the evaluator today said i had too many facts and not enough emotion. he asked me beforehand if i had any personal stories in there and his evaluation then focused on THAT. i thought asking the audience to raise their hands if they were persuaded was a gr8 way to check the project objectives. he thought not everyone put up their hand, but i didn't notice WHO held out!

Q. how anti-kl-actual nature can a work get???

- one person said i was doing that question thing at the end of some of my statements. someone else suggested i wasn't dressed appropriately. someone else would have liked to hear more about the sources. someone called me kimmy-pot-pie, and said she was definitely on my super-hero sign up sheet by the end. someone else said less BUSH/USA and more Canadian content would have ensured that the audience didn't distance themselves from the problem. someone else said i need more eye contact and more vocal variety. the self-admitted right wing said she was convinced "you have come up with articulate, intelligent and workable solutions to our global issues"
*
Just wanted to e-add a brief rebuttal to one of your evalutaor's comments, tho this might not be TM etiquette. I thought you *did *give a personal example to illustrate your point when you said you'd actually changed topics bc of what LM had said and the urgency of the message. Anyway, as usual it was an excellent presentation. Congratulations and Thank you!