In his bio on his website, it says that he is considered some kind of "expert" on all things paranormal. It also says that he is doing consulting work for a show called "Proof" that is produced in Canada where they try to find proof of paranormal phenomena. I tried to do a search for that show and the closest thing I found was called "Proof Positive." It sounds like the same thing. I don't know how old that bio is so it may be outdated. It made me wonder, though, if Rob McConnell wasn't trying to set himself up as some kind of great "debunker" a la James Randi. That's just a feeling I get.

Ramon

Ramon-
This is keen insight. One wonders how a producer and talk show host wouldn't know they were on the air?

_________________
"First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear. I never explain anything." Mary Poppins

I have just listened to the first 35 minutes or so. He (the interviewer) must somehow have fallen into one of those spirals of argument/counterargument that tend to lead to contrarian thinking. The way I see it, if someone brought a NPMR rock to him, he would have still counterargued endlessly. If it were raining he would still probably say that there's no objective proof that that which is perceived is rain, etc. It looks like he got kind of caught in an endless loop of "I don't agree, prove it" sentences.

I know that being a forum member my opinion will always probably tend to be biased towards Tom's viewpoint, but I want to make clear that, in this case, I have good reasons to think that there is way more to my judgement than just personal preference. I am going to explain why: the interviewer beings showing the classical skepticism that many scientists would show towards psi-phenomena (nothing wrong with that, except the harsh confrontational tone with which he addresses Tom) but the funny thing is that, when Tom begins to explain the evidence that can be gathered from a scientists' point of view, he (the interviewer) makes a 180º turn and begins questioning science itself asking for evidence that shows that the science we take for granted is real. Pretty self contradictory. But, as if that wasn't enought, he reaches a new level when he goes on to doubt the concept of "logic" itself (which was paradoxically what he was trying to use!). That, to me, is enough to show that he couldn't care less about validation and truth, since he seemed much more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing.

On the other hand, even if the interviewer's manners were absolutely impolite, I'm sure some good things came out of the harsh questioning. For instance, Tom's explanations about the nature of knowledge and science were very interesting as far as I'm concerned, and in making himself understood, Tom explained things from different angles than usual.

Or Master deBater. Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Perhaps he thinks he can bring reality TV to radio as entertainment. That was my impression.

Tom as always... did great!

Kathy

At about 30 minutes in Rob is saying sure he hears that all the time about all the evidence Tom is giving, and then Rob asks, or demands perhaps, evidence for the evidence. This seems like a logical error, to me.

My computer froze last night while trying to look up a reference (open a new window) in a post I was making somewhere here, to Ted and Lena I believe. It froze in an endless loop on something Rob was saying, as soon as I get to it here I am sure it will pop out. I had missed much of the first half hearing it live.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Keith at MBTevents: "One wonders how a producer and talk show host wouldn't know they were on the air?"

I wonder this too. I went to the live site shortly before it started and they were already chatting about stuff "off air" over the commercials. I even commented in the little chat box that I could hear them so they would fix it. I guess they weren't paying it any attention because I did this several times during the course of the show or made comments that should have let them know we could hear. Last time Tom was on, Rob was obviously watching it because he commented back several times. Oh well. I liked the part before the show where he asked the producer if he wanted to hear a clip of his ex wife (or girlfriend. can't remember) and played a clip of a cow mooing. I hope she wasn't listening.

Perhaps Tom or Ted can generate an answer to this group of words I came up with in response to Rob's if MBT can't feed the starving mindset. Why knowing consciousness is a nonphysical digital information system doesn't mean one can change the VR lab for a huge group of IUOC at will. I think "one" is the operative word here.
A radio station of us talking about MBT could be seen as disingenuous by anyone apt to think that way. It would be like preaching to the choir, man (realizing I made a religious reference), religion is in there deep. Religion used to be the glue that held culture or society together, but now it seems to be the glue that holds minds closed to reality. I say this knowing this could be my belief system talking.

Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

how did Rob act during the first show? I haven't been able to get the first show to play on my computer for some reason, but I'm curious how Rob acted during that one.

I listened to the rest of the interview but it seems like from the minute 40 onwards there is no content. All the guy does is interrupting Tom constantly with advertisements on and on. I don't know what the guy's problem is but he was absolutely disrespectful. The funny thing is that he looks absolutely convinced that his horrible behaviour is part of a "quest for knowledge" or something like that!

You can listen to the show here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE8BtBhvgIg
There are 8 parts.

That radio interview was much more productive the this one.

Thank you, Peter, for a link.

I've finished listening to an interview. This interview was a good lesson to me, and I am glad that I was patient and listened it all.

1 I could see how someone's ego is getting bigger and bigger and finally is nothing left, but an ego. It was so obvious to me, but not to an interviewer. You can control your behavior, as your mother taught you, but you cannot control your ego when fear is raising up, and your ego makes you to become defensive. It is fighting back to maintain its barriers staying still and do not let them be collapsed. Do I have this problem? Yes, I do. I have loughed a couple times, because everything in his behavior was so familiar.

2 If I were a man I would take my hat off and bow my head to Tom. It was unbelievable how calm, polite and undisturbed he was. I silently applaud to him, since my husband is already gone to bed, and I don't want to wake him up. It is true that a balance is always present in a nature. On one side was an inflated ego, and on another was no ego. My lesson here - it is a long way to go for me.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

So is it safe to say that Tom won't be doing anymore interviews with Rob? ;)

I was thinking that maybe Rob was a closet skeptic, but I went through all of his guest lists and he's had a ton of new age people on his show with some really bizarre topics.
There must have been something about Tom's theory rubbed Rob the wrong way. Nonetheless, it doesn't give him an excuse to be classless and rude...


Rob obviously didn't read Tom's book either. I think that's a given.