"I think everyone here grasps your point. They simply don't seem to think that "precise language" is as important as you seem to. Frankly, for you to dismiss any attempts to explain the terms of speech that you look down upon as "singleminded worship" is snobbery at it's worst. Can NO ONE disagree with you without being an idiot or an ideologue?!? Holy Hubris, Batman! Or, wait, is that too referential for you?" ->
I agree, and you are right. And it very refreshing to hear what you think. But I know (not think or feel or ...) that I do not need to understand "terms of speech". I would be grateful if someone would agree/disagree with the point I am trying to make, but seems like I am not grasping the point I am making myself. So my appologies! Thanks that some of youexplain what I mean to myslef and answer their interpretation of it.
"t asks we take away any margin of error, any thing that may not be suficiently precise, to sacrifice any coloquial language or mannerism so that everything is understood exactly and correctly 100% of the time." ->
I hope that this is not to politically incorrect, but this is, again, nonsense and rightout dumb. I do not ask for 100% of anything. I was hoping for things to be improved. I think it is not as good as it could/should be. that could be 75% but this thinking I encounter here is realy primitive.
"If you don't know what the electron spin is then look it up" ->
This smacks of idiocy; I know what I am interested in and can look it up. I am thinking of the podcasts language as a whole. It is not about content! It is about presentation. Good lord, get an education, read and improve. You are a fruit loop!
"Imagine if when they mention Bigfoot Steve where to say "For those listeners who may not know what Bigfoot is, it's not a huge severed foot like the one in Monty Python, it's a kinda lost-link ape like creature. Oh, Monty Python was a group of...:". I know I'm exagerating but I believe you are too.: ->
You are not exagerating; you are missing the point, again.
"I understand, but seriously. Do you understand what they mean? Do you understand the podcast? If you don't then I think you need to polish some skills. If you do but just want that tweaked then that's YOUR opinion." ->
What is not to understand; it is a podcast that is geared towards the median listener. You might argue that I am below the median, but that is a different story. I promise I understand it. Off course it is my OPINION that it should be tweaked - what else would it be - you are a plain fruitcake.
"I mean seriously, you want it 100% "intelectually correct" when it's already at 90-95%. If the guys and Rebecca weren't able to joke around, be themselves, etc and instead read a script, dotting every i and crossing every t i would stop listening to it. There are other podcasts that do that out there: i find them boring and stiff. I believe that is the opinion that you will find prevailing here." ->
yes, agin, I am wrong. I should not have criticised the needless joking around and the banter. Oh, actully, I haven't! Fruitbix (to stay with the breakfast/cereal theme). I love that part of the show.
"Stuff" is used to replace simple and useful words when the meaning is obvious or irrelevant. " ->
The only useful contribution from you. I think that the word is used when the meaning not irrelevant; and that maybe to oftten. But that is my opinion - oh, wait, it is my, ah, well, no, wait, what else could it be?
You are a strange character. You actually understood my clearly poorly worded attempt to engage a discussion about the precision of the delivery of content.
Glad to see that there is some thinking going on. And I do not say that because you seem to agree with me.
Appologies, but this has to be my last post. I will move on to something smarter (not necessarely a different forum, but might have to). Does anyone know if there is a Skeptics forum for intelligent people?