From: flick harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 11:17:03 PDT
Or maybe not. I'm on crack.
* FLICK's WEBSITE:
http://www.flickharrison.com
* FACEBOOK
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553
* BLOG / NEWS:
http://zeroforconduct.blogspot.com
* MYSPACE:
http://myspace.com/flickharrison
On 31-Oct-07, at 11:15 AM, Flick Harrison wrote:
> Dang!
>
> I was writing a draft and sent it by accident.
>
> My second email is the right one.
>
> Dang!
>
>
> * FLICK's WEBSITE:
> http://www.flickharrison.com
> * FACEBOOK
> http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=860700553
> * BLOG / NEWS:
> http://zeroforconduct.blogspot.com
> * MYSPACE:
> http://myspace.com/flickharrison
>
>
> On 31-Oct-07, at 9:41 AM, Nicky Hamlyn wrote:
>
>> Good point. I was a bit careless there. However, I think the
>> principle I was arguing is more or less sound, that the reason we
>> don't see the black (and given your point, we most certainly don't
>> see it) is because our retinas are momentarily flooded.
>>
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2007, at 15:26, Pip Chodorov wrote:
>>
>>> At 14:47 +0000 31/10/07, Nicky Hamlyn wrote:
>>>> re-sensitize themselves until they could see the black which
>>>> after all, is not completely black: there's always an amount of
>>>> light coming through the celluloid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> through the celluloid but not through the metal shutter
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________
>>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.