Re: Gathering 2004 Saturday Part 27

Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:50 pm - 21603

Judes writes:

I am curious at to whoever transcribed this as to why some that speak are called 'audience' and others are quoted by their names.

Would not this possibly hurt the feelings of those who put out the effort and expense to attend the Gathering and even participated by commenting or asking questions and then be referred to as 'audience' on the transcription?

I have never been comfortable with favoritism or cliquishness and it comes across that way even if that was not anyone's intention. I know I would not like to attend a Gathering and participate in it and have my own name be omitted and referred to as 'audience' if not everyone was referred to as 'audience'.

Maybe someone could give the criteria for being quoted as 'audience' and the criteria for being quoted by name.

Thanks,

Judes

How you perceive favoritism here boggles the mind. The gatherings are usually transcribed some time after the event. First I have to go through the audio and edit it. Part of this process is amplifying some of the audience comments when they were not near the Microphone.

By the time our transcriber gets the audio I know that I do not recognize a lot of the voices on the recording and if I had to transcribe myself I would probably anger a lot of the group for getting the names mixed up.

Mindy who is gracious enough to transcribe for us usually just puts "audience" when there is a comment. Then she sends the transcript to me and I edit it again before I post it. I make additional inserts and deletions for clarity's sake and if I recognize a comment from an individual I can identify for sure I may change the name from "audience" to the person's name. This has nothing to do with favoritism but a recognition of the person on my part, in this case over a year after the event.

I would also add that Brian's comments were pretty accurate.

Hope this puts the matter to rest.

JJ

Copyright © 2005 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved