Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Brendan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    139

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Brendan

  1. Posted

    Hey, I live in Milwaukee, how dare Howard say it's not as good to visit as Florida! Well, ok, it's true. But I would think Howard would cut it some slack since it's home to the largest annual music festival, Summerfest. I mean, summer's right in the name, how could he not love it?

     

    Maybe if he visits here, he could do a gig too. For some reason, Milwaukee doesn't get much alt comedy, at least not the comics I follow through the podcast world. We get the "big" comics that play the big theaters (for big $) but the smaller venues don't seem to bring in anyone that I know.

  2. Posted

    Well, I thought the episode was good overall, and while I believe Emily knows her stuff, I disagree with her assertion that it's not necessary to wash your hands. I was a little unclear on her logic, since proper hand washing can prevent the spread of illnesses and infections caused by bacteria and viruses. If you don't wash, you're leaving yourself open to things like eye infections, diarrhea, colds and influenza. It's also strange that she said that it's ok not to wash your hands very often, even though washing your hands carries no risk and infinite reward, but she felt that fecal transplant is something that should be done more regularly, even in those who don't have recurrent C. difficile. From what I've found, the procedure is still difficult to perform and hasn't had any long term study done, so it's still inconclusive what potential risks really exist. So why discourage doing something that has only proven benefits (hand washing), while encouraging something that is more difficult to undertake and has potential risk associated with it (fecal transplant)? I'm not saying she was recommending one over the other, just that her logic seems inconsistent.

     

    I also understand Emily's got a lot of training in the field of microbiology, but my mom was a microbiologist for about 40 years, running the lab at a hospital, and she has always advocated proper hand washing and cleaning, so I trust her opinion a bit more than a twenty-something doctoral candidate (no offense). And if I've learned anything from this podcast, specifically from Kyle, it's always listen to MOTHER!

  4. Posted

    That theme for Kulap from Todd Glass's show is absolutely horrible. I couldn't take listening to it once, much less for each chart entry. It's not even "so bad it's good," it's just embarrassing. The digital harmonizer on the guy's voice is awful, and the song sounds like he took a bad midi file of Tuxedo Junction and added lyrics.

  6. Posted

    I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the voiceover in the first clip was done by John Astin of The Addams Family fame.

     

    I wanted to add that I like the format of the show the way it is, but there are times when there's a little too much overtalking. It's not only the guest that can get talked over, but jokes get obscured too. It's hard to avoid when you have 4 or 5 people trying to so a show, so it's not a huge point of contention for me.

  7. Posted

    I also thought that there was too much specious reasoning in this episode, mostly by the guest. It bugs me when people draw conclusions that they "know" to be true based on a limited amount of information and a whole lot of personal feelings.

    For example, the use of dreams as proof of some psychic connection has been debunked. Dreams occur every time we sleep, whether you remember them or not, and are created by our own minds. Whatever we dream about is based on our own thoughts and experiences. Just because someone says "I hadn't thought of this person in years, then I had a dream about them, now they're dead" isn't proof of anything, it's just someone jumping to conclusions based on emotion. There's a multitude of reasons why someone would dream something. They could have easily had something remind them of a person in their waking hours, yet not placed any importance on it to remember it until in surfaced in a dream, which also might have been forgotten except when a real life occurrence has some parallel.

    The hand on the leg during acupuncture is also an example of jumping to a conclusion based on emotion and not fact. People experience phantom feelings of pressure all the time, which can be medically explained; pinched nerves, misfiring neurons, etc. The fact that he was getting acupuncture at the time lends even more evidence that this feeling was the result of a physiological event.

    I do like the podcast, and don't expect a science lesson, but it does bother me when people state things as facts or believe things without really examining them objectively using the large amount of actual tested scientific data available.

  11. Posted

    I'm watching it right now (dvr)! Snakes!!!

     

    But you still have a bunch of chances to catch the first ep, History Channel's replaying it almost daily, at various times. Check your local listings.

     

    I wasn't sure what to expect, thought the Sklars might've been hired just as straight hosts. But it's definitely funny, and filled with Sklar-y goodness.

  14. Posted

    So, it the Would You Rather alternate reality, the Star Wars figures worth $100 were said to have been from all 6 Episodes before it was revealed that all the figures were of the two-headed pod racing announcer.

     

    So that means that the two-headed pod racing announcer had to have been in all 6 Star Wars films in that Centaur World reality, right? Yeesh, I shudder to think of what those films would've been like.

  15. Posted

    I haven't posted on the Earwolf forums in a while, but I had to say how much I enjoyed Ben Schwartz as the guest! Not to take anything away from any of the other guests, but something about Ben's genuine exuberance and comedic skills made this episode stand out. Hope he's on again soon!

  17. Posted

    I lost it at "Reggae music!" "Expertise!" Well done, gentlemen.
     Scott, if you read this, have you heard Neil Finn on the Flight of the Conchords 6-part BBC radio series? He doesn't do any musical performing, but his phone bits with Rhys Darby are pretty damn funny (he's the "straight man" as you might expect). Since you seem to be a Neil Finn superfan, I thought I'd mention it.
     
    By the way, if Harris reads this, Parks & Recreation continues to be outstanding!

  19. Posted

    Yet another good one! And I was surprised that I really liked all the Bangles in-studio songs! I usually skip through in-studio performances on podcasts, but I listened to and enjoyed all of the Bangles performances!
     
    Just wondering, is there a group of fat, hairy, gay men that are fans of Amy Poehler? I think they refer to themselves as "Bears." If there is, and they don't have a name for their fan club yet, I'd like to suggest, "The Amy Fans."
     
    Or is that too on the nose?

  20. Posted

    Thought I'd comment again, considering my last post didn't talk about the challenge. 
    I thought both podcasts put forth very good entries for this last challenge, and both had things that could be improved. I pretty much agreed with the critiques by Matt, Scott & Jeff on the show. Maybe TL could change their tagline, since it didn't really fit. Perhaps the questions aren't the least important so much as the least asked, which is what TL sort of alluded to before, that these aren't the typical interview questions that you usually hear celebrities get asked. LDDC could have tightened things up a little bit, possible the two guests wasn't necessary given the limited time. And the suggestion of breaking it up sometimes with segments or whatever could be beneficial to the listener.
     
    Though I knew it'd pretty much be a coin toss as to who won, LDDC was my favorite of these last two submissions, mainly because I thought it was funnier. That's the main thing I was looking for in both podcast submissions.
     
    It's a little disconcerting that even though the consensus was that LDDC had the funnier submission and the funnier hosts, it didn't win on what is currently known as a comedy network, in a competition that was judged all along by professional comedians & hosts of comedy podcasts, where being the most funny earned the most praise and being the least funny was the main criterion for being ousted for the majority of the challenges. So, I'm not going to complain too much about that point. Scott and the guys tried to address that already and made their point about why they decided the way they did, but I think it was worth mentioning again.
     
    Anyway, congrats again to everyone involved! I hope all the shows gained new listeners. Even though I'm behind on my usual stable of podcasts, I just subscribed to LDDC (I used to listen to a show with Rhys Darby out of New Zealand, maybe I just miss the similar accents)!

  21. Posted

    Thought I'd comment again, considering my last post didn't talk about the challenge. 
    I thought both podcasts put forth very good entries for this last challenge, and both had things that could be improved. I pretty much agreed with the critiques by Matt, Scott & Jeff on the show. Maybe TL could change their tagline, since it didn't really fit. Perhaps the questions aren't the least important so much as the least asked, which is what TL sort of alluded to before, that these aren't the typical interview questions that you usually hear celebrities get asked. LDDC could have tightened things up a little bit, possible the two guests wasn't necessary given the limited time. And the suggestion of breaking it up sometimes with segments or whatever could be beneficial to the listener.
     
    Though I knew it'd pretty much be a coin toss as to who won, LDDC was my favorite of these last two submissions, mainly because I thought it was funnier. That's the main thing I was looking for in both podcast submissions.
     
    It's a little disconcerting that even though the consensus was that LDDC had the funnier submission and the funnier hosts, it didn't win on what is currently known as a comedy network, in a competition that was judged all along by professional comedians & hosts of comedy podcasts, where being the most funny earned the most praise and being the least funny was the main criterion for being ousted for the majority of the challenges. So, I'm not going to complain too much about that point. Scott and the guys tried to address that already and made their point about why they decided the way they did, but I think it was worth mentioning again.
     
    Anyway, congrats again to everyone involved! I hope all the shows gained new listeners. Even though I'm behind on my usual stable of podcasts, I just subscribed to LDDC (I used to listen to a show with Rhys Darby out of New Zealand, maybe I just miss the similar accents)!

  22. Posted

    After listening, I have one burning question:
    .
    Which is the weirder tv spin-off, Lou Grant or Trapper John MD? Both spun off characters from a half hour sitcom into hour long dramas. Trapper John seems weirder because it took a charcter from MASH and brought him into modern times, and had a different actor play the role too. Although, having Ed Asner contiue to play Lou Grant in a completely different context seems almost weirder. Thoughts?
    .
    .
    .
    Oh, and I guess congrats to all involved in EWC

  23. Posted

    After listening, I have one burning question:
    .
    Which is the weirder tv spin-off, Lou Grant or Trapper John MD? Both spun off characters from a half hour sitcom into hour long dramas. Trapper John seems weirder because it took a charcter from MASH and brought him into modern times, and had a different actor play the role too. Although, having Ed Asner contiue to play Lou Grant in a completely different context seems almost weirder. Thoughts?
    .
    .
    .
    Oh, and I guess congrats to all involved in EWC

×