Ryan Tubridy - Radio Shows Thread

Wertz

It doesn't make sense, Fanning has to be 50 or more by now, but yet he manages to come across as being much younger, has more appeal, a broad taste in music (I recall seeing him running from tent to tent in a muddy field in Stradbally the other year) and an energy that engages the listener. His topics can be a bit same-y at times, but it's forgivable IMO.

On the other hand Tubridy, barely older than myself comes across as the 50-something, in terms of his outward attitude, his choice of topics and his overall tone...he's much more suited to the "flagship station" although I didn't listen to him on there either.
I'm sorry that if to some I come across as a "hater"...I mean the man no ill will, but he's simply not a good host (please don't quote me BBC R2 listening figures; he was a novelty act standing in for another popular Irish host once a week) and I can think of no-one within my peer group who actively seek out his radio show (where they would have for G Ryan)...

Generally agree about lack of anything at that time slot on the domestic airwaves (Darcy? Murray?)...I'm fortunate that the local station's politics show makes for some good listening in it's first hour before I stick on Kenny.

Ash.J.Williams

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Is it still heretical to ask if the late Mr Ryan's programme was wholesome, elevating, ennobling broadcasting?

In my, admittedly rather limited, experience of Mr Tubridy's broadcasting, the tone seems somewhat more cultivated, the content somewhat more substantial.

Are we to be led to accept that popularity is a good in itself? If Mr Tubridy has succeeded in purging a programme of an aura of unappealing tawdriness, should we not welcome the fact that RTE is no longer the provisioner of those with objectively base tastes?

I can remember overhearing stretches of the late Mr Ryan's programme that caused blushes to arise on the faces of hardened men, particularly if ladies were in the company. Nobody should have to endure such embarrassment from a pop radio station in daylight hours, where children, women and persons of a delicate disposition might come within earshot. With Mr Tubridy, no affront to taste is committed, and for that the TV taxpayer is truly thankful.

We have with him broadcasting imbued with higher ideals, broadcasting calculated to inform, educate and entertain the listener, but not to cause shame, or degradation. Nowhere is it stated that 2FM must be the lowest common denominator, that it must chase the largest audience without concern for decorum. It is our national broadcaster, not the Folie Bergeres and not a pier-end peep-show on the radio.



Hugo Brady Brown

Hugo,

In my, admittedly rather limited, experience of Mr Tubridy's broadcasting, the tone seems somewhat more cultivated, the content somewhat more substantial.

The lowering of the media lowest common denominator over the last decade is not something that appeals to me. I would rather switch on the tv/radio every day and learn something rather than get lured into the meaningless crap that we have been subjected to over the last few years.
It is my opinion that Ryan Tubridy does not add anything of intellectual worth to either of his shows. Is he capable of it? I think so. It is my opinion that RTE championed him as the new top dog many years ago, thus creating a mindset in ryans head leaving him complacent. His radio show at it's worst was 2 hours of youtubing kids shows from the 70's/80's, silly voices, tubridys own humour, and ticks eg madmen etc...
It also my opinion that when dave fanning stands in, my faith is restored..the "tone seems somewhat more cultivated".
As for the late late show, it's instilled in peoples heads that tubs is an intellect, yet his interviewing technique cannot be anything more than a quick "google", occasionally he picks the wrong person to use this lowest common denominator technique (usually a foreigner) and they roast him. His reaction? He would then normally assume it's the guests fault..(he's still harping on about juliet binoche)

So i've lost the plot on my point now....

A dropping of intellectual standards to accomodate mindless media drivel is a bad thing, however so far Tubs has been part of the problem and not a solution..

miketv

Wertz wrote: »

Refreshing to hear Fanning on this morning... just happened to flick on to it and actually stayed listening for nearly 40 min. Some people find the man's rapidfire diction annoying but at least he's not that other bore, who becomes unberable in mere minutes...

Damm I did not know he was on, was it a one off or is he on next week?

HugoBradyBrown

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Hugo,


The lowering of the media lowest common denominator over the last decade is not something that appeals to me. I would rather switch on the tv/radio every day and learn something rather than get lured into the meaningless crap that we have been subjected to over the last few years.
It is my opinion that Ryan Tubridy does not add anything of intellectual worth to either of his shows. Is he capable of it? I think so. It is my opinion that RTE championed him as the new top dog many years ago, thus creating a mindset in ryans head leaving him complacent. His radio show at it's worst was 2 hours of youtubing kids shows from the 70's/80's, silly voices, tubridys own humour, and ticks eg madmen etc...
It also my opinion that when dave fanning stands in, my faith is restored..the "tone seems somewhat more cultivated".
As for the late late show, it's instilled in peoples heads that tubs is an intellect, yet his interviewing technique cannot be anything more than a quick "google", occasionally he picks the wrong person to use this lowest common denominator technique (usually a foreigner) and they roast him. His reaction? He would then normally assume it's the guests fault..(he's still harping on about juliet binoche)

So i've lost the plot on my point now....

A dropping of intellectual standards to accomodate mindless media drivel is a bad thing, however so far Tubs has been part of the problem and not a solution..

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, but my principal point was that the tide had gone out in terms of morals and taste under a previous incumbent, to the extent that no child could be allowed to be within earshot of a radio tuned to 2FM at a particular time. This has been rectified and nothing offensive is broadcast any longer, and the tone has improved markedly. There has been slippage in the audience figures, because of this reversion to something more wholesome. However, I remain convinced that people will respond to quality, over the long run.

I might also observe that Mr Tubridy is a considerable intellectual, as could be seen from his Bookclub segments in earlier broadcasting work, when he was on top of his game and was able to shine the laser light of his corrosive intelligence onto, sometimes, frankly mediocre literary work. Indeed, he has since then also begun with a bang a viable avocation as a popular historian, in the same mould as the amusing David Starkey and similar figures, who moved from a career in broadcasting into one in writing and scholarship.

QED.



Hugo Brady Brown

irishh_bob

Wertz wrote: »

It doesn't make sense, Fanning has to be 50 or more by now, but yet he manages to come across as being much younger, has more appeal, a broad taste in music (I recall seeing him running from tent to tent in a muddy field in Stradbally the other year) and an energy that engages the listener. His topics can be a bit same-y at times, but it's forgivable IMO.

On the other hand Tubridy, barely older than myself comes across as the 50-something, in terms of his outward attitude, his choice of topics and his overall tone...he's much more suited to the "flagship station" although I didn't listen to him on there either.
I'm sorry that if to some I come across as a "hater"...I mean the man no ill will, but he's simply not a good host (please don't quote me BBC R2 listening figures; he was a novelty act standing in for another popular Irish host once a week) and I can think of no-one within my peer group who actively seek out his radio show (where they would have for G Ryan)...

Generally agree about lack of anything at that time slot on the domestic airwaves (Darcy? Murray?)...I'm fortunate that the local station's politics show makes for some good listening in it's first hour before I stick on Kenny.

your not going to believe this but dave fanning is closer to 60 than 50 , hes the peter pan of irish radio and music journalism , always liked dave although less so as i got older , i sometimes get the impression he lives in his own little world made entirely of music and movies and nothing else exists

withless

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Indeed, he has since then also begun with a bang a viable avocation as a popular historian, in the same mould as the amusing David Starkey and similar figures, who moved from a career in broadcasting into one in writing and scholarship.

QED.



Hugo Brady Brown

This can only be read as a joke about Tubs.

HugoBradyBrown

withless wrote: »

This can only be read as a joke about Tubs.

Or not.

Hugo Brady Brown

Ash.J.Williams

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, but my principal point was that the tide had gone out in terms of morals and taste under a previous incumbent, to the extent that no child could be allowed to be within earshot of a radio tuned to 2FM at a particular time. This has been rectified and nothing offensive is broadcast any longer, and the tone has improved markedly. There has been slippage in the audience figures, because of this reversion to something more wholesome. However, I remain convinced that people will respond to quality, over the long run.

I might also observe that Mr Tubridy is a considerable intellectual, as could be seen from his Bookclub segments in earlier broadcasting work, when he was on top of his game and was able to shine the laser light of his corrosive intelligence onto, sometimes, frankly mediocre literary work. Indeed, he has since then also begun with a bang a viable avocation as a popular historian, in the same mould as the amusing David Starkey and similar figures, who moved from a career in broadcasting into one in writing and scholarship.

QED.



Hugo Brady Brown

I think the fact that they have chosen to go down the route of entertaining mothers and children was an accident ....

easychair

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Hugo,


The...crap that we have been subjected to over the last few years.

Surely that should read "The...crap that I have willingly subjected myself to over the last few years"

No one has tied you down and forced you to be subjected to anything. You choose, we all choose, what we want ourselves to be subjected to.

Ash.J.Williams

easychair wrote: »

Surely that should read "The...crap that I have willingly subjected myself to over the last few years"

No one has tied you down and forced you to be subjected to anything. You choose, we all choose, what we want ourselves to be subjected to.

i actually don't anymore...

in fact i shouldn't even be here anymore...i guess what you have responded to, is to paraphrase Michael mcdowell's (or whatever his name is) reaction ot gang crime in Dubln years ago...."the sting of a dying wasp..."

easychair

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, but my principal point was that the tide had gone out in terms of morals and taste under a previous incumbent,

Curiously, the previous incumbent achieved much higher ratings. While he may have not been to your taste, or that you didn't like his moral position on some issues, I'd hesitate to venture that he was not broadcasting to your demographic. Perhaps your personal and individual tastes are not the best way of deciding who gets to broadcast, and who is excluded from broadcasting.

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

I might also observe that Mr Tubridy is a considerable intellectual, as could be seen from his Bookclub segments in earlier broadcasting work, when he was on top of his game and was able to shine the laser light of his corrosive intelligence onto, sometimes, frankly mediocre literary work. Indeed, he has since then also begun with a bang a viable avocation as a popular historian, in the same mould as the amusing David Starkey and similar figures, who moved from a career in broadcasting into one in writing and scholarship.

If only intellectual ability was the qualification needed to be a good broadcaster, maybe Ryan Tubridy might well be the best broadcaster in Ireland. Unfortunately, it's not.

Imhof Tank

Sorry but where is this "intellectual ability" propaganda coming from?

He is more of an anti intellectual - reviewing airport novels for his book of the month club etc

withless

Exactly. Tubridy is from the old school. Talking down to the liddle people but without anything to back it up. His 'talents' belong to what should be a bygone age but RTE and certain other people see a value in it. He is a propped up 'star'.

HugoBradyBrown

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Sorry but where is this "intellectual ability" propaganda coming from?

He is more of an anti intellectual - reviewing airport novels for his book of the month club etc

Clearly intellectual ability does not require the substrate on which it acts to be of the same kidney as the holder of the intelligence. For example, serious academic 'research' has been done in the 'communications' field on such empty material as television soap operas, or reality television, or other such vacuous programming, without undermining the intellectual credibility of the scholars involved. Mr Tubridy's fine mind is evident in the manner in which he is, as it were, capable of lowering himself to consider such material as 'chick lit.', pulp fiction or undemanding fiction like Cecilia Ahern's oeuvre, Marian Keyes' work or the novels of John Grisham, John Banville or Colm Tóibín.

There have been similar cat-calls against Gay in the past, suggesting that, because he could talk with intelligence to everyone, and on every subject, that he was not an intellectual. He is frequently called the harbinger and facilitator of the 20th century in Ireland. I think that Gay's influence on Ireland has been greater than that of any of our formally qualified philosophers, and his books, journalism and occasional writings demonstrate a writerly capacity far ahead of many another writer who might imagine himself or herself to be a profound thinker. And this is not even to take account of people posting material on the internet.

An anti-intellectual, in my view, would be someone like Joseph Goebbels: someone who had the diploma, but who subverted and prostituted his intellectual ability, by castigating the life of the mind, and treacherously driving taste, standards and morals downward. Now certain other radio stations might be termed anti-intellectual, in that sense, (though, of course, none in Ireland do so to anything like the same degree as the depraved Goebbels; American 'shock jock' radio might be a closer approach to this deplorable and uncivilized end-state).


Hugo Brady Brown

jimmynokia

[IMG][/IMG]

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Clearly intellectual ability does not require the substrate on which it acts to be of the same kidney as the holder of the intelligence. For example, serious academic 'research' has been done in the 'communications' field on such empty material as television soap operas, or reality television, or other such vacuous programming, without undermining the intellectual credibility of the scholars involved. Mr Tubridy's fine mind is evident in the manner in which he is, as it were, capable of lowering himself to consider such material as 'chick lit.', pulp fiction or undemanding fiction like Cecilia Ahern's oeuvre, Marian Keyes' work or the novels of John Grisham, John Banville or Colm Tóibín.

There have been similar cat-calls against Gay in the past, suggesting that, because he could talk with intelligence to everyone, and on every subject, that he was not an intellectual. He is frequently called the harbinger and facilitator of the 20th century in Ireland. I think that Gay's influence on Ireland has been greater than that of any of our formally qualified philosophers, and his books, journalism and occasional writings demonstrate a writerly capacity far ahead of many another writer who might imagine himself or herself to be a profound thinker. And this is not even to take account of people posting material on the internet.

An anti-intellectual, in my view, would be someone like Joseph Goebbels: someone who had the diploma, but who subverted and prostituted his intellectual ability, by castigating the life of the mind, and treacherously driving taste, standards and morals downward. Now certain other radio stations might be termed anti-intellectual, in that sense, (though, of course, none in Ireland do so to anything like the same degree as the depraved Goebbels; American 'shock jock' radio might be a closer approach to this deplorable and uncivilized end-state).


Hugo Brady Brown

jimmyw

Hugo you sure do give comprehensive replies to your posts thats for sure.;).

As for tubs, well the bottom line for me anyway, I think he is not suitable for 2FM, but I don't like Dave Fanning either. Actually I don't listen to radio in the mornings unless I have to work on a ride-on mower which I have to have my radio on and my iPod (not at the same time) to relieve the boredom.But normally who ever is on I wouldn't be listening to, so it wouldn't really matter too much to me.

easychair

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Clearly intellectual ability does not require the substrate on which it acts to be of the same kidney as the holder of the intelligence. For example, serious academic 'research' has been done in the 'communications' field on such empty material as television soap operas, or reality television, or other such vacuous programming, without undermining the intellectual credibility of the scholars involved. Mr Tubridy's fine mind is evident in the manner in which he is, as it were, capable of lowering himself to consider such material as 'chick lit.', pulp fiction or undemanding fiction like Cecilia Ahern's oeuvre, Marian Keyes' work or the novels of John Grisham, John Banville or Colm Tóibín.

There have been similar cat-calls against Gay in the past, suggesting that, because he could talk with intelligence to everyone, and on every subject, that he was not an intellectual. He is frequently called the harbinger and facilitator of the 20th century in Ireland. I think that Gay's influence on Ireland has been greater than that of any of our formally qualified philosophers, and his books, journalism and occasional writings demonstrate a writerly capacity far ahead of many another writer who might imagine himself or herself to be a profound thinker. And this is not even to take account of people posting material on the internet.

An anti-intellectual, in my view, would be someone like Joseph Goebbels: someone who had the diploma, but who subverted and prostituted his intellectual ability, by castigating the life of the mind, and treacherously driving taste, standards and morals downward. Now certain other radio stations might be termed anti-intellectual, in that sense, (though, of course, none in Ireland do so to anything like the same degree as the depraved Goebbels; American 'shock jock' radio might be a closer approach to this deplorable and uncivilized end-state).


Hugo Brady Brown

I've read this post and have to say I have no idea what it has to do with this thread, or what Gay Mitchell has to do with anything to do with this thread.

littlefriend

easychair wrote: »

I've read this post and have to say I have no idea what it has to do with this thread, or what Gay Mitchell has to do with anything to do with this thread.

I thought he was referring to Gay Byrne. Still don't really know what he is saying though

easychair

littlefriend wrote: »

I thought he was referring to Gay Byrne. Still don't really know what he is saying though

Really? I had assumed it must have been Gay Mitchell, who was much in the news of late.

Why would someone refer to Gays Byrne or Mitchell simply as "Gay" in this sort of forum, and assume everyone would know who it was they are referring to?

mikom

easychair wrote: »

Really? I had assumed it must have been Gay Mitchell, who was much in the news of late.

Why would someone refer to Gays Byrne or Mitchell simply as "Gay" in this sort of forum, and assume everyone would know who it was they are referring to?

Control Panel · Arts > Radio > Ryan Tubridy - Radio Shows Meg...

Which one used to be a radio presenter of note?

HugoBradyBrown

mikom wrote: »

Control Panel · Arts > Radio > Ryan Tubridy - Radio Shows Meg...

Which one used to be a radio presenter of note?

Yes, indeed, thank you. And not just 'used to be', but still is, on RTE Lyric FM, where tens of thousands of listeners have only this afternoon enjoyed his music and chat (and a good proportion of the audience phoned and emailed in, including a plethora of women giving Gay the famous recipe for his Tea Brack that he gave out 30 years ago on the GB Show, which had gone astray since then. Al, Gay's producer, is going to put it on the website tomorrow, for anyone interested. It seems the recipe has gone far and wide, including this week to a a family and a hotel in a hill town 2 000 metres above the city of Florence. Gay wondered if he was going to be remembered finally, not for his fine broadcasting work, but for issuing to the women of Ireland the most popular Tea Brack receipt ever created by the mind of man!)

Gay also commented on the exorbitant salary that is being reported as being paid to Mr Dunphy by a radio-station proprietor: Euro 100 000 for a 2-hour show for only 40 weeks. Gay commented that he would be over to that station like greased lightning, if such a lucrative offer were made to him.

And he also regaled us with tales of his own work in 1959 as a producer for Sponsored Programmes on RE, for, I think he said, Wilson's Advertising Agency, over in the old Portobello Studios, and in the old Phoenix Hall. At that time he was, as he called it, 'disk-jockeying' for the on-air talent on 10 to 12 programmes a week. (I'm not sure if he produced Bonnie O'Reilly, one of the true greats of that era of broadcasting on RE.)

So, for "Gay", read "Gay Byrne", not "Gay Mitchell", whose on-air presence is so different in style. The former is Gay of the GB Show and of the Late Show, as well as of the Rose, Housewife of the Year and a myriad of other fine productions down through the eyars. Now appearing on RTE Lyric FM on Sunday afternoons at 2 pm with his lovely, lovely programme. (He was joshing that they cannot allow the listenership to go above 1 000, as this would cause the old valves in the transmitter to melt, so they keep an eye on how many are listening! Risk it, readers!)



Hugo Brady Brown

HugoBradyBrown

jimmynokia wrote: »

[IMG][/IMG]

I sometimes think that, rather than resorting to such inarticulacy as posting a crude image with an offensive caption, a person might consider reading a second time what they failed to understand the first. A dictionary will be of some comfort, if the reader stumbles across for the first time lexical items whose meaning cannot be inferred from the context. Everyone then benefits: the reader with difficulties enlarges her or his passive vocabulary and comprehension, and the general readership is spared uncalled-for coarseness of expression on the thread. I believe businessmen call this a 'win-win situation' and I commend it to readers in difficulty.


Hugo Brady Brown

mikom

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

A dictionary will be of some comfort, if the reader stumbles across for the first time lexical items whose meaning cannot be inferred from the context.

Irony meltdown.

jimmynokia

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

I sometimes think that, rather than resorting to such inarticulacy as posting a crude image with an offensive caption, a person might consider reading a second time what they failed to understand the first. A dictionary will be of some comfort, if the reader stumbles across for the first time lexical items whose meaning cannot be inferred from the context. Everyone then benefits: the reader with difficulties enlarges her or his passive vocabulary and comprehension, and the general readership is spared uncalled-for coarseness of expression on the thread. I believe businessmen call this a 'win-win situation' and I commend it to readers in difficulty.


Hugo Brady Brown

( a crude image with an offensive caption)


can you explain whats so crude and whats the offensive caption i think the image could not be more precise with the jargon your talking.

HugoBradyBrown

jimmynokia wrote: »

( a crude image with an offensive caption)


can you explain whats so crude and whats the offensive caption i think the image could not be more precise with the jargon your talking.

I am perplexed and, indeed, considerably perturbed at the cognitive issues that are now being made patent. Not a particle of what I have written could be characterized by a reasonable person as 'jargon': carefully selected and precise language yielding limpid prose, perhaps, but not 'jargon', by any stretch of the imagination.

If it might assist in coming to a mature understanding of how to conduct a debate, I would advise that crudeness and offensiveness of expression on terms dictated by the writer are not tolerable in civil discourse. Such crudeness as we have read here recently is on its face self-evidently grossly coarse and an affront to any respectable reader. Objective standards of taste must apply universally in public debate; gross, vulgar, aggressive and scatological language, acronyms and images must at all times be shunned, both by adults and by any juveniles participating in adult conversations and debates.



Hugo Brady Brown

Almaviva

Dear Hugo,

May I be so bold at this juncture, to suggest, in the most gentle manner possible, and with only a sincere desire to elucidate a little, and encourage a rapprochement to discussions here, that the responses above to which you take alarm, are entirely consistent with the acceptable local argot of contemporary online bulletin boards, and even, may I propose, if you take a slight step back and examine them again with an open mind, have a certain elegance, precision, and even a fraction of humour, and that you might consider, rather than criticising the colour of the responses to some of your own postings, that it might be your own manner of expression that is the one running counter to the prevailing one on this and other threads, whether that conforms to your own views on the appropriate writing skills for online discussion boards or not, and would be to the benefit of your expression of your own arguments if you could make a small effort to adapt your style to it rather than expect the reverse.


May I nudge you in the direction of the following image as an appropriate response to this one:



Try it. And win your audience.

Yours,

Almaviva.

lempsipmax

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

jimmynokia wrote: »

( a crude image with an offensive caption)


can you explain whats so crude and whats the offensive caption i think the image could not be more precise with the jargon your talking.

I am perplexed and, indeed, considerably perturbed at the cognitive issues that are now being made patent. Not a particle of what I have written could be characterized by a reasonable person as 'jargon': carefully selected and precise language yielding limpid prose, perhaps, but not 'jargon', by any stretch of the imagination.

If it might assist in coming to a mature understanding of how to conduct a debate, I would advise that crudeness and offensiveness of expression on terms dictated by the writer are not tolerable in civil discourse. Such crudeness as we have read here recently is on its face self-evidently grossly coarse and an affront to any respectable reader. Objective standards of taste must apply universally in public debate; gross, vulgar, aggressive and scatological language, acronyms and images must at all times be shunned, both by adults and by any juveniles participating in adult conversations and debates.



Hugo Brady Brown

Hugo you are ballet dancing at the disco.

mikom

Mood music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_8KR-n2fBQ

HugoBradyBrown

Almaviva wrote: »

Dear Hugo,

May I be so bold at this juncture, to suggest, in the most gentle manner possible, and with only a sincere desire to elucidate a little, and encourage a rapprochement to discussions here, that the responses above to which you take alarm, are entirely consistent with the acceptable local argot of contemporary online bulletin boards, and even, may I propose, if you take a slight step back and examine them again with an open mind, have a certain elegance, precision, and even a fraction of humour, and that you might consider, rather than criticising the colour of the responses to some of your own postings, that it might be your own manner of expression that is the one running counter to the prevailing one on this and other threads, whether that conforms to your own views on the appropriate writing skills for online discussion boards or not, and would be to the benefit of your expression of your own arguments if you could make a small effort to adapt your style to it rather than expect the reverse.


May I nudge you in the direction of the following image as an appropriate response to this one:



Try it. And win your audience.

Yours,

Almaviva.

My dear Almaviva,

I appreciate the evident good intentions with which you have set out your suggestion to me to indulge in a debasement of the nature of my engagement here, as I strive to shine a light in the darkness. However, I recall the line 'Coltivando l'orgoglio di questo mentecatto', once said by someone, somewhere.

I myself tend, in my private capacity, to agree with Virgil: facilis descensus Averno. I am, I am afraid, not prepared to be so degraded as to sink into such a fetid sink of scornful abuse, expressed in a sub-Clockwork Orange variant of the language.

However, I am, as I indicated, almost incontinently grateful to you for taking such pains to hint at how I might find favour with those who see fit to indulge themselves without restraint in a manner that suggests that they may have come through their secondary schools untouched by the merest taint of education, while eluding all efforts to inculcate in them the habits of civilized behaviour.

Brevity, yes, but not vulgar, unthinking calumny. I believe that appeasement of vacuous bullies must always be resisted, since it is the cowardly line of least resistance.


I remain, Sir, yours faithfully,



Hugo Brady Brown

HugoBradyBrown

lempsipmax wrote: »

Hugo you are ballet dancing at the disco.

Thank you lemsipmax, but I would argue that, au contraire, what I am doing is raising the tone to a civilized plane of debate, and inducing others to raise their game in parallel.

However, thank you for the mild rebuke, and its rather witty expression.


Hugo Brady Brown