And that's not because any show is inherently better simply because Pete is on it. It is because any show is better when more viewpoints are represented. Sure, more viewpoints are better. But one shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that any particular show has to have a certain member on it in order for it to be a good show. There are times when Pete is in the room, but Julie or JeniLyn are not, and I think to myself: "Gee. I'd love to hear what Julie or JL have to say about this topic." And there are times when one or more of Pete, John and/or Kevin are not in the room and I wonder what they would have to say. But it simply isn't possible to have all the podcast crew members in the room on every show. This is why introductions at the beginning of the show are so valuable. If you don't like that day's lineup, turn it off! (That is not directed to you, Tonyz. It is simply a generic statement that applies to all listeners.)I said that it would have been a better conversation if Pete was there, and I'll stick with that.
I think you're missing the point pete made about him not being the MVP and that its about every team member of the show?Pete- you are the real MVP!
I think you're missing the point pete made about him not being the MVP and that its about every team member of the show?
And nor am I, it's maybe just not the best use of the term specific to the situation based only on the fact that it's the opposite of the message he was trying to get across.No, not at all actually. I'm not looking for an argument. But, it's a common term used these days for when someone does something above and beyond. For example, staying late at work or finding something someone is looking for or standing up for someone when they are being picked on. He stood up for his team and basically told the haters to go away.
No, not at all actually. I'm not looking for an argument. But, it's a common term used these days for when someone does something above and beyond. For example, staying late at work or finding something someone is looking for or standing up for someone when they are being picked on. He stood up for his team and basically told the haters to go away.
I saw some comments on the podcast feedback thread, but I have a feeling a lot of them could've come from emails and voice messages directly to the show.Does anyone have a link to the negative posts that Pete mentioned? I am curious as to what the posts are that lead to Pete having to make this statement..
I applaud Pete for standing up for his team and reminding the audience that all hosts should be respected regardless of their personal opinions. I watched the show in question with the controversial topics and even though I did not agree with some of the hosts on the topics discussed I certainly respect their opinions. Does anyone have a link to the negative posts that Pete mentioned? I am curious as to what the posts are that lead to Pete having to make this statement..
I think this is the sort of statement you should re-word. For you Pete is the best part of the podcast, and that's OK. However not everyone agrees with that.
So what you meant to say was "For me, Pete's the best part of the podcast." If you say that then you'll avoid most arguments.
I personally love hearing the opinions of JL and I enjoy the episodes she's featured in.
I don't have to re-word anything... because if you read the whole statement, I said "IMO". Which means... wait for it... in MY opinion. But thanks for the advice.