Video Billboard

[WhatThe]

Looking back a few pages it is obvious the only people who want to keep this discussion going is people like yourself who are obviously put off at the brightness being lowered as a recognition that it was a danger to other drivers from those drivers who would be distracted. Kudos to the owner of the sign for doing his civic duty and lowering the brightness.

The only people who support having the video brighter are people in the advertising business and those who are a bit short of gray matter.

[/quote]

Interesting you would say that since you just posted this...... Who said anything about wanting it brighter? You obviously did not comprehend what I wrote, which is fairly typical on here. I don't care how bright it is or if there are a hundred signs, to me its not a distraction or a danger. And please keep your insulting comments to yourself, that was directed right at me and you know it. didn't your parents teach you manners?

[Bestside]

Looking back a few pages it is obvious the only people who want to keep this discussion going is people like yourself who are obviously put off at the brightness being lowered as a recognition that it was a danger to other drivers from those drivers who would be distracted. Kudos to the owner of the sign for doing his civic duty and lowering the brightness.

The only people who support having the video brighter are people in the advertising business and those who are a bit short of gray matter.

Interesting you would say that since you just posted this...... Who said anything about wanting it brighter? You obviously did not comprehend what I wrote, which is fairly typical on here. I don't care how bright it is or if there are a hundred signs, to me its not a distraction or a danger. And please keep your insulting comments to yourself, that was directed right at me and you know it. didn't your parents teach you manners?

It is interesting that you infer I made the post to keep the discussion going (per your hi-lite) and in your next "breath" you say I made the post to insult you.

So you come on a thread that has been dead for a week, and start to lecture those who earlier complained about the dangerous distraction that was subsequently changed to 25% of the original brightness.
And then you complain when it is pointed out that it is people like you who are continuing to make the video billboard an issue.

I got what you wrote:

Sounds like to me it offends peoples sensibilities. If I could post them on my lawn I would ....could sure use the money.

And you confirmed what I said regarding people like yourself supporting brightness:

I don't care how bright it is or if there are a hundred signs, to me its not a distraction or a danger.

And then you confirmed my statement that it is people like you who are continuing to prolong the issue by your doing this:
http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18170

My parents teachings? They taught me to be honest and straight forward.
What were you taught?

[WhatThe]

Am I not allowed to leave comments? Others comment on older threads. And twisting my words to support your argument means you are not being honest withyourself. You remind me of this old lady I know that whined about the adaption of third brake lights. Judging by the poll results your thought processes are in the minority.
You read into things waaaaay too much. Whatever makes you warm and fuzzy

[Bestside]

Looking back a few pages it is obvious the only people who want to keep this discussion going is people like yourself who are obviously put off at the brightness being lowered as a recognition that it was a danger to other drivers from those drivers who would be distracted. Kudos to the owner of the sign for doing his civic duty and lowering the brightness.

The only people who support having the video brighter are people in the advertising business and those who are a bit short of gray matter.

Interesting you would say that since you just posted this...... Who said anything about wanting it brighter? You obviously did not comprehend what I wrote, which is fairly typical on here. I don't care how bright it is or if there are a hundred signs, to me its not a distraction or a danger. And please keep your insulting comments to yourself, that was directed right at me and you know it. didn't your parents teach you manners?

It is interesting that you infer I made the post to keep the discussion going (per your hi-lite) and in your next "breath" you say I made the post to insult you.

So you come on a thread that has been dead for a week, and start to lecture those who earlier complained about the dangerous distraction that was subsequently changed to 25% of the original brightness.
And then you complain when it is pointed out that it is people like you who are continuing to make the video billboard an issue.

I got what you wrote:

Sounds like to me it offends peoples sensibilities. If I could post them on my lawn I would ....could sure use the money.

And you confirmed what I said regarding people like yourself supporting brightness:

I don't care how bright it is or if there are a hundred signs, to me its not a distraction or a danger.

And then you confirmed my statement that it is people like you who are continuing to prolong the issue by your doing this:
http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18170

My parents teachings? They taught me to be honest and straight forward.
What were you taught?

Am I not allowed to leave comments? Others comment on older threads. And twisting my words to support your argument means you are not being honest withyourself. You remind me of this old lady I know that whined about the adaption of third brake lights.

Leave all the comments you like. Start all the polls you like.

You are on-record as not agreeing that the video brightness at an intensity level 4 times as bright as it currently is was not a potential dangerous distraction to other drivers. You have every right to that opinion. Fortunately the owner of the sign had the good sense to reduce the intensity when he was approached by the MOT. Simply put... EOS.

LOL... your breaklight red herring is sooooo lame!

But that aside it was your assertion on the "dead thread" that "it's a non-issue and what's the problem if the intensity has already been lowered". Obviously it was not clear to you that the fact no one was complaining about the intensity any longer was a signal that the problem had been addressed.
So yes, I pointed out it was people like you who were keeping it an issue by coming on a dead thread and it was not the people who had opposite views to yours who were continuing the discussion.
I did think that you would see that in quick order but I was wrong. Obviously there was a reason you did not see that at the beginning.

Judging by the poll results your thought processes are in the minority.
You read into things waaaaay too much. Whatever makes you warm and fuzzy

True ... my thought process "Don't care" is in the minority in your yesterday's poll.
When I voted there were only two "Don't care" votes... I see we are gaining ground.

[WhatThe]

Are you done yet? I sure wish people would actually take the time to read things before they open their mouths...The poll was about boycotting businesses , nothing about brightness.

[Bestside]

Judging by the poll results your thought processes are in the minority.
You read into things waaaaay too much. Whatever makes you warm and fuzzy

True ... my thought process "Don't care" is in the minority in your yesterday's poll.
When I voted there were only two "Don't care" votes... I see we are gaining ground.

Are you done yet? I sure wish people would actually take the time to read things before they open their mouths...The poll was about boycotting businesses , nothing about brightness.

This is getting ridiculous...
Who said your poll was about "brightness"?
Now read this r e a l s l o w ...

quote= WhatThe: "Judging by the poll results your thought processes are in the minority."
quote= Bestside: "True. my thought process "Don't care" is in the minority in your yesterday's poll. "
quote= WhatThe: "The poll was about boycotting businesses , nothing about brightness."

So there you go again... making stuff up... The following of yours is quite a revelation:
quote="WhatThe": I sure wish people would actually take the time to read things before they open their mouths..
Speaking of "brightness"... you talk about yourself much????
This is so not worthwhile... have a nice day ...

[mystica]

The owners of the sign and the wfn member who holds current control of the land obviously couldn't give a fig for the thoughts of the common man! Nothing we say is going to make a difference as far as they are concerned.

We should all take heart BECAUSE come the summer and sun, advertisers should ask for a reduction in their fees. In bright sunlight, the sign is really difficult to read. (Rather like trying to take digital photos using only the screen and no viewfinder.)

Especially in the morning it looks like a badly faded mish mash with the bright, harsh sunlight behind it. RAH! RAH!

Kinda of worth waiting for.........

[sandwalker]

It's bad enogh that we are subjected to unsightly business advertising that lines Harvey street, during the day. Now advertising suppiers have found another way to distract our minds and attention after dark. The night sky should not be lite up by high powered video advertising. ICBC should ban that type of advertising as they are always so concerned about traffic safety.

Come on people and wake up, do we really need yet more advertising to help us with our decisions. Advertising is everwhere we turn, subcounsiously bobarding us with slogans and false hope of health and happiness. I would rather see nothing than yet another advertisement.

[sobrohusfat]

coming home from visiting folks in Westbank last Wednesday night, i was surprised not to see any signs of the iluminated sign. As i approached the now dark corner i tried to see if it had been just turned off or removed completely and nearly swerved into the center median.
VERY DANGEROUS having it turned off like that...what are they thinking.

[Bestside]

The video was lit Monday March 9, and it was off Tuesday Mar. 10 and has been off ever since...

It's actually ineffective advertising situated on a corner without a longer straight stretch of road leading to it.
Advertising that changes like that is meant for foot traffic... or for a longer stretch of road where the message can be left in place longer so people can read it in good time.

Admanvertisers should have known better ...

[JohnCambell]

I just got back from Saskatchewan, and they have video billboards in several cities, even smaller centers. They actually look like they work quite well.

The big difference with them, is that of course, they are not on corners. All straight streches. Maybe less people would complain, if the video billboard was put on a straight stretch.

Also, I noticed the billboards in saskatchewan, were located, in spots were the traffic had slowed down to 50km or less. Made it much easier to read, and much easier to drive.

[mae]

Hmm.....50kms or less. In Kelowna you would have to place it in a parking lot.

[AlanH]

I liked the ad I saw on the Video bill board yesterday when I drove by it.

It was black, as in shut off.

Maybe he will be hammering up a cardboard Ad onto it soon.

[grumbo]

I just got off the phone with Michael and I feel he's a victim of trouble makers trying to make a name for themselves.
Buttom line we support the billboard and considering a listing on it for our firm.

Can't wait for your Ad, so I can put your firm on my list of businesses I won't do business with as well. No biggie though, I'm sure there are plenty of folks that will support you, right?

actually there is no-one that will support him

[grumbo]

I just got off the phone with Michael and I feel he's a victim of trouble makers trying to make a name for themselves.
Buttom line we support the billboard and considering a listing on it for our firm.

what are you talking about??? a firm is a business not somebody throwing ten pieces of paper around every month