RightSadFred wrote on Aug 12
th, 2013 at 12:09pm:
Karnal wrote on Aug 12
th, 2013 at 11:56am:
It's probably about ratings, Wigley. Notes make people turn the channel.
Besides, a candidate for PM should have his arguments down pat by now. If Gillard was on the stand, she certainly would - as would Turnbull.
Rudd's a details man. Abbott's a big picture man. Rudd needs notes much more than Abbott,
I'd like to see the situation reversed. If Abbott had notes and Rudd talked off the cuff - that's the debate I'd like to see.
Whenever I go to any presentations I tend to get turned off people continuously referring to their notes, I even get the odd presenter reading out a script which suggests me they really don't agree or understand what they are saying.
If you truly believe something or are intimate with a subject matter you can speak without notes.
Rudd just bunches a bunch of lies together and is heavily scripted, telling the truth has a nice natural flow, when you start lying you need to keep thinking up new lies to fill in the gaps that lies create....... it like running on a treadmill with no controls.
I remember a few years ago, doing my HSC, we did a speech for English. It was supposed to be 7 minutes. One kid got up there with an essay written completely by his older brother. He stood there talking for 19 minutes without looking up from his transcript even once. Whenever you give a presentation of any kind, you mustn't refer to palm cards, except sporadically. It shows that you don't have confidence in what you are saying, and that you aren't even fully aware of the topic/s.
In Rudd's case, however, it was even worse, because the rules stated that notes were not allowed in the room. So why didn't David Speers or anyone else stop him. If you ask me, Speers has questions to answer.