questions, or provided answers arguably favorable to the defense. Because of the vehemence with which the government argues a position with no seeming support in the law, this court pauses to discuss the obligations placed on each of the parties to a trial by the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is a basic tenet of our law that in order to preserve an evidentiary issue for review, the party opposing the admission of the evidence must make a timely objection. Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); United States v. Auch, 187 F.3d 125, 130 (1st Cir.1999); United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284, 1293 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Wihbey, 75 F.3d 761, 770 & n. 4 (1st Cir.1996); Willco Kuwait (Trading) S.A.K. v. deSavary, 843 F.2d 618, 625 (1st Cir.1988); see also United State 378, 385 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), and W. Fire Ins. Co. v. Word, 131 F.2d 541,
holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication holding that because at least three pages of transcript were recorded before the defendant objected the objection came too late to preserve the objection for appeal