Hi

For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.

Mark S. Holden wrote:
For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.

I still say one has to spend an hour keeping eyes open under 500,000
watts of light to know the experience.

--
"One month from today, the American dream is on the ballot." -- John Kerry, 10/2

So is the American Nightmare, Jack-F...
Please go back to Communist Viet Nam where you're appreciated.

clifto wrote:

Mark S. Holden wrote:

For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.


I still say one has to spend an hour keeping eyes open under 500,000
watts of light to know the experience.


I suspect your theory will gain support, at least for the VP debate.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:07:11 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

clifto wrote:

Mark S. Holden wrote:

For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.


I still say one has to spend an hour keeping eyes open under 500,000
watts of light to know the experience.


I suspect your theory will gain support, at least for the VP debate.

So, are you trying to have it both ways?

juny

juny wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:07:11 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

clifto wrote:

Mark S. Holden wrote:

For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.


I still say one has to spend an hour keeping eyes open under 500,000
watts of light to know the experience.


I suspect your theory will gain support, at least for the VP debate.

So, are you trying to have it both ways?

juny

No.

How about you?

Since you thought President Bush's rapid blinking might be a sign of dishonesty, would you like to claim Sen. Edwards was telling lies because he blinked rapidly while talking last night?

Personally, I do think the blinking comes from uncomfortably bright lights, but I can't prove it. I just know I'd be blinking, or wearing my extra dark sunglasses.

I responded to your earlier posts by pointing out the President was listening during the moments you saw in the DNC video because that was easy to prove. Anyone watching it would see Senator Kerry was talking while the President was blinking.

As a sidebar, I wonder why broadcast video cameras still need scads of light when a consumer minidv camcorder can deliver a nice picture with relatively normal light.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:54:44 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:


So, are you trying to have it both ways?

juny

No.

How about you?

Since you thought President Bush's rapid blinking might be a sign of dishonesty, would you like to claim Sen. Edwards was telling lies because he blinked rapidly while talking last night?

Personally, I do think the blinking comes from uncomfortably bright lights, but I can't prove it. I just know I'd be blinking, or wearing my extra dark sunglasses.

I responded to your earlier posts by pointing out the President was listening during the moments you saw in the DNC video because that was easy to prove. Anyone watching it would see Senator Kerry was talking while the President was blinking.

As a sidebar, I wonder why broadcast video cameras still need scads of light when a consumer minidv camcorder can deliver a nice picture with relatively normal light.

Neither of us can have it both ways.

I think that each side has many valid points in their arguements, it's
a shame that they can't get together, as in the past, to work out the
differences over the past (about) four years.

I am a very strong believer in self-reliance, but I also believe in
having some basic items, like health care for all. The problem is
that each side wants to take their views to an extreme point and then
nothing gets done.

I hope that, which ever side wins, there can be better cooperation
between all sides in the future. After all, we are all Americans and
we all want to have a great country and a great future.

Your last comment has a point. I believe that the increased lighting
has something to do with making sure that the live audience can see
the debaters, because some of the seats are farther away and it is
more difficult to see if the lighting is poor to average.

juny

= = = "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
= = = ...
Hi

For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.

MSH,

John Edward's 'message' came across load and clear:
... .- --
..-.. .. .
- .... .-. --- ..- --. ....
-- -.--
- . . - ....

jftfoi ~ RHF
..

On 6 Oct 2004 09:01:08 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

= = = "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
= = = ...
Hi

For those who were eager to claim President Bush was telling lies
because he was blinking frequently while listening to Sen. Kerry -

Did you happen to notice how much Sen. Edwards was blinking tonight?

It was like he was sending morse code.

MSH,

John Edward's 'message' came across load and clear:
.. .- --
.-.. .. .
- .... .-. --- ..- --. ....
-- -.--
- . . - ....

jftfoi ~ RHF
.
I am (lie?) through my teeth?

Try again
73
juny

juny wrote:
Your last comment has a point. I believe that the increased lighting
has something to do with making sure that the live audience can see
the debaters, because some of the seats are farther away and it is
more difficult to see if the lighting is poor to average.

It has to do with television. In the old days, cameras weren't very
sensitive and enormous lighting was needed just to make halfway decent
pictures. But even with today's immensely more sensitive cameras, a
set that isn't brightly lit has a "cheap" look to the viewer. Shadows
are for soap operas and night scenes.

(Remember too that studio cameras are designed to maximize quality and
ruggedness, not light sensitivity. Many home camcorders are *much* more
sensitive than most studio cameras.)

Even in movies, everyone's seen behind-the-scenes shots where, in BRIGHT
sunlight, crew people are holding up reflectors to put even *more* light
on subjects and to stifle shadows.

--
"One month from today, the American dream is on the ballot." -- John Kerry, 10/2

So is the American Nightmare, Jack-F...
Please go back to Communist Viet Nam where you're appreciated.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ...

As a sidebar, I wonder why broadcast video cameras still need scads of light when a consumer minidv camcorder can deliver a nice picture with relatively normal light.
Why not go to your local on air, not cable, TV stadio and ask for a
tour, and ask an engineer to explain why the bright lights. They don't
use them for the fun of it. They are expensive, have short lives, and
produce a lot of heat, that must be
removed by expensive air conditioning.
Terry