Sheesh, Peter ... I was just emphasizing your point.
Peter Alling wrote:
>
> Shel, It was just an example of film saving an image of an event the importance
> of which isn't realized until later. Where as Digital probably would not.
> Lighten up.
>
> At 01:16 AM 2/10/04, you wrote:
> >One needn't use Bill Clinton's sexual exploits and personal
> >affairs to justify film.
> >
> >Jim Apilado wrote:
> > >
> > > Saw a piece on ABC News (U.S.) about how some valuable images might be lost
> > > to history because of digital. [important clinton details deleted]
> > > So there is justification for film after all.
>
> I drink to make other people interesting.
> -- George Jean Nathan
