I think all the C2C hosts have their own problems.

I always thought Art Bell was a pompous ass who liked to hear himself talk.

Ian Punnett continuously interrupts his guests and derails them from what they were going to say. In a recent show with John Perkins, who wrote "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," Ian started arguing with him, claiming that Perkins was supporting terrorists because he had said that if we eliminated poverty in the world, terrorism wouldn't happen. Whatever great tales Perkins was about to tell, he didn't get to tell them because of this pissing contest Ian drew him into. Ticked me off to no end.

George Knapp is interesting and intelligent, but too focused solely on UFOs, for my taste.

Now to George Noory: for the longest time, I thought he was a great host -- compassionate, warm-hearted if not the brightest, truly caring, and not playing himself into the foreground all the time. Meanwhile I see the other sides as well. For example, it drives me nuts when he for the umpteenth time asks a guest (even the ones who have been on a thousand times): "And what exactly got you started; how did you develop an interest in this topic?" I swear he does it with every single person that's on with him.

And you guys are probably right that he doesn't really listen to his guests and asks pre-prepared questions. BUT I find that I get the most out of the shows he hosts, for the simple reason that he just lets his guests talk, and talk, and talk. And the ones who can carry a show all by themselves really have the chance to say everything they want to say. For example, I learned a lot more from John Perkins being on with George than from him being on with Ian.

On the other hand, I wonder how nice a person George really is. At one point (when I still thought quite highly of him), I got his book "Workers in the Light." Never got through it because it was so boring, but at least I got to read the story of this woman he was into at one time and started performing black magic, actively focusing on bringing down misfortune on the other men who were interested in her. He writes that he actually SAW that his magic worked and that really bad things started happen to these men, but he still wouldn't stop. THAT, to me, is pure evil. Even if he pretends that he repented, I don't know about it. I've tampered with magic and such, too, in my life, but cursing people and not even stopping when you see that horrible things are happening to them? *shudder*

So I'm kind of on the fence about George. To me, the guests of the show, not the hosts, are the real draw -- so I'm glad if they get to talk more or less uninterrupted. I find hosts who keep asking nagging questions extremely annoying. After all, I'm an adult and can make up my own mind, thank you very much. And sometimes even the most outlandish claims from guests are highly entertaining; I don't need someone to tell me that it's all bullshit.

It's like with ATS, where some poster tells a tall tale and within minutes the debunkers swarm in, telling everyone who's interested in the OP's story what a bunch of idiots they are to believe this drivel. What business of theirs is it if I suspend disbelief for a moment to engage in a conversation with the OP, pretending that he may be telling the truth? Meanwhile I click the "Ignore" button on all those jerks. Rudeness is not entertainment to me -- people who have something to say are, no matter how far-fetched their stories sound.