<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Debate Wrapup</title> <atom:link href="http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/</link> <description>Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004.</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 14:27:23 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Robbie</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/comment-page-1/#comment-268</link> <dc:creator>Robbie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:40:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">/?p=838#comment-268</guid> <description>*LOL*
I ain&#039;t arguin&#039; that! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*LOL*</p><p>I ain&#039;t arguin&#039; that!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jimmie</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/comment-page-1/#comment-267</link> <dc:creator>Jimmie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:50:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">/?p=838#comment-267</guid> <description>Yep, I agree. Now if he had backed up the non-verbal cues with actual verbal ones... </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, I agree. Now if he had backed up the non-verbal cues with actual verbal ones&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Robbie</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/comment-page-1/#comment-266</link> <dc:creator>Robbie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:30:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">/?p=838#comment-266</guid> <description>I&#039;m just pointing out that on the visual medium non-verbals are as important as the spoken word. You may be irritated with your opponent but, for Pete&#039;s sake, don&#039;t show it.
(... seeing echoes of Gore ...) </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;m just pointing out that on the visual medium non-verbals are as important as the spoken word. You may be irritated with your opponent but, for Pete&#039;s sake, don&#039;t show it.</p><p>(&#8230; seeing echoes of Gore &#8230;)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jimmie</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/comment-page-1/#comment-264</link> <dc:creator>Jimmie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:17:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">/?p=838#comment-264</guid> <description>On those non-verbals. I think at several points, especially late in the debate, that Bush looked plainly irritated. My bet is that today you&#039;re going to hear the pundits, especially the ones stumping for Kerry say that Bush&#039;s irritated looks are because he was bored and disengaged and didn&#039;t want to debate the scary-talented Kerry.
But just perhaps the average voter is going to take many of those irritated looks another way. They may well think - like I did at points - that the President looked just like I felt during many of Kerry&#039;s answers. The look on his face matched that same &quot;How can he come in front of me and ply this absolute BS with a straight face&quot; thing. Earlier in the campaign, it&#039; was cute. Now, it&#039;s simply irritating that someone as patently unserious a candidate as John Kerry gets to stand on an even footing with someone who is trying with his whole heart to keep us from getting killed.
My guess is that the voters are going to give Bush as pass on the irritation thing because...well...John Kerry is irritating! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On those non-verbals. I think at several points, especially late in the debate, that Bush looked plainly irritated. My bet is that today you&#039;re going to hear the pundits, especially the ones stumping for Kerry say that Bush&#039;s irritated looks are because he was bored and disengaged and didn&#039;t want to debate the scary-talented Kerry.</p><p>But just perhaps the average voter is going to take many of those irritated looks another way. They may well think &#8211; like I did at points &#8211; that the President looked just like I felt during many of Kerry&#039;s answers. The look on his face matched that same &quot;How can he come in front of me and ply this absolute BS with a straight face&quot; thing. Earlier in the campaign, it&#039; was cute. Now, it&#039;s simply irritating that someone as patently unserious a candidate as John Kerry gets to stand on an even footing with someone who is trying with his whole heart to keep us from getting killed.</p><p>My guess is that the voters are going to give Bush as pass on the irritation thing because&#8230;well&#8230;John Kerry is irritating!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Robbie</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/comment-page-1/#comment-263</link> <dc:creator>Robbie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:52:32 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">/?p=838#comment-263</guid> <description>I agree with you on the content of the debate. Bush zinged Kerry on some points, and Kerry *finally* had a message (at least for this week). But ...
In &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://devilzadvocate.blogspot.com/2004/09/its-presentation-stupid.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one of my previous posts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;, I talked about presentation. Non-verbal communications are as important as the message. Last night, Kerry looked more Presidential than Bush did. His body language was more confident than Bush&#039;s. (Kerry stood erect; Bush slumped over onto the podium. Kerry seemed comfortable; Bush seemed irritated.) This may seem like a minor thing, but non-verbals do play a subconscious role in people&#039;s decisions.
Adding the non-verbals to the debate, I think Kerry barely edged out Bush. But that&#039;s just my objective opinion. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you on the content of the debate. Bush zinged Kerry on some points, and Kerry *finally* had a message (at least for this week). But &#8230;</p><p>In <b><a
href="http://devilzadvocate.blogspot.com/2004/09/its-presentation-stupid.html" rel="nofollow">one of my previous posts</a></b>, I talked about presentation. Non-verbal communications are as important as the message. Last night, Kerry looked more Presidential than Bush did. His body language was more confident than Bush&#039;s. (Kerry stood erect; Bush slumped over onto the podium. Kerry seemed comfortable; Bush seemed irritated.) This may seem like a minor thing, but non-verbals do play a subconscious role in people&#039;s decisions.</p><p>Adding the non-verbals to the debate, I think Kerry barely edged out Bush. But that&#039;s just my objective opinion.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Potomac Ponderings</title><link>http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/01/debate-wrapup/comment-page-1/#comment-262</link> <dc:creator>Potomac Ponderings</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:00:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">/?p=838#comment-262</guid> <description>&lt;strong&gt;Blogosphere Debate Roundup&lt;/strong&gt;
My opinion remains: draw. Blogosphere consensus seems to be: draw.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Blogosphere Debate Roundup</strong><br
/> My opinion remains: draw. Blogosphere consensus seems to be: draw.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: www.sundriesshack.com @ 2012-05-16 11:24:57 by W3 Total Cache -->
