is too much detail.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 29/09/2021 05:53 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 10:08 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> What's the gripe with Laura Kuenssberg?
>
>>>> Simply that she works for the BBC, and there are quite a lot of
>>>> bigoted right-wingers here who don't like the BBC and never pass up a
>>>> chance to moan about them.
>
>>> Interesting that various left wingers also moan about her.
>
>> My point exactly.
>> AAMOF, it's *usually* the left going on about her (eg, Guardian BTL).
>
> Maybe you've missed the specific Tory moans about her due to their whining
> about the BBC more generally.

Maybe I have. I have certainly never heard any right wing complaints
about LK.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:58:56 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>The other point worth bearing in mind, though, is that those who have a
>real technical knowledge of home audio will know that the time-averaged
>power levels people actually play at is often quite modest. Likely the
>order of a few watts. With peaks going maybe 15dB higher for a lot of
>material. So for real music the peak levels are a useful guide to
>know if the amp will cover transients. But mags generally quote RMS
>sinewave into an 8 Ohm resistor as it is easier to measure. Which,
>of course, also ignores the reality that most speakers are far from
>an 8 Ohm resistive load! Alas, for most people this is too much detail.

Don't they really mean average sinewave power? You would use the RMS
voltage to calculate it, but this doesn't give the RMS power (whatever
that would mean anyway). I suppose advertisers don't like using words
like "average", so they call it something else that sounds better,
even though it's wrong.

Rod.

On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:40:28 +0100 snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
> wrote:
>>
>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
>> Humphrys.
>
> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
> different answer.

Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.

Kay Burley (whom I don't like) on Sky News is also effective at this.

On 29/09/2021 17:53, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Maybe you've missed the specific Tory moans about her due to their whining
> about the BBC more generally.

Read comments on places like Guido and they moan about everyone Left of
Nigel Farage or Attila the Hun.

On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:

> On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
>> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>
>>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
>>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
>>> Humphrys.
>
>> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
>> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
>> different answer.
>
> Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.

Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.

It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased interviewer who
is being told the truth but simply doesn't want to accept it.

> Kay Burley (whom I don't like) on Sky News is also effective at this.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
>
> > On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
> >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> >
> >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
> >>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
> >>> Humphrys.
> >
> >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
> >> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
> >> different answer.
> >
> > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.
>
> Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
>
> It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased interviewer
> who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want to accept it.
>

And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated the
idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to interrupt
somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone does it now.

Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.

--
Davey.

Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
> >
> > > On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
> > >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> > >
> > >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
> > >>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
> > >>> Humphrys.
> > >
> > >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
> > >> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
> > >> different answer.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.
> >
> > Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
> >
> > It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased interviewer
> > who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want to accept it.
> >
>
> And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated
> the idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to interrupt
> somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone does it now.
>
> Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.
>

[possible bias disregarded]

Exactly so. Neither Andrew Neil nor Paxman have to resort
to blatant, continual interruption as LK does. If nothing else,
browbeating is a sign of very poor journalism.

Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.

I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
<snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> > On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
>> > >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
>> > >>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
>> > >>> Humphrys.
>> > >
>> > >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
>> > >> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
>> > >> different answer.
>> > >
>> > > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.
>> >
>> > Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
>> >
>> > It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased interviewer
>> > who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want to accept it.
>> >
>>
>> And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated
>> the idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to interrupt
>> somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone does it now.
>>
>> Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.
>>
>
>[possible bias disregarded]
>
>Exactly so. Neither Andrew Neil nor Paxman have to resort
>to blatant, continual interruption as LK does. If nothing else,
>browbeating is a sign of very poor journalism.
>
>Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
>favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
>BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>
>I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>
A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those who
cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone who is
trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even heard
times when they have been so determined to present their OWN personal
opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the caller or
interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.
--
Ian

On 30/09/2021 03:59 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
> <snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On 22:58  29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
>>> > >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
>>> > >>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
>>> > >>> Humphrys.
>>> > >
>>> > >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
>>> > >> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
>>> > >> different answer.
>>> > >
>>> > > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.
>>> >
>>> > Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
>>> >
>>> > It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased interviewer
>>> > who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want to accept it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated
>>> the idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to interrupt
>>> somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone does it now.
>>>
>>> Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.
>>>
>>
>> [possible bias disregarded]
>>
>> Exactly so.  Neither Andrew Neil nor Paxman have to resort
>> to blatant, continual interruption as LK does.  If nothing else,
>> browbeating is a sign of very poor journalism.
>>
>> Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
>> favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
>> BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>>
>> I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>>
> A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those who
> cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone who is
> trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even heard
> times when they have been so determined to present their OWN personal
> opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the caller or
> interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.

Stand up, James O'Brien!

In message <irm1q1Fa599U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> writes
>On 30/09/2021 03:59 pm, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
>><snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>>> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > On 22:58  29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
>>>> > >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing, interrupting
>>>> > >>> style of interviewing, similar to that of the loathsome John
>>>> > >>> Humphrys.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
>>>> > >> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a
>>>> > >> different answer.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed off.
>>>> >
>>>> > Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
>>>> >
>>>> > It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased interviewer
>>>> > who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want to accept it.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated
>>>> the idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to interrupt
>>>> somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone does it now.
>>>>
>>>> Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [possible bias disregarded]
>>>
>>> Exactly so.  Neither Andrew Neil nor Paxman have to resort
>>> to blatant, continual interruption as LK does.  If nothing else,
>>> browbeating is a sign of very poor journalism.
>>>
>>> Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
>>> favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
>>> BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>>>
>>> I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>>>
>> A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those
>>who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone who
>>is trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even
>>heard times when they have been so determined to present their OWN
>>personal opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the
>>caller or interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.
>
>Stand up, James O'Brien!

Yes - even HE (my hero!) occasionally has such lapses. I've even been
known to switch off for a few minutes until he's moved on to someone
else. However, there are others who constantly use interruption and
bullying as their standard interviewing technique. It's simply not good
radio.
--
Ian

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:59:40 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
><snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>>Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
>>favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
>>BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>>
>>I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>>
>A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those who
>cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone who is
>trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even heard
>times when they have been so determined to present their OWN personal
>opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the caller or
>interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.

If you think they're bad have a listen to James Whale for 5 mins on talkRadio.
His pompous verbosity is only matched by his ignorance on most topics. You'd
think he'd have mellowed over the years but he seems to have got worse.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:15:59 +0100
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <irm1q1Fa599U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those
>>>who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone who
>>>is trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even
>>>heard times when they have been so determined to present their OWN
>>>personal opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the
>>>caller or interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.
>>
>>Stand up, James O'Brien!
>
>Yes - even HE (my hero!) occasionally has such lapses. I've even been

If a smug preening not-as-bright-as-he-thinks-he-is tosser like JoB is your
hero I'd hate to see how bad the people you dislike are. If JoB said it was
midday I'd go and double check just to make sure the sun actually had risen.

On 23/09/2021 16:24, gareth evans wrote:
> Nothing to do with evolution because as old fogies we're well past
> the breeding stage!

We might be, but our children are not. And in times of trouble they'll
ask us for help.

Andy

In article <sj2nhb$bm3$1@dont-email.me>, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from her
> interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get a different
> answer.

How is that different to the bulk of the other (political) interviewers on
TV/radio?!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sj3omb$523$1@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
<jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> It amuses me when reading reviews of articles intended for repeated
> usage - if you can believe them anyway - that they're written five
> minutes after opening the pack and using the article once.

I tend to regard most "reviews" as being: "This product exists and seems to
work. Said to have the following features..."

Usually, when I know about the item I can find errors or confused
assumptions in a "review". The "wine tasting" comments I regard as saying
more about the reviewer than the item.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <1pgaeac.zs1tkn1wwkp3zN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
<snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How do you find out about it if nobody appears to know about it? It
> > also doesn't appear on Wikipedia's "Pluto" disambiguation page. I
> > assume it comes as standard with a RISC OS install.
> >

> I guess the [!] is throwing the search engine off, try a literal search.
> Actually, here you go: "!pluto" RISC OS yields:

> <http://www.avisoft.f9.co.uk/pluto/index.htm>

Yes. It can also be used to store its 'attachments'. I found various other
types of files still attached to emails I'd sent or received when searching
for things.

WRT you can do in essence regex-type searches. Using body text, headers,
etc. This generates a new 'list' which can be searched in some other way to
get another 'list', all items being as per when stored, with any
attachments and info on the 'tree' of any responses, etc.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 15:38 30 Sep 2021, Sn!pe said:

> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100 JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> > On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
>> > >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing,
>> > >>> interrupting style of interviewing, similar to that of the
>> > >>> loathsome John Humphrys.
>> > >
>> > >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from
>> > >> her interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get
>> > >> a different answer.
>> > >
>> > > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed
>> > > off.
>> >
>> > Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
>> >
>> > It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased
>> > interviewer who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want
>> > to accept it.
>> >
>>
>> And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated
>> the idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to
>> interrupt somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone does
>> it now.
>>
>> Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.
>>
>
> [possible bias disregarded]
>
> Exactly so. Neither Andrew Neil nor Paxman have to resort to
> blatant, continual interruption as LK does. If nothing else,
> browbeating is a sign of very poor journalism.
>
> Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's favoured
> style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch BBC TV
> current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>
> I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.

IMHO there are very many things wrong with the BBC but LK does not
seem to be one of them. I like her work.

It's the same with Nick Robinson, whom I consider a first class
interviewer that pushes hard against politicians who are trying to
evade his questions.

On 15:59 30 Sep 2021, Ian Jackson said:

> In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
> <snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>>Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:05:42 +0100 JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 30/09/2021 01:55 pm, Pamela wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On 22:58 29 Sep 2021, Davey said:
>>> > >> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >>> As a "centrist", my dislike of LK is her haranguing,
>>> > >>> interrupting style of interviewing, similar to that of the
>>> > >>> loathsome John Humphrys.
>>> > >
>>> > >> To me, she seems unable to accept the replies she hears from
>>> > >> her interviewees, and then interrupts some more to try to get
>>> > >> a different answer.
>>> > >
>>> > > Sounds like a good interviewer who isn't willing to be fobbed
>>> > > off.
>>> >
>>> > Exactly. Andrew Neil has the same technique.
>>> >
>>> > It has to be distinguished from the approach of a biased
>>> > interviewer who is being told the truth but simply doesn't want
>>> > to accept it.
>>> >
>>>
>>> And that is exactly how she comes across to me. She clearly hated
>>> the idea of Brexit, for example. And it is simply wrong to
>>> interrupt somebody still giving a reply, however much everyone
>>> does it now.
>>>
>>> Your view may differ, of course, and it probably will.
>>>
>>
>>[possible bias disregarded]
>>
>>Exactly so. Neither Andrew Neil nor Paxman have to resort to
>>blatant, continual interruption as LK does. If nothing else,
>>browbeating is a sign of very poor journalism.
>>
>>Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's favoured
>>style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch BBC TV
>>current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>>
>>I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>>
> A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those
> who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone
> who is trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even
> heard times when they have been so determined to present their OWN
> personal opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the
> caller or interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.

Isn't that an outcome of the LBC format? At the beginning of a
programme the host prompts people to call by setting out his opinions
at length. The need for ratings is ever present.

On 16:52 30 Sep 2021, said:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:15:59 +0100 Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <irm1q1Fa599U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>
>>>> A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among
>>>> those who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over
>>>> anyone who is trying to say something that they don't agree
>>>> with. I've even heard times when they have been so determined to
>>>> present their OWN personal opinions that they have kept
>>>> interrupting even when the caller or interviewee has actually
>>>> been trying to agree with them.
>>>
>>> Stand up, James O'Brien!
>>
>> Yes - even HE (my hero!) occasionally has such lapses. I've even
>> been
>
> If a smug preening not-as-bright-as-he-thinks-he-is tosser like JoB
> is your hero I'd hate to see how bad the people you dislike are. If
> JoB said it was midday I'd go and double check just to make sure the
> sun actually had risen.

On the other hand, I consider JoB one of the LBC hosts with most
integrity (whether or not you like his views).

He's quick to admit his mistakes and when he doesn't know something he
will say so. Probably more so than any UK radio host on any station.

The trouble is many Leavers don't like him pointing out the problems of
Brexit.

On 16:48 30 Sep 2021, said:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:59:40 +0100
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
>><snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>>>Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
>>>favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
>>>BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>>>
>>>I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>>>
>>A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those
>>who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone
>>who is trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even
>>heard times when they have been so determined to present their OWN
>>personal opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the
>>caller or interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.
>
> If you think they're bad have a listen to James Whale for 5 mins on
> talkRadio. His pompous verbosity is only matched by his ignorance on
> most topics. You'd think he'd have mellowed over the years but he
> seems to have got worse.

Nick Abbot (presenting the LBC late evening slot) is not much better. He
is often deliberately offensive.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2021 10:12:12 +0100
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 16:52 30 Sep 2021, said:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:15:59 +0100 Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <irm1q1Fa599U3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>
>>>>> A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among
>>>>> those who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over
>>>>> anyone who is trying to say something that they don't agree
>>>>> with. I've even heard times when they have been so determined to
>>>>> present their OWN personal opinions that they have kept
>>>>> interrupting even when the caller or interviewee has actually
>>>>> been trying to agree with them.
>>>>
>>>> Stand up, James O'Brien!
>>>
>>> Yes - even HE (my hero!) occasionally has such lapses. I've even
>>> been
>>
>> If a smug preening not-as-bright-as-he-thinks-he-is tosser like JoB
>> is your hero I'd hate to see how bad the people you dislike are. If
>> JoB said it was midday I'd go and double check just to make sure the
>> sun actually had risen.
>
>On the other hand, I consider JoB one of the LBC hosts with most
>integrity (whether or not you like his views).
>
>He's quick to admit his mistakes and when he doesn't know something he
>will say so. Probably more so than any UK radio host on any station.
>
>The trouble is many Leavers don't like him pointing out the problems of
>Brexit.

My problem with JoB isn't his views which are standard left of centre, its his
sneering dismissal of anyone he disagrees with who all get lumped together
as his "box of trolls". Once years ago I replied to him on twitter about
something he posted - perfectly polite response but I happened to have a
different view. He blocked me that day. The man has a paper thin skin that
he disguises with a load of debating society style waffle.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2021 10:14:50 +0100
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 16:48 30 Sep 2021, said:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:59:40 +0100
>> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <1pgbs93.3mscl5z6c3pyN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe
>>><snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes
>>>>Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Whatever, because of what has apparently become the BBC's
>>>>favoured style of "penetrating interviews", I now neither watch
>>>>BBC TV current affairs nor listen to Radio 4.
>>>>
>>>>I used to love "Auntie Beeb", but alas, no more.
>>>>
>>>A few of LBC's interviewers and phone-in hosts are also among those
>>>who cannot resist constantly interrupting and talking over anyone
>>>who is trying to say something that they don't agree with. I've even
>>>heard times when they have been so determined to present their OWN
>>>personal opinions that they have kept interrupting even when the
>>>caller or interviewee has actually been trying to agree with them.
>>
>> If you think they're bad have a listen to James Whale for 5 mins on
>> talkRadio. His pompous verbosity is only matched by his ignorance on
>> most topics. You'd think he'd have mellowed over the years but he
>> seems to have got worse.
>
>Nick Abbot (presenting the LBC late evening slot) is not much better. He
>is often deliberately offensive.

Yes, I used to listen to him when he was sharp and witty but he seems to have
turned into a bitter old fart.