<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for newchannelmedia</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/newchannelmedia/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/newchannelmedia/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 06:17:16 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Police Say These 3 “Harmless” Bumper Stickers Help Criminals Target You… Do You Have Any of These?</title><link>http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/police-say-these-3-harmless-bumper-stickers-help-criminals-target-you-do-you-have-any-of-these#comment-2626554801</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The article AND comments just go to demonstrate the rapidly increasing stupidity of the population.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2016 06:17:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why we projected #RefugeesWelcome on the white cliffs of Dover</title><link>http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2016/apr/1/why-we-projected-refugeeswelcome-white-cliffs-dover#comment-2602698940</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Please stop saying things, or projecting things on the sides of my country, when you have not been elected to do so.  You do not represent me, and you do not represent a democratically elected party.  I am discussing this matter with legal experts.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2016 15:39:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Debunking the myth that focal length affects perspective + how to actually do it</title><link>http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/08/15/debunking-the-myth-that-focal-length-affects-perspective/#comment-2591792127</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is written in a misinformed way.  It is basic visual physics that causes the perception that objects are closer together when using a longer focal length lens. The example photograph used is a bad one, as both main subjects are quite far away.  Surprised that a purportedly expert camera magazine would publish this.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2016 12:48:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Lewis Hamilton Filmed Driving Justin Bieber In His LaFerrari Around Beverly Hills</title><link>http://www.carscoops.com/2016/01/lewis-hamilton-filmed-driving-justin.html#comment-2510488269</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The most pathetic video I have seen in a long time.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:16:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Ad Contrarian: Demographic Cleansing Of Ad Industry</title><link>http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2015/11/demographic-cleansing-of-ad-industry.html#comment-2378010473</link><description>&lt;p&gt;An alternative view, from an over-50 year old:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;My sense is that by the time you reach your 50's you ignore pretty much 80% of all marketing because you have been saturated with it since you were old enough to consume it.  Which means that over-50 spending is based on the preferences built up over the preceding years.  Which, in turn, means that marketing spend to under-50's is valid because it is locking in buying preferences before a target market gets to an age where they are much harder to convince.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thoughts?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2015 08:09:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: John Lewis advert song 2013 by Lily Allen: 'wrong song, wrong sound, wrong singer'</title><link>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/10435882/John-Lewis-advert-song-2013-by-Lily-Allen-wrong-song-wrong-sound-wrong-singer.html#comment-1116906311</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you for your kind and considered response.  Yes, you manage to highlight a number of factors which are, as they "bloody obvious," but as it seems that you are on some sort of mission, my preferred response is to remind myself that this entire thread, and the many thousands of threads that are created worldwide, are completely useless, change nothing, and are primarily designed to drive traffic to a web site.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But I will treat myself to one last comment - the fact that a national newspaper should focus in on such a trivial topic is no less than insulting to the paper's readers.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 10 Nov 2013 14:13:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: John Lewis advert song 2013 by Lily Allen: 'wrong song, wrong sound, wrong singer'</title><link>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/10435882/John-Lewis-advert-song-2013-by-Lily-Allen-wrong-song-wrong-sound-wrong-singer.html#comment-1115932046</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Further question is, why should any one person's opinion matter on such trivial topics?  If this was an expert medical opinion on a newly available drug, fair enough.  But this opinion is entirely subjective and, frankly, soils the Telegraph's journalistic standards.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 18:28:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: John Lewis advert song 2013 by Lily Allen: 'wrong song, wrong sound, wrong singer'</title><link>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/10435882/John-Lewis-advert-song-2013-by-Lily-Allen-wrong-song-wrong-sound-wrong-singer.html#comment-1115929674</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Small minds concern themselves with small things.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Fox</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 18:26:09 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>