LG investigated over alleded standard def HDTV

[pedro]

Richard Waters wrote:

Michael C furiously typed the following on 18/11/2005 10:27 AM:

cmwmjt@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:1132261396.083653.199830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I work for a major retailer and this is the first i've heard about it.



One thing I've learnt about people who work for retailers, if they
have any knowledge they'd be designing or repairing the stuff not
selling it.

Michael


Well, thats a very stupid generalisation! :-S And you know what they
say: "..all generalisations are dangerous - including this one!"

I am an electronics and computer engineer - and it was one of the
things that made me a great salesman and an even better manager...
...and to keep the skills sharp I used to work part time for a design
firm making/designing/manufacturing/repairing all sorts of equipment.

It's a shame you feel that way...

--Richard

Rather surprising then that you would claim that the 'LG 42PX4DV is
"technically" a HD unit' when the panel is not a HD display, and just
because the unit has a HD tuner, and when LG is a signatory to the CESA
code which 'requires that 'minimum HD display capability shall be 576p'
before a TV can be labelled an HDTV', as stated in the article.


--
rgds,

Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'A printer consists of three main parts: the case, the jammed paper tray and the blinking red light'

 

[Mart]

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:htlpn11cspga4fh94kndvmjfnitqr6q8b5@4ax.com...

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:37:06 GMT, "Mart" <spam@spam.spam> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

publisher's name or web address would be nice.

Second hit with Google ("appliance retailer" magazine):
http://www.intermedia.com.au/index.cfm?page=mag.magDesc&mid=1&area=magazines

Thanks for doing the work for me. The original poster should have done it
first up.

It's not my job to be hunting around for that sort of thing.

"mark jb" <nukeleer at internode dot on dot net> wrote in message
news:437c3248$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Source?


From Appliance Retailer 11/05..


-mark

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[pedro]

Mart wrote:

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:htlpn11cspga4fh94kndvmjfnitqr6q8b5@4ax.com...


On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:37:06 GMT, "Mart" <spam@spam.spam> put finger
to keyboard and composed:



publisher's name or web address would be nice.


Second hit with Google ("appliance retailer" magazine):
http://www.intermedia.com.au/index.cfm?page=mag.magDesc&mid=1&area=magazines




Thanks for doing the work for me. The original poster should have done it
first up.

The OP did it after you whinged about it, in case you didn't notice. The
article wasn't quoted from the net anyway.

It's not my job to be hunting around for that sort of thing.

It is if you want it. But rather than being thankful that you'd been
given some info that could help you avoid making a bad purchase, you
just want to whine because there's no url! Get a life FFS! Are you on
the dole are you? Do you think the world owes you a living.

"mark jb" <nukeleer at internode dot on dot net> wrote in message
news:437c3248$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...


Source?




From Appliance Retailer 11/05..


-mark


-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Mart]

"pedro" <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Esiff.20473$Hj2.18439@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Second hit with Google ("appliance retailer" magazine):
http://www.intermedia.com.au/index.cfm?page=mag.magDesc&mid=1&area=magazines


Thanks for doing the work for me. The original poster should have done it
first up.


The OP did it after you whinged about it, in case you didn't notice. The
article wasn't quoted from the net anyway.

Yes, but it should have been included in the original post.

It's not my job to be hunting around for that sort of thing.


It is if you want it. But rather than being thankful that you'd been given
some info that could help you avoid making a bad purchase, you just want
to whine because there's no url! Get a life FFS! Are you on the dole are
you? Do you think the world owes you a living.

I expect people to properly reference their sources. I do not want to be
doing any work hunting around the internet finding out about a publication.
Got a problem with that?

"mark jb" <nukeleer at internode dot on dot net> wrote in message
news:437c3248$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...

Source?


From Appliance Retailer 11/05..

-mark

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[pedro]

Mart wrote:

"pedro" <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Esiff.20473$Hj2.18439@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


Second hit with Google ("appliance retailer" magazine):
http://www.intermedia.com.au/index.cfm?page=mag.magDesc&mid=1&area=magazines



Thanks for doing the work for me. The original poster should have done it
first up.



The OP did it after you whinged about it, in case you didn't notice. The
article wasn't quoted from the net anyway.




Yes, but it should have been included in the original post.



It's not my job to be hunting around for that sort of thing.



It is if you want it. But rather than being thankful that you'd been given
some info that could help you avoid making a bad purchase, you just want
to whine because there's no url! Get a life FFS! Are you on the dole are
you? Do you think the world owes you a living.




I expect people to properly reference their sources. I do not want to be
doing any work hunting around the internet finding out about a publication.
Got a problem with that?

Yes, when you make such an f'n big deal about it. The source was given.
If you want more info, and you're too bloody lazy to find it yourself,
then your problem.

 

[Lord-Data]

<cmwmjt@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:1132261396.083653.199830@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I work for a major retailer and this is the first i've heard about it.

And you retail this type of product? Odd..

I work for a rather large computer retailer, and we get it sent free.. and
yet 95% of the thing is about TVs, and washing machines and vacuum cleaners,
etc .. rarely much at all on computers, so dunno why they send it to us

Fact is the LG 42PX4DV is "technically" a HD unit, as it does receive
HD but obviously it has to be scaled to 854x480 (I also happen to own a
42PX4DV)

I

 

[Michael C]

"Richard Waters" <legerdemain@irimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:437d1820$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Well, thats a very stupid generalisation! :-S And you know what they
say: "..all generalisations are dangerous - including this one!"

Of course there are exceptions but generally it is true. You can't ask sales
people much these days. In radio parts you used to be able to ask technical
questions (and they loved answering them) but not anymore.

I am an electronics and computer engineer - and it was one of the things
that made me a great salesman and an even better manager... ...and to
keep the skills sharp I used to work part time for a design firm
making/designing/manufacturing/repairing all sorts of equipment.

With all those skills why would you work at retail level?

It's a shame you feel that way...

It seems like a pretty fair assumption to me, if you have the knowledge
you'd be doing something besided selling it. You'd have to admit you were a
pretty big exception.

Michael

 

[Gazzus_Blokius]

its a FAQ, eg: Frequently Asked Questions you tool, it has no binding power
and neither is it a governing body
get over yourselves

--
Garry

=======================
The Christian right is neither !
=======================
"--- ylferiF ---" <4g213tb7n7h7dd55439@364872346.com> wrote in message
news:437ca41d$0$75339$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437c77f0$0$7019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Falkon" <falkon@noname.com.au> wrote in message
news:dlhqq9$ekt$1@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Gazzus_Blokius wrote:
why not, nothing wrong or against the law with top posting


It's against the code of practice ...

I usually bottom feed........ummm I mean post on Usenet, I just don't
like someone demanding that everyone HAS to bottom post, its not etched
in stone for gods sake!!

No, not etched in stone, but close enough.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Section 3.1.1
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response."

 

[Gazzus_Blokius]

one GOOD reason, just one.................................
( I bet he pulls the old and tired "well it follows the flow of
conversation" crap)

--
Garry

=======================
The Christian right is neither !
=======================
"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangwildeblood@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1132277811.950655.21360@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Gazzus_Blokius wrote:
I usually bottom feed........ummm I mean post on Usenet, I just don't
like
someone demanding that everyone HAS to bottom post, its not etched in
stone
for gods sake!!

But it should be.

 

[Fred]

Mart wrote:

"pedro" <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Esiff.20473$Hj2.18439@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Second hit with Google ("appliance retailer" magazine):
http://www.intermedia.com.au/index.cfm?page=mag.magDesc&mid=1&area=magazines


Thanks for doing the work for me. The original poster should have
done it first up.


The OP did it after you whinged about it, in case you didn't notice.
The article wasn't quoted from the net anyway.



Yes, but it should have been included in the original post.




It's not my job to be hunting around for that sort of thing.


It is if you want it. But rather than being thankful that you'd been
given some info that could help you avoid making a bad purchase, you
just want to whine because there's no url! Get a life FFS! Are you
on the dole are you? Do you think the world owes you a living.



I expect people to properly reference their sources. I do not want
to be doing any work hunting around the internet finding out about a
publication. Got a problem with that?

Well if you are truly interested then here is a copy of the voluntary
aggreement that LG seemed to have breached.
http://www.cesa.asn.au/doc/CODE%20AUG%202002.pdf

"mark jb" <nukeleer at internode dot on dot net> wrote in message
news:437c3248$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...

Source?


From Appliance Retailer 11/05..

-mark

-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[pedro]

Michael C wrote:

"Richard Waters" <legerdemain@irimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:437d1820$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...


Well, thats a very stupid generalisation! :-S And you know what they
say: "..all generalisations are dangerous - including this one!"



Of course there are exceptions but generally it is true. You can't ask sales
people much these days. In radio parts you used to be able to ask technical
questions (and they loved answering them) but not anymore.

Radio parts used to sell, not surprisingly, radio parts, as well as
other allied componentry, such as batteries and so on. They then
expanded their stock to include all kinds of electronic componentry, as
well as plugs, connectors, leads, etc.. One of their biggest rivals was
JB Telespares, who were located nearby. Not sure exactly when, but RPG
moved away from supplying parts to the trade to adopt more of a retail
type business, and that has been their undoing in my view. Now they
mainly just flog their Wintal brand, and a few plugs and sockets, etc.,
and try to compete with the likes of Hardly Normal and DSE. Not much
hope of success with that I'm afraid. And all the old blokes with the
tech knowledge have long since gone. In short, they have cut their own
throat. Another thing that they did wrong was to junk their printed
catalogue and rely on their website. Well that was a disaster, and they
were forced to bring back the printed catalogue. But having said all
this.. perhaps they had no choice but to do as they did, as the demand
for electronic parts was probably insufficient to maintain a viable
business in that market alone. They were also selling antennas for
example, but now we have companies specializing solely in antenna
installations at budget prices, like Jim's Antennas, so that is one
market segment that dried up for them as well.

I am an electronics and computer engineer - and it was one of the things
that made me a great salesman and an even better manager... ...and to
keep the skills sharp I used to work part time for a design firm
making/designing/manufacturing/repairing all sorts of equipment.



With all those skills why would you work at retail level?



It's a shame you feel that way...



It seems like a pretty fair assumption to me, if you have the knowledge
you'd be doing something besided selling it. You'd have to admit you were a
pretty big exception.

Michael

--
rgds,

Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'I lose my weight, but it keeps finding me again!'

 

[Mart]

"pedro" <pedro@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:k3lff.20567$Hj2.3576@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I expect people to properly reference their sources. I do not want to be
doing any work hunting around the internet finding out about a
publication. Got a problem with that?


Yes, when you make such an f'n big deal about it. The source was given. If
you want more info, and you're too bloody lazy to find it yourself, then
your problem.

Doesn't encourage good posting habits. Name the source and full citation
so I don't have to do any work whatsoever. That's how it should be.

Oh, and I'm not on the dole, but I'm certainly that way inclined. I deserve
to live an easy life...

 

[--- ylferiF ---]

*Top posting error corrected*

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437eaaa4$0$26253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"--- ylferiF ---" <4g213tb7n7h7dd55439@364872346.com> wrote in message
news:437ca41d$0$75339$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437c77f0$0$7019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Falkon" <falkon@noname.com.au> wrote in message
news:dlhqq9$ekt$1@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Gazzus_Blokius wrote:
why not, nothing wrong or against the law with top posting


It's against the code of practice ...

I usually bottom feed........ummm I mean post on Usenet, I just don't
like someone demanding that everyone HAS to bottom post, its not etched
in stone for gods sake!!

No, not etched in stone, but close enough.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Section 3.1.1
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response."

its a FAQ, eg: Frequently Asked Questions you tool,

No it isn't moron.

it has no binding power and neither is it a governing body

It is however a convention that has worked well for many years, since long
before 1995 in fact.

 

[Richard Waters]

Michael C furiously typed the following on 19/11/2005 11:49 AM:

"Richard Waters" <legerdemain@irimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:437d1820$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Well, thats a very stupid generalisation! :-S And you know what they
say: "..all generalisations are dangerous - including this one!"


Of course there are exceptions but generally it is true. You can't ask sales
people much these days. In radio parts you used to be able to ask technical
questions (and they loved answering them) but not anymore.

You're right of course and its a shame, and one of the reasons I left...
...and I loved answering those questions as well - I was in it for
the pleasure of helping people out. :-D

The other "sales people" were just that, in it for the sales - and now,
with more "sales people" and less "assitants" there are even MORE
compliants about places like DSE, HN and DoMayne - and its no wonder!

I am an electronics and computer engineer - and it was one of the things
that made me a great salesman and an even better manager... ...and to
keep the skills sharp I used to work part time for a design firm
making/designing/manufacturing/repairing all sorts of equipment.


With all those skills why would you work at retail level?

Because I love talking to, and helping, people - thats why I chose many
"service based" industries: Security and Body Guard, Sydney LightRail
Driver, Retail for HN, Domayne and DSE, I.T. consultant...

....and at the moment I am a Professional Magician! *laugh*
[richardsmagic.com]

I mean, as a magician I have the skills to pick locks, escape from
handcuffs and such forth - but I choose to be a Magician and not a Cat
Burgler?!

Same for me as the choice above - sure I have the skills and can do
other things but I choose that path, and I did cos I enjoyed it, and not
cos there was money there to earn... ...cos lord knows u DONT make a
fortune in sales these days?! *laugh*

And again, youre right, you have a point, but thats why I said it was a
generalisation! ;-)

It's a shame you feel that way...


It seems like a pretty fair assumption to me, if you have the knowledge
you'd be doing something besided selling it. You'd have to admit you were a
pretty big exception.

OK, I will agree, I wasnt in the majority - and I was glad of it! :-D

Its a sad state of affairs u have brought up Michael, and its also a
shame that a good post has been evershadowed by idiots arguing about
top-posting and bottom-posting... ...because u brought up a valid
point mate!

Cya! Richard [the Wizard from Aus]
---
richardsmagic.com

 

[Gazzus_Blokius]

Usenet top posting Nazi corrected
PLONK

--
Garry

=======================
The Christian right is neither !
=======================
"--- ylferiF ---" <4g213tb7n7h7dd55439@364872346.com> wrote in message
news:437ede5a$0$75342$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...

*Top posting error corrected*

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437eaaa4$0$26253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"--- ylferiF ---" <4g213tb7n7h7dd55439@364872346.com> wrote in message
news:437ca41d$0$75339$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437c77f0$0$7019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Falkon" <falkon@noname.com.au> wrote in message
news:dlhqq9$ekt$1@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Gazzus_Blokius wrote:
why not, nothing wrong or against the law with top posting


It's against the code of practice ...

I usually bottom feed........ummm I mean post on Usenet, I just don't
like someone demanding that everyone HAS to bottom post, its not etched
in stone for gods sake!!

No, not etched in stone, but close enough.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Section 3.1.1
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response."

its a FAQ, eg: Frequently Asked Questions you tool,

No it isn't moron.

it has no binding power and neither is it a governing body

It is however a convention that has worked well for many years, since long
before 1995 in fact.

 

[--- ylferiF ---]

*Top posting error corrected AGAIN*
"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:43802942$0$25853$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

"--- ylferiF ---" <4g213tb7n7h7dd55439@364872346.com> wrote in message
news:437ede5a$0$75342$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...
*Top posting error corrected*

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437eaaa4$0$26253$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"--- ylferiF ---" <4g213tb7n7h7dd55439@364872346.com> wrote in message
news:437ca41d$0$75339$c30e37c6@ken-reader.news.telstra.net...

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:437c77f0$0$7019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Falkon" <falkon@noname.com.au> wrote in message
news:dlhqq9$ekt$1@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Gazzus_Blokius wrote:
why not, nothing wrong or against the law with top posting


It's against the code of practice ...

I usually bottom feed........ummm I mean post on Usenet, I just don't
like someone demanding that everyone HAS to bottom post, its not
etched in stone for gods sake!!

No, not etched in stone, but close enough.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Section 3.1.1
"If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure
readers understand when they start to read your response."

its a FAQ, eg: Frequently Asked Questions you tool,

No it isn't moron.

it has no binding power and neither is it a governing body

It is however a convention that has worked well for many years, since
long before 1995 in fact.

Usenet top posting Nazi corrected

Obviously you have nothing to counter what I said so you've resorted to
insults.

PLONK

You wouldn't know a killfile if it kicked you in the arse.

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to aus.electronics.]
On 2005-11-25, Gazzus_Blokius <here@there.everywhere> wrote:

when you start a conversation do you have to go over everything that was
said previously to be able to follow the direction of the conversation,

no. that's whay you edit out the unneccessary bits instseatd of posting the
whole message.


Bye.
Jasen

 

[Mr.T]

"Gazzus_Blokius" <here@there.everywhere> wrote in message
news:438a630c$0$9292$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

no. that's whay you edit out the unneccessary bits instseatd of posting
the whole message.

if only they would, but most people don't even bother

And those of us who do get abused by the people with Alzheimer's.

MrT.