dulpit wrote: » Did anyone listen to the recent episode with Mario Rosenstock? Eamon kept going back to Mario being a ladies' man and stuff like that, was quite off-putting.
McGrath5 wrote: » Fantastic interview today with Richard Dunne, plenty of funny moments.
Morrison J wrote: » Only really discovered the brilliance of this podcast recently. Going back through some older episodes. Listened to Duff, Dignam and Doherty episodes this week. All brilliant. Any other must listens?
Cartman78 wrote: » John Waters = sponsor magnet :-)
Still Ill wrote: » I see he's finally picked up a sponsor. Surprised it took so long, but glad that the podcasts will be continuing anyway
PCeeeee wrote: » Eamo and Micks assessment of Paul Williams today was 'interesting'
Hurrache wrote: » A hitjob? What interview were you listening to. Waters has been on the verge of meltdown for a longtime. He fell over the edge after being asked an unsurprising question.
Arghus wrote: » In a way I feel like it was a bit of a cheap-shot to leave the audio in of Waters storming out cursing like a drunken sailor, they could have totally cut that final 30/40 seconds out of the episode if they really, really wanted too: he would still looked like an ejit, but with it left in he looks like a total fucking ejit. They knew well they had comedy gold on their hands.
groovyg wrote: » Anytime I see or hear John Waters I always think of Sinead O Connor and wonder what the hell was she thinking, talk about polar opposites.
briany wrote: » Not being privy to the conversation that went on in order to get Waters on the podcast, so it's possible that Dunphy did misrepresent what tone the conversation would have. It's also possible Waters misunderstood what he was going into. Either way, it was a pretty spectacular outburst. Dunphy's line, "...but I think it's important to put this up there". I think the subtext being, "Get a load of this! Some laugh." :pac:.
minikin wrote: » Unless, which Waters’ reaction suggests, the basis of the interview was agreed beforehand that it wouldn’t be a hitjob on a supposed friend. Looks like Dunphy acted in bad faith here in order to get Waters on his podcast... hence the reaction.
Arghus wrote: » Maybe, but Waters had a good five minutes at the start to, in my view, largely waffle away and by the time he started talking about The Supreme Court was already beginning to sound less and less coherent. I got the sense that Eamonn already felt at that early stage that the interview was in danger of going off the rails and tried to bring it back to the fundamentals before it got even more formless. You have to start somewhere in this debate and putting the question of when you can say human life actually begins is as good a place as any - especially so if your guest's argument is rooted in the belief of the inviolable sanctity of the unborn human life. I don't think it was a case of trying to put the guest in the corner and certainly not near to a form of "attack": Dunphy hadn't even began to properly articulate a question or explain a point of view on the matter, because Waters was immediately hot under the collar about even being asked about such a thing. A hard question is not necessarily an unfair question. We don't know how Dunphy may have continued with that line of questioning, because Waters flounced off abruptly before anything meaningful could even be discussed. Surely, if he wants to contribute to the debate he has to expect these questions and not regard them as personalised attacks; it's very petulant.
Arghus wrote: » Nothing hilarious about it all. You should listen to it. The interview with Una Mullaly was a good and intelligent debate and she made her points in an articulate and passionate manner. Her reputation precedes her in many ways, but based on what she had to say in the interview, I thought she came across extremely well. Dunphy asked her the questions and she was able to engage with them and defend her points of views, without resorting to childishly stomping off abruptly. There's no comparison between the level of debate in her interview and the corresponding one with John Waters: Mullaly's is clearly and objectively far superior and to claim otherwise is totally and utterly farcical.
minikin wrote: » Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.
Mancomb Seepgood wrote: » Black and white positions are difficult to avoid in this debate.It's a topic that is deeply personal.I didn't get a sense that Waters was being backed into a corner,the fact that Eamon brought up abortion pills seems to be something that really annoyed him and it was downhill from there.The questions were reasonable and nothing that someone who has taken a public position on these matters should have been surprised by.
Arghus wrote: » So asking Waters when, in his view, did human life begin was sensationalist? How so? Surely it's a basic question in the debate. If Waters can feel so threatened by that question being put to him, what does it say about the solidity of his arguments?
