Screening doesn't mean that calls are rejected necessarily. We can screen 100% of callers and let 100% through, and usually do. An exception to this would be a caller calling a second time in a show.
Sounds like I swapped "screen" and "select" around, then.
DOI ? Maybe you made that mistake because those two words are synonymous with each other. That makes your idiot's swipe at me by playing a child's semantics game about whether calls are "selected" or "screened" look just a wee bit childish and foolish, huh?
"
Ummmm, Duh, Ian clearly said they don't Select callers they Screen them, DUUUUUH, wait a second, I mean they said they don't
Screen callers, they
Select them!. Ya that's it. BUT, Anybody can call in and talk about what ever they want-honest!"
If you don't screen calls, how do you know who has called before?
Umm, because he's talked to them? Just a wild guess. Gene has been on the show many, many, many times.
By the way, screening means that some calls are rejected. Selecting means that some calls are preferred and hence put on the air more quickly. FTL has had a stated preference for female callers, for example, for as long as I can remember.
Screening doesn't mean that calls are rejected necessarily. We can screen 100% of callers and let 100% through, and usually do. An exception to this would be a caller calling a second time in a show.
[/size]
Ahh, now I get it. You don't "necessarily reject calls", you tell them that they will get on, and kindly ask them if they could they please hold until it is their turn. Then you put their ass on the back of the call list and let 'em rot for a couple of fucking hours till the show ends, or they get disgusted and hang up, whichever comes first. So you have a way of not only selecting who gets to talk, you have a clever way of giving those you don't want on a little jab as well.
COOL! NOT! That is just being a punk about selecting who gets to talk. It is also an insult to me by assuming that I can't understand this. The little semantics games you and your followers are playing shows a lack of basic etiquette, otherwise known as respect for others.
You made contradictory statements that meant that at least one of them was a lie. Instead of accepting this and apologizing (the proper thing to do), you chose to deny that there had been anything wrong with these statements and engaged in a childish semantics game. You say you are a Voluntayrist, based on everyone just following a basic societal etiquette, yet you fail at following basic manners constantly, and just smirk and tell yourself that your view is right and that your Pollyanish ideas about how Voluntaryism would work are perfect. If you are not letting certain people and therefore viewpoints on, man up (otherwise known as being courteous) and tell them and your listeners instead of saying otherwise, thus treating these callers and your listeners as fools.
The part about only wanting new callers is in itself a tool for giving you more power to espouse your side of things and make diverging views look wrong or stupid. New callers are generally timid and uncomfortable, and not used to framing their opinions quickly and succinctly , especially in case an asshole host cuts him off or talks over him. It makes it easy to badger and bully people like the "FreeKeenersSUCK" guy, who was obviously real nervous about being on."Seee! People opposed to the childish antics of FreeKeners are ALL idiots!!". Suuuuuure.
People who call radio shows often understand the games played by hosts, and are able to make their points anyways and you don't want anybody that disagrees with your pet interests to even be heard-"Back to the end of the cal-line- Har Har!". This is why you don't let them back on. Unless of course they are easy to bash around (idiots) or just nutjobs that you use for filler/wallpaper (canadian mental inst. guy).
This behavior is similar to the way you handled violating L. Neil Smith,s property rights. You guys plagarized (sp?) someones work, meaning that you violated his property rights. This is a fact. Hardly Voluntaryist behavior, but also not the end of the world. You had choices to make as to how yo handle this. The proper (Voluntaryist) thing to do would have been to say:
"We are sincerely sorry for using your property without asking. We acknowledge our mistake and offer you our kindest apology for this behavior.We will discontinue using your material until such time as you declare it is permissible for us to do so. If you feel that we have damaged you in any way, we offer anything within our means to amend your grievance. We are obviously impressed with your writings, and would like to negotiate with you to use portions of them . Please forgive our blatant disregard for your personal intellectual property and accept our sincerest apology."
However, when L Neil announced his displeasure at you having used his material without permission the response was to issue him a "Slapology", an insult wrapped in an apology. First, you say
"We are real sorry for using your intellectual property without asking Blah Blah(Giving lip service to an apology)"
BUT since we are self righteous pricks we will just keep doing it anyways and declare that we are right to do so-(Fuck You). The first part is to save face, and the second part is an insult. This type of behavior is partially why Anarchy or "Voluntaryism" will not work in the real world. Some People Suck and will do whatever they want, regardless of what proper behavior or etiquette is.
This is why "Voluntaryism" is noting but a Pollyanish fantasy.
"La La Laa La, I am a Voulntaryist! I believe everyone in the world is nice and will do the "right thing" always! La La Laa La ...."
There has to be an official framework of laws dictating basic behavior and respect for others,and a method for ensuring that they are followed, exactly like the original Constitution of The United States of America.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: Critique on call-handling (Read 14903 times)