7 ms·

This might be the most annoying TED speaker ever (come to think of it, the only one). He might have something valuable to say but his voice and attitude are ju

This might be the most annoying TED speaker ever (come to think of it, the only one). He might have something valuable to say but his voice and attitude are just too aggravatating to keep listening.

thisduck 17y ago
I disagree, I thought he spoke well. And at one point he got very passionate, and that's simply the way he expresses himself. It was refreshing to see.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- xenonite 17y ago
  yes, he talked very well. Still, I had to pause and rewind the video several times, because he talked too fast. Thats because several links sprung up in my head, and ideas came.
Tichy 17y ago
I thought he was OK, but noticeably trying too hard.
- aik 17y ago
  What does that mean exactly?
  - Tichy 17y ago
    The jokes and gestures seemed studied to make an impression. It didn't come across so natural. But it did not bother me too much - I don't like being manipulated, but his words were entertaining enough, therefore the "OK" verdict.
  - PieSquared 17y ago
    I think that the fact that he was enthusiastic about his subject and clearly wanted to tell people about it came across as unpleasant or pushy or something. I thought that just made it better - people who are interested in what they're talking about and want to tell you about it tend to be more interesting than those that just do it because they need to.
mian2zi3 17y ago
I agree. I couldn't watch to the end.
discojesus 17y ago
I found him non-trivially annoying, but nowhere near as douchechill-inducing as David Pogue.
petercooper 17y ago
If you think that's annoying, I can beat it: http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html Not only does he have the stage manner of an uncaring dentist, it's worth remembering he's an undemocratically elected leader espousing all sorts of nonsense about democracy.
- a-priori 17y ago
  he's an undemocratically elected leader Care to explain what you mean by that?
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    I assume what is meant is that Tony Blair stood in the election, his party won and then later Gordon Brown was chosen to replace him by the party, not by the ordinary voter.
    - a-priori 17y ago
      Oh, I suppose someone who doesn't understand the Westminster system might think that... but it's important to understand that the people never elected Tony Blair to the position of Prime Minister either. (I should point out that people might not understand the Westminster system even if they live in a country that uses it. In Canada last year, there was a fiasco about how three opposition parties wanted to form a coalition government to replace the Prime Minister without an election. Perfectly legal, but a lot of Canadians were convinced that it was a sort of coup. The current Prime Minister exploited this and ended up keeping his seat.)
      - petercooper 17y ago
        but it's important to understand that the people never elected Tony Blair to the position of Prime Minister either. That's legally true but pragmatically false. Sure, we vote for the MP to represent our local seat and then a majority of MPs results in a leading party, but that's not how elections are pitched. Back in 1997, we had a worse than useless Conservative party headed by John Major and a fresh, rebranded "New Labour" party headed by Tony Blair. People voted for Labour MPs in their droves to get Tony Blair into power. He was not technically democratically voted to the position of PM but that was considered the natural result of voting Labour. We did not, however, vote for Brown in any form, legally or pragmatically. Indeed, it was not even considered at the time that he would be a successor. The same situation occurred with both Callaghan and Major but I personally feel the British public has less of a taste for the old school Westminster style and has a better feel for the almost presidential style brought in by Blair.

This might be the most annoying TED speaker ever (come to think of it, the only one). He might have something valuable to say but his voice and attitude are just too aggravatating to keep listening.

thisduck 17y ago

I disagree, I thought he spoke well. And at one point he got very passionate, and that's simply the way he expresses himself. It was refreshing to see.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
xenonite 17y ago
yes, he talked very well. Still, I had to pause and rewind the video several times, because he talked too fast. Thats because several links sprung up in my head, and ideas came.

Tichy 17y ago

I thought he was OK, but noticeably trying too hard.

aik 17y ago
What does that mean exactly?
- Tichy 17y ago
  The jokes and gestures seemed studied to make an impression. It didn't come across so natural. But it did not bother me too much - I don't like being manipulated, but his words were entertaining enough, therefore the "OK" verdict.
- PieSquared 17y ago
  I think that the fact that he was enthusiastic about his subject and clearly wanted to tell people about it came across as unpleasant or pushy or something. I thought that just made it better - people who are interested in what they're talking about and want to tell you about it tend to be more interesting than those that just do it because they need to.

mian2zi3 17y ago

I agree. I couldn't watch to the end.

discojesus 17y ago

I found him non-trivially annoying, but nowhere near as douchechill-inducing as David Pogue.

petercooper 17y ago

If you think that's annoying, I can beat it: http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html http://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown.html Not only does he have the stage manner of an uncaring dentist, it's worth remembering he's an undemocratically elected leader espousing all sorts of nonsense about democracy.

a-priori 17y ago
he's an undemocratically elected leader Care to explain what you mean by that?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  I assume what is meant is that Tony Blair stood in the election, his party won and then later Gordon Brown was chosen to replace him by the party, not by the ordinary voter.
  - a-priori 17y ago
    Oh, I suppose someone who doesn't understand the Westminster system might think that... but it's important to understand that the people never elected Tony Blair to the position of Prime Minister either. (I should point out that people might not understand the Westminster system even if they live in a country that uses it. In Canada last year, there was a fiasco about how three opposition parties wanted to form a coalition government to replace the Prime Minister without an election. Perfectly legal, but a lot of Canadians were convinced that it was a sort of coup. The current Prime Minister exploited this and ended up keeping his seat.)
    - petercooper 17y ago
      but it's important to understand that the people never elected Tony Blair to the position of Prime Minister either. That's legally true but pragmatically false. Sure, we vote for the MP to represent our local seat and then a majority of MPs results in a leading party, but that's not how elections are pitched. Back in 1997, we had a worse than useless Conservative party headed by John Major and a fresh, rebranded "New Labour" party headed by Tony Blair. People voted for Labour MPs in their droves to get Tony Blair into power. He was not technically democratically voted to the position of PM but that was considered the natural result of voting Labour. We did not, however, vote for Brown in any form, legally or pragmatically. Indeed, it was not even considered at the time that he would be a successor. The same situation occurred with both Callaghan and Major but I personally feel the British public has less of a taste for the old school Westminster style and has a better feel for the almost presidential style brought in by Blair.