Jump to content
πŸ”’ The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... Γ—


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JonathanB.Reid

  1. When they were talking about Sherlock Holmes and Dracula, I thought at one point that David was about to mention a book I read years ago called "The Holmes-Dracula File", by Fred Saberhagen, in which Sherlock Holmes actually teams up with Dracula to solve a greater mystery threatening London. I remember it being a pretty good take on the vampire mythos, and a good book overall. I got excited thinking someone else remembered that book, but alas he was just talking about something with Jack the Ripper.

  2. They made a lot of references to the racist stereotypes in this movie. There's a Cracked.com video that actually provides some explanation for those portrayals. The short answer: Bruckheimer is a staunch conservative and Con Air was his right-wing manifesto on the dangers of immigrants, gays, and hippie-treehugging-peaceniks. That's the short answer, the actual video presents it a lot funnier. Enjoy:

    • Like 11

  3. Thank you very much for posting this. It's been an emotional ride, laughing, crying, and then laughing again, but overall I'm so appreciative of the chance to say a spiritual and emotional "Goodbye" to Harris. As one who can relate to some of Harris's struggles with addiction, it meant a lot to be able to hear this. I really appreciated Harris's latest appearance on Pete Holmes, and I related very deeply with a lot of what Harris expressed. I hoped so much that he would find his way out, and it was very painful to learn that the monster had gotten its last strike in. It would have been rough to have that as my final memory of him. So to hear him unvarnished, funny, quirky, downright weird, just being himself was so appreciated. The goofy e-mails, all of it was so human, so genuine, and I'm appreciative beyond measure that we were able to share it. Thank you again for posting this. I'm so glad you were able to do this while there was still a chance. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

    • Like 3

  4. I'm loathe to bring this up, because I do appreciate the value of sponsors in making this podcast available for free... But I've gotta say something about the new "preroll" ad attached to this episode. It replays every time I pause and unpause the podcast. I have no problem listening to a sponsor ad or a live read, but I listen to this podcast at work, and my listening is frequently interrupted, which means that every time I come back I have to hear the same recording again and again. That does not seem like an intended feature (and it's not making me love the brand either, which is counter-productive). Any way to fix it so that the ad plays once at the beginning, without the constant replays on unpause?


    *EDIT* On further investigation, it looks like this is a new feature of SoundCloud itself, so I'm guessing EarWolf has no control over it (it just coincidentally happened to be a sponsor that CBB also has). Hopefully SoundCloud will get some feedback and tweak it so that they don't alienate their listeners with oversaturation of the ads.

  5. I know you guys have to have sponsors (and we appreciate them for making the podcasts possible), and you have to do the reads in the scheduled slots, but it feels like somebody should have done a rearrange on this one. Somehow, going straight from a discussion about media-fed statistical misconceptions (including a reference to how seeing lottery winners on TV makes people ignore how unlikely it is to win the lottery) to a read for a sports gambling site (including references to past winners who turned small bets into huge winnings). Just saying the placement of that ad could have been a bit less dissonant... unless that's what you were going for.

    • Like 3

  6. The show "Penn & Teller: Fool Us" is the show you guys were thinking of, where they have magicians perform a trick in front of them and they try to figure out how it's done. It was done in the UK, and the magicians who won (i.e. Penn & Teller couldn't figure out the trick) earned a ticket to come out to Las Vegas and perform as their opening act. It aired in 2011 and it looks like there was only one season, but it was really good.

    • Like 1

  7. On the subject of Disney surnames, that's a great observation about all of the different duck-related surnames they came up with for the characters in the duckverse in order for them not to be related.

    However, based on that logic, that means that Mickey and Minnie Mouse would be related, as well as Donald and Daisy Duck (Daffy Duck would be their disowned cousin whom nobody talks about). In both pairings, the two are apparently not married (so it's not shared name via marriage), and they are frequently depicted as dating. So, hmmm... Another connection to "Game of Thrones", I suppose.

  8. Here's a correction:

    Due to extreme overuse the definition of literally has been updated to include the informal definition, which reads-


    used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.


    So you've "literally" used it correctly every time you've said it.... literally.


    I don't care what some online dictionaries may have added to appease the ignorant, this is like saying, "Due to extreme overuse, the definition of red has been updated to mean blue."

    I mean, this "definition" actually (literally) contains the word "literally" in a negative context. It is literally saying that the word literally means "not literally". COME ON!


    Bear in mind, I'm not one of those people who points it out in conversation when someone misuses it. I let it go, because I'm not a pedantic arse. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that it's correct now, just because a lot of people get it wrong a lot of the time.

    • Like 4

  9. Such an amazing episode! So much to love, and so much to ponder:

    • Zouks calling out Scott on a failed joke (and letting him dangle on it) will never, ever get old. I loved it when it was "Beachfront Property!", and I loved it even more when it was, "I heard a great Ted talk from the mm. from the b-bear" "Nope."
    • The Andi Callahan reveal (spoiler alert, by the way), very funny, but also troubling, since Andi was (I'm pretty sure) the first character to introduce the now infamous Cactus Tony, and at the time I believe Tony was responsible for helping Andi to "acquire" patients. Now, if that's God, that is one sick, sadistic mofo. Then again, there are some who would consider that description apropos. Probably better not to dig too deep into that.
    • I was SOOO certain they were building up to Dalton Wilcox as the one who would save the day. When they mentioned the Excalibur Stone, it was described at one point (by Jason, if I remember correctly) as a sort of "hole in the earth". When the final climax was happening and the royal baby's blood was about to drip into the hole, I was convinced that Dalton was going to plug it up with his wooden (teak) dick and save the day. Don't get me wrong, listening to Patrick McMahon struggle through a limerick was hilarious, but that would have just felt so symbolically perfect.

    I could probably go on for longer, and I'll likely come up with more thoughts and observations (humorous and otherwise) once I listen to it a second and third time, but for now I think I'll turn in.

    • Like 3

  10. @ericmci

    Since you bring up "true economics", I feel compelled to take a moment and break down what you're saying a bit:

    "We pay with our time and purchases from show sponsors." In order to refer to something as a "payment", there needs to be a transfer, in which the buyer gives something up in order to gain the benefit of the goods/services provided. Now, when you're talking about time (audience, ratings), and purchases from sponsors, it's easy to see how the podcaster benefits from these, which is the point that you were making. Without those numbers, the podcaster would get no money from the advertiser. I'm not questioning that in any way.


    However, let's flip that around: rather than looking at benefit to the podcaster, what is the cost to the listener? What is the listener giving up (i.e. paying) in order to receive the benefit of the podcast?

    Time? Well if you think about it, it's kind of ludicrous to say that the time you spend doing a thing you want to do is a "cost". You don't consider the time you spend eating a meal to be part of the "payment" for that meal. You wouldn't consider time spent at an amusement park to be "payment" for the fun of being there. So the time you spend listening to a podcast that you enjoy is not a payment. There's no loss to the listener, nothing given up.

    What about purchases from sponsors? Well, first off, the percentage of listeners that actually click on those sponsor links is so small that you could still say that the grand majority of listeners get the podcast for "free", even if one did concede that purchasing from a sponsor represents a "cost" to the listener. However, once again, where's the loss? What is the listener giving up? The only money they pay is what they give to the sponsor in making the purchase, and for that they receive the goods from that sponsor. There is no additional charge for buying it through the podcast link. In fact, there's usually a discount! Once again, the listener doesn't lose or give up anything for the privilege of enjoying the podcast. There is no cost to the listener.


    So yes, Podcasters do absolutely rely on their listeners for their livelihood, but the fact remains that the listener does not need to pay, lose, or give up anything in order to enjoy the podcast. The listener consumes the podcast, enjoys the content, and pays nothing for the opportunity (unless, of course, they donate. Those guys are saints, and we love them dearly!). So show a little gratitude, and try not to fly off the handle every time the content creators make some tiny change in order to sustain the content that you enjoy, which is the point that Chris is generally making whenever he makes a "consume it for free" comment.

  11. @Ben E Atkins

    Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I did notice several times when Kristi's voice would pipe up to make a point and Jason would just keep steamrolling ahead. It felt very Meta after a point. However, I might offer a less condemnatory explanation for why that happened. Both Jason and Kristi were both speaking remotely via phone tie-in, and it's possible, due to the latency in their connections, that Jason just literally couldn't hear that Kristi was trying to interject, and Kristi was too polite to cut in forcefully. There was still an interesting dynamic there, indicative of how our genders communicate (for example, it didn't happen the other way around), but I suspect that it was not quite as "Quiet dear, the men are talking" as it appeared on the surface.