Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
Ok so seems like we can just delete this thread is what I'm reading.
Literacy has never been your strong point.

I'm up for it at any time, any place.

While saying this, I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries. How many does anyone think Axelwolf has read?

And the idea that an interviewer would remain anonymous while the interviewee would not is hilarious. Not exactly the way things are done in journalism. Ever. LOL.

I think it's ironic that a forum founded by a legitimate, big-time ABC reporter who conducted solid interviews with famous people including, I believe, ex-presidents, would sponsor an interview by an anonymous interviewer. That's actually pretty funny.

But, being an intrepid sort who keeps his word, I'm up for anything. I was warned off doing this by my filmmaker friend, James Dennison. He said there's no point to it, and editing is everything with interviews. Having been a journalism major myself, and having conducted a couple dozen published interviews, yeah, that's true. You're at the mercy of the interviewer, even if he has a name. LOL.

But I'll do it anyway.

I direct all interested parties to my blog. Maybe a quarter or a third of the entries are directly gambling-related, so feel free to browse the site. Here's one of the early gambling-related entries. Many of the regulars here think they are Holzhauer. They are not. Note also, there were a couple of follow-up articles in national media about his sports-betting pursuits, but they died out with the pandemic. He appears to have gone radio silent, not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...er-effect.html

I will see if I can dig up any further historical "Bob Dietz" reading materials from third parties. I have been doing this a long time. Some of my early interviews (where I was being interviewed as opposed to being the interviewer) were cringey in retrospect, but not terrible for the time.
I would not listen to Dennison because there is no editing. You run your mouth about not doing research but this is live with archives.

Second you are simply wrong about the questions. After presentations there is often a question and answering session. People don't give their names. Same thing with call in radio shows.

You have somehow turned this into 60 miutes.

You are simply wrong about everything -- nothing new.

There is nothing to prevent editing, so there is always the opportunity for editing. Nobody signs a release saying, "There will be no editing," so you are always at the mercy of an interviewer. It doesn't matter if the previous hundred podcasts were unedited. Unless you sign a document stating absolutely no editing, there is always an opportunity for editing.

Second, Axelwolf, who prefers to be anonymous for various and sundry, has taken point for the process, which means the interviewer (as opposed to some call-in person) wishes to remain anonymous, which is ridiculous and unprecedented outside of the Iron Curtain. Try to keep up.

Third, I said nothing about the call-in part, which is fine. It's relatively simple, however, for people to seed the call-in part either for or against a particular guest. Happens all the time. It actually happens live during lectures, too, both academic and non-academic. Any public Q&A can be seeded. Obvious and no big deal. Everybody knows this.

Any other brilliant comments from the ever-astute-and-anonymous account?