Get Premium Access
Info

Fitzdog Radio

Fitzdog Radio! A place where Greg can continue his Sirius / XM Show on Howard 101, and give you more interview time with the guest, and more funny.
RSS Feed Subscribe in iTunes iOS App Premium Podcasts
2017
June
May
April
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2015
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2014
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2013
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2012
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2011
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2010
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January


2009
December
November
October
September
August


Categories

All Episodes
Archives
Categories
Premium Episodes
Now displaying: Page 1
Mar 10, 2010
Greg invites Simpson's Co-Creator Sam Simon and comedian Leslie "Big Les" Jones to the Fitzdog man cave for this weeks intense podcast. The group agrees on intern Brian's low sexual potential, they chat about last weekend's Academy Awards, and Leslie searches for a man to tell her to shut up. Greg describes to Leslie what could have been between them if he weren't married, they take your twitter questions, and Greg aces his sponsor plugs.
7 Comments
  • almost four years ago
    Aimee
    We absolutely need veilbiafre identities. If any clown can get out of his car and say that something is fact when it is fiction and have his five clown clones (same person logging in from different computers) vote that the primary clown is correct, then any fiction can be published as fact. http://bobpavztw.com [url=http://svvknyxf.com]svvknyxf[/url] [link=http://jcnmsezifs.com]jcnmsezifs[/link]
  • almost four years ago
    Mira
    Yes! Reputation is paramount in any sort of peer reveiw. More experience gives you much more direct authority to comment. Current peer reveiw offers no hiding. You know precisely who is taking you on and where they're coming from and why. Social Media doesn't yet have that sort of gravitas.
  • almost four years ago
    Sheila
    Very well put comment Tim and I could not think of a btteer example than that of the Climate issue. The works of scientists and dedicated experts have been ridiculed basically for an agenda and because of the far-reaching capacity and power of the net, social networking (and the more questionable elements of the media) that effort and important message was badly damaged. http://yxpqhsk.com [url=http://pvekjdtc.com]pvekjdtc[/url] [link=http://zwlylusil.com]zwlylusil[/link]
  • almost four years ago
    Indra
    I have to go with the obvious asnwer, here; Peer review does, and should always do, what it sayes on the tin namely, be a review by the author's PEERS. If you are an atmospheric scientist and you are submitting in your field, opening up the peer review to people who know little to nothing about atmouspheric physics would lead to confusion, mis-judgement, predudice and, ultimately, calamity.There is already a public peer review about climate science in the popular press. Just look at the ammount of complete and utter bullshit it comes out with. Leave science to scientists.
  • almost four years ago
    Rosi
    From my perspective, much of the itenrnet in general and in particular social networking and blogging is a danger to quality and verifiability for the academic and journalism fields. It is these exact reasons expressed so eloquently by yourselves that there is nothing guaranteed – and thus accountable, tested, open to attestation or gradable – in this environment.I would go further and say that the rise in the voice of radicalism that we normally toss away or ignore in the basked called “fringe” equates with the rise of the itenrnet and in particular social networking and blogging. This is not to say that social networking or the itenrnet is bad, but the inability to verify and hold accountable the words written (or spoken) to someone or some group is something that needs to be dealt with. Social networking has done so much for the repressed but like the banner of “freedom of speech” so has there been a rise of “freedom to hate”, “freedom to lie”, “freedom to misrepresent” and worst of all the “freedom to destroy context”.Until there is a register and legal framework that confirms the ownership and responsibility of posts, articles and anything wishing to be considered value – what is on the itenrnet is of the same value as gossip in the local pub (bar to you guys over the other side of the pond).As you can imagine as a former Queen’s Council (your equivalent of a Federal Prosecutor) that all I see is a great mess when it comes to verification and proof of authenticity when it comes to much on the itenrnet.I am in constant dismay at the power of what I guess we would call agenda-spamming. That because people can pretend to be journalists, political commentators and even saviors of society they are able to spew, mislead, lie and totally confuse the general public whom in turn presume what in the printed word is correct. Your President is now a Kenyan-born Muslim to somewhere around the 12 per cent of the population because the fringe conspiracy-theory believing 3 per cent is supported by the 4 per cent partisan political activists (and because it is spammed across the itenrnet and the tabloids) therefore the gullible 5 per cent element of the population believes it.Do you wish to hand over academic verification to this group? They would use it to suit their needs!D. Charles QCGibraltar
  • over seven years ago
    fei084.blog.igg.com
  • over seven years ago
    injusticeand.blog.com