The IMing is Luke. He’s talked about the IMs he’s received in other episodes. I imagine the typing is him, as well. You aren’t wrong about his seeming lack of interest in the discussion at large. I really like him, he’s just got a great radio voice, but he doesn’t seem like the type to get too enthusiastic about much.
If it makes you feel any better Steve, toward the end of the third episode he gets into a conversation about how much sex he gets.
Here in one corner, we have a word referring to a discussion, and here in another, a word referring to a group of individuals as enlightened and inspiring to others.
I’m not quite sure how you equate those two, aside from the fact that both are multi-syllabic.
As for the typing, it gets better. Shawn made a note of it and passed the message along to the other OOTGers.
Dean
1583
Not nearly as good as Chuck Norris.
Adree posts have jumped the shark.
I wasn’t trying to equate the word symposium with the word luminary. Is that really what you got from my post? I capitalized symposium only because it’s somewhat of a pretentious word to use and because Elliott apparently felt the same way about the word luminary.
What I was trying to say (and what I think I pretty clearly said) is that Elliott’s symposium and Perry’s lunch are extremely similar in that they’re discussions between titans in the field (so to speak) that others are free to observe, but not participate in. I can’t understand why Elliott had such an apparent problem with what Perry did and couldn’t himself fathom why anyone would want to observe or report on such a discussion when he himself conducted something very similar.
That must be all he got from your post, since he quoted all six paragraphs to make his three sentence response.
I quoted the post I was responding to. Next time, I’ll hash out a novel of a reply to satisfy your yearning for verbosity.
Moving along…
It’s been a couple of weeks (I believe) since I listened to that particular episode. I thought Elliot’s “problems” with the event stemmed from the silliness of the tag “luminary” rather than the content itself. I’ll go back and give it another listen.
I can see a bit of a difference between the two. The Symposium sounded innocent enough to me, even when folks made fun of roughly the same thing …
But with ‘Lunch with Luminaries’ as the name, and then the invitation of journalists to sit and watch but not speak strikes another strange cord - but I don’t know anything about the event beyond what they’d discussed on the show.
Perhaps he just went on a bit too long about it.
Speaking of absent, someone on the podcast thinks so little of it that his constant typing can be heard behind other people’s talking. Not only annoying for the listener, but very rude to whoever is speaking. Also, there’s a portion where one of the hosts is talking (it might’ve been N’Gai) and you can hear instant messaging sounds clanging over what he’s trying to say. Again, fundamental disrespect for one’s fellow podcaster.
Be aware that some of that was us typing to each other, and sending each other relevant links, over Skype. It was a way of trying to communicate “off mike”, which we used to do by passing each other notes. We’re aware of the clacking key noises though, and tried not to do it as much this last time. I don’t think anyone was actually IM’ing w/other friends or whatever during the podcast. :) I think!
Or maybe just quote the portions you’re responding to instead of the whole thing.
You’re always so understanding zen.
It just blew my mind that Elliott was so incredulous about anyone wanting to attend or read a story about Perry’s lunch. It was certainly more than him having a problem with the use of the term luminary. It seems to me a modicum of self examination on his part would’ve clued him in that he’d organized a very similar sort of discussion, via email and posted on his personal blog no less. Perhaps I’m just a simpleton, but the differences between what Perry did and what Elliott did are so slight as to be negligible and it seems impossible for one individual to both think no one would care about one while at the same time organzing the other.
Indeed, I’d argue that, of the two discussions, the luminaries discussion would be the more interesting as it involved people that had made legitimate video game hits. Elliott’s discussion, on the other hand, involved people that report on those hits. I’m not saying Elliott’s symposium was not interesting or that it was worthless, but it’s just bizarre to me that he’d imply the same about Perry’s.
I think you got my point backwards, Pokey.
Nope. I understood it, and I’m looking forward to more pissy-pants posting from you in retort.
If you don’t want to bother yourselves reading, move the fuck on and save yourselves the extra 30 seconds. If you were reading, it’d be apparent which portion I was referring to.
I can dig that. Glass houses and Rock-It Launchers and all that.
Elliott has interesting enough discussions that he really shouldn’t need to bag on anyone else’s game. It’s that griefer nature. The internet facilitates it.
I think I’ll go look it up now and see if anything interesting came of it.
Do you know if other podcasts over Skype use that format? Do you message over AIM like raising your hand for your turn to talk? Or is it more informal than that?
It’s more informal than that.
But we have occasionally typed “Next!” so that we don’t step on each other. It’s hard not to, though.
Woah! Take it easy man. I was trying to pass along some board etiquette in a nice way. No reason to fly off the handle. Is this how you conduct yourself in front of students?
Yes.
I apologize for my pissy pants posting.
I do loathe being narratively alliterative.
That’s a great idea.
Bruce would never agree to it. And my keyboard is super loud.
Troy
Cubit
1598
haha, bruce really is a curmudgeon.
I don’t think I’ve ever listened to a podcast … for anything. Am I missing something?
Peter
Couldn’t you do the same thing with smiley icons or buzzes and a mouse click instead of typing? It really does make too much sense not to, for remote podcasts.
