nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Weekend On One With Brendan O'Connor

generalgerry

Yep, that is what they are calling it apparently just heard it announced by the continuity announcer.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cole

Bellbottoms wrote: »

I just heard the Dawkins BOC promo. It's awful so cringey. I don't know how BOC or any of his team could listen to that and think it some sort of smack down on Dawkins.

Not really a surprise. It's often a bit puzzling why many of the promos for different shows are such poor examples of what they're trying to promote...but I guess the bar is pretty low in recent times on RTE...says a lot for the current production teams.

Alfred123

Yes. As you mentioned earlier, BOC is 'just a personality' / 'fluff dressed as opinion', not an impartial journalist. I guess its good enough for RTE. No surprises there

Recent posters - defending BOC - have problems with this fact, though its hard to decipher a message in their posts from their grammar and spelling.

There's telling in the spelling, as they say

Brian Scan

Alfred123 wrote: »

Yes. As you mentioned earlier, BOC is 'just a personality' / 'fluff dressed as opinion', not an impartial journalist. I guess its good enough for RTE. No surprises there

Recent posters - defending BOC - have problems with this fact, though its hard to decipher a message in their posts from their grammar and spelling.

There's telling in the spelling, as they say

Oops.

archfi

Is my listening via Alexa super duper clear or is O'Connor's nose breathing very clear to people?
It's a bit offputting

Cole

Alfred123 wrote: »

Yes. As you mentioned earlier, BOC is 'just a personality' / 'fluff dressed as opinion', not an impartial journalist. I guess its good enough for RTE. No surprises there

Recent posters - defending BOC - have problems with this fact, though its hard to decipher a message in their posts from their grammar and spelling.

There's telling in the spelling, as they say

Brian Scan wrote: »

Oops.

Oops to both of you. (its) It's actually an example of grammar. Everyone makes mistakes.

[Deleted User]

Genuine question. Why do some men listen to radio shows they despise just so they can complain about it on the Internet?

Seems like a tremendous waste of time to this observer.

Ash.J.Williams

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Genuine question. Why do some men listen to radio shows they despise just so they can complain about it on the Internet?

Seems like a tremendous waste of time to this observer.

Same could be said about observers

Ash.J.Williams

PieOhMy wrote: »

Just calling back to a discussion from a few weeks ago about people with names that match their profession. There was a lady on the news there from the DSPCA speaking about ducklings whose surname was 'Bird'!!!!

Heard professor graves on the last word once discussing the after life

Beechwoodspark

I don’t know much about this doctor or whatever he is currently on the show

But by god he’s not behind the door when it comes to boasting about himself

Brian Scan

Alfred123 wrote: »

Yes. As you mentioned earlier, BOC is 'just a personality' / 'fluff dressed as opinion', not an impartial journalist. I guess its good enough for RTE. No surprises there

Recent posters - defending BOC - have problems with this fact, though its hard to decipher a message in their posts from their grammar and spelling.

There's telling in the spelling, as they say

Cole wrote: »

Oops to both of you. (its) It's actually an example of grammar. Everyone makes mistakes.

"It's" is the correct spelling of the abbreviation of "It is".

Everyone does indeed make mistakes.

Beechwoodspark

Doctors contribution summarised

“ I did this, I did that, amn’t I great ....”

Cole

Brian Scan wrote: »

"It's" is the correct spelling of the abbreviation of "It is".

Everyone does indeed make mistakes.

Apologies to other posters here for taking the bait and taking the thread off topic...but I just have to for a moment.

Its is a possessive determiner...derived from the pronoun it.

It's is a contraction...of it is or it has.

Therefore, it comes under grammar.

I just like to contribute my opinions on the radio forum and am no expert on most topics, but on this stuff I do actually have knowledge.

Brian Scan

Cole wrote: »

Apologies to other posters here for taking the bait and taking the thread off topic...but I just have to for a moment.

Its is a possessive determiner...derived from the pronoun it.

It's is a contraction...of it is or it has.

Therefore, it comes under grammar.

I just like to contribute my opinions on the radio forum and am no expert on most topics, but on this stuff I do actually have knowledge.

No bait intended.

[Deleted User]

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Same could be said about observers

Not really.

I’m just curious about the mindset behind actively listening to a show presented by someone you hate just so you can complain about it.

Like it’s not a segment or guest that’s up for criticism. It’s existence of the show itself that bothers some men. So why listen to it? Like I really don’t like Oliver Callan so I never listen to any of his shows. There’s hundreds of thousands of stations and podcasts I could listen to instead.

Just wondering what goes through a lads head to make him listen to shows that actually seem to anger him. It’s kinda weird but maybe I’m missing something. That’s all.

dublin49

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.

I’m just curious about the mindset behind actively listening to a show presented by someone you hate just so you can complain about it.

Like it’s not a segment or guest that’s up for criticism. It’s existence of the show itself that bothers some men. So why listen to it? Like I really don’t like Oliver Callan so I never listen to any of his shows. There’s hundreds of thousands of stations and podcasts I could listen to instead.

Just wondering what goes through a lads head to make him listen to shows that actually seem to anger him. It’s kinda weird but maybe I’m missing something. That’s all.

Well the Sunday edition is generally pretty informative with decent contributors so you may not like the host but persist because you find the content worth listening to. ,no?

strawdog

Well just to bring a bit more positivity, enjoyable segment on music and live gigs there I thought, nice mix of hopeful discussion and reminiscing with only a pinch of pandemic misery

Bellbottoms

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not really.

I’m just curious about the mindset behind actively listening to a show presented by someone you hate just so you can complain about it.

Like it’s not a segment or guest that’s up for criticism. It’s existence of the show itself that bothers some men. So why listen to it? Like I really don’t like Oliver Callan so I never listen to any of his shows. There’s hundreds of thousands of stations and podcasts I could listen to instead.

Just wondering what goes through a lads head to make him listen to shows that actually seem to anger him. It’s kinda weird but maybe I’m missing something. That’s all.

For some people it is inertia. I know when working during the week, I listen to Morning Ireland. Typically I will have an email or some problem I am dealing with, and don't notice the show has ended and RT has started. Until I hear the horrific details of one illness or another.

For others, they might be waiting for a guest. Our leaders often appear on less then stellar shows.

I don't really have a problem with BOC, it's a light weekend show. I do think he came across as a bit of a light weight with Dawkins. I am not sure if light weight is the right word. More a passive aggressive teenager, or just petty. The whole "Since you are such a scientific logical persons. I was expecting a logical scientific reason" really did not come across well.

yosser hughes

Deleted User wrote: »

Genuine question. Why do some men listen to radio shows they despise just so they can complain about it on the Internet?

Seems like a tremendous waste of time to this observer.

'some men' just men then is it? Interesting. You might as well go the whole hog and say middle aged white privileged males, while you're at it! Talk about making assumptions!
I guess people that are paying for this offering, feel they would like to say something about it; as it's their money that's funding it. Is that not okay?

I heard some of the Dawkins interview on playback. It appears RTE are indeed trumpeting the interview as some kind of triumph on Brendan's part.
I thought it was embarrassing and Brendan, despite insisting his questions were not coming from a place of emotion, clearly was coming from such a place. It's understandable maybe but it wasn't an example of a good interview, far from it.

On today's show, overheard another exercise in nostalgia-does RTE engage in much else these days?- with people reminiscing and waxing lyrical about the 'importance' of their favourite gigs. Lazy, time filler stuff.

Alfred123

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering what goes through a lads head to make him listen to shows that actually seem to anger him. It’s kinda weird but maybe I’m missing something. That’s all.

A bit the same as asking why some people complain about people who complain. Aren't there more positive things to be doing etc

In my case, i like the weekend news roundup. Some liked Marian doing the Sunday programme, some did not.
I listen for news, views and opinions of the news.

Sometimes the presenter gets in the way of his / her guests and if there is a forum to discuss this, then people discuss. I don't think it is all 'complaining' tho - there is lots of humour. Look at the thread on Joe Duffy's programme. I don't think folk are posting out of love for Joe.

[Deleted User]

Many posters on the LL don't post for love of the callers either, just like many posters don't post here because they're so affectionate with the BOC guests

[Deleted User]

Alfred123 wrote: »

A bit the same as asking why some people complain about people who complain. Aren't there more positive things to be doing etc

Well it's not really. This Forum is more for discussion — criticism of a negative and positive kind, than pure criticism. People come here to give a fair reaction; your post would only make sense if this place were here as a forum for drudging criticism.

It would be a bit tedious if everyone here loved every item, just as it can be if someone hates everything. I don't know who said it, but there was a comment earlier that described this programme-series as light, weekend fluff. Was that poster a regular listener? It would make you wonder about their listening habits, if so.

It isn't allowed to tell someone to "switch off if you don't like it" if someone criticises a piece or a perceived downward trend in programme standards – that would leave this place a very boring den of exhausting positivity.

But the pendulum can also swing too far in the opposite direction, where a whole series is derided as pure dross. In which case, it is fair to ask the question everyone must be thinking — why annoy yourself with it then? It's a reasonable question.

Alfred123

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well it's not really. This Forum is more for discussion — criticism of a negative and positive kind, than pure criticism. People come here to give a fair reaction; your post would only make sense if this place were here as a forum for drudging criticism.

It would be a bit tedious if everyone here loved every item, just as it can be if someone hates everything. I don't know who said it, but there was a comment earlier that described this programme-series as light, weekend fluff. Was that poster a regular listener? It would make you wonder about their listening habits, if so.

It isn't allowed to tell someone to "switch off if you don't like it" if someone criticises a piece or a perceived downward trend in programme standards – that would leave this place a very boring den of exhausting positivity.

But the pendulum can also swing too far in the opposite direction, where a whole series is derided as pure dross. In which case, it is fair to ask the question everyone must be thinking — why annoy yourself with it then? It's a reasonable question.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say above. It appears quite confused.
I was replying to a poster who asked why listen to a programne if one simply complains about it afterwards

My point is that the BOC show is not just about BOC (though one wonders if BOC might imagine it is) - it covers current affairs and includes several guests offering differing points of view

I am not going to stop listening to the programne just because BOC might not be up to the job. If it were solely BOC talking, then I would have no problem switching off - and it would be pointless 'complaining'

Do you see the difference ?

Bellbottoms

Jesus, Miriam calling the Dawkins interview brilliant.

"Just so you know, you being so scientific and logical. I expected a scientific and logical answer".

archfi

Is the Adrian guy an IT expert as I missed his intro?
He simplified the thing to just using 'outdated Windows 7' is the cause but it is well known the HSE pays a lot of money to Microsoft for extended security support for Win7 which BO'C at least mentioned
Isn't it a fact, many many huge companies/utilities do not just 'upgrade' to the latest and greatest like someone at home who likes the new logo?

EmmetSpiceland

Bellbottoms wrote: »

Jesus, Miriam calling the Dawkins interview brilliant.

"Just so you know, you being so scientific and logical. I expected a scientific and logical answer".

If that interview had been between Ben Shapiro and some liberal leftie dweeb there would be clips of it everywhere with “DESTROYED” and “OWND” all over it.

But because it was with Brendan O’Connor on Irish radio it won’t create too many “ripples” outside of a forum such as this.

Bellbottoms

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

If that interview had been between Ben Shapiro and some liberal leftie dweeb there would be clips of it everywhere with “DESTROYED” and “OWND” all over it.

But because it was with Brendan O’Connor on Irish radio it won’t create too many “ripples” outside of a forum such as this.

You think it was a good interview?

Beechwoodspark

archfi wrote: »

Is the Adrian guy an IT expert as I missed his intro?
He simplified the thing to just using 'outdated Windows 7' is the cause but it is well known the HSE pays a lot of money to Microsoft for extended security support for Win7 which BO'C at least mentioned
Isn't it a fact, many many huge companies/utilities do not just 'upgrade' to the latest and greatest like someone at home who likes the new logo?

Adrian weckler is the technology editor for the Irish indo

Most of his articles are reviews of mobile phones etc

Infoanon

Adrian Weckler also agreed with BOCS statement of 'this shows the risk of working from home and why we need people back in the office' ......

Simple IT education as opposed to broad inaccurate assertions would be helpful.

archfi

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Adrian weckler is the technology editor for the Irish indo

Most of his articles are reviews of mobile phones etc

All the actual experts must be off trying to fix the shítfest.

That guy pays 150euro + per month on subscription services, so yeah

Bellbottoms

archfi wrote: »

All the actual experts must be off trying to fix the shítfest.

That guy pays 150euro + per month on subscription services, so yeah

On what? Like magazines? Netfix?