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