Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

[geoff]

In message <5d55vv85hdti6hv7lm3bu6ntr3u5i4ncbh@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
<andyh@hall.nospam> writes

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:47:49 +0000, geoff <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote:



Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
but with an anterior motive


It's normally "ulterior". "Anterior" in connection with Corrie St?

I know, I know....

It was a typo, although how I got a&u and n&l mixed up, I have no idea,
they're not even close on the kbd.

I read it in several replies and winced, but wasn't going to correct it
as I have given up on this thread
--
geoff

 

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:04:33 +0000, geoff <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote:

In message <5d55vv85hdti6hv7lm3bu6ntr3u5i4ncbh@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
andyh@hall.nospam> writes
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:47:49 +0000, geoff <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote:



Never watched more than one episode of Coronation street 30 years ago -
but with an anterior motive


It's normally "ulterior". "Anterior" in connection with Corrie St?

I know, I know....

It was a typo, although how I got a&u and n&l mixed up, I have no idea,
they're not even close on the kbd.

I read it in several replies and winced, but wasn't going to correct it
as I have given up on this thread

Quite, although I suppose in the sense of 'anterior' it could be
described as a f*ck up. IYSWIM



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

 

[half_pint]

Bob Brenchley. wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08pIb.175235$8y1.531705@attbi_s52...


Why all the argument? The reason behind widescreen is irrelevant,
the fact is that it's the format of the future, virtually every
movie in existance was filmed in something closer to 16:9 than
4:3.


Actually 35mm film is 36mmx24mm - 3:2. Most early films were shot
on that format....




Which is almost exactly in the middle between 4:3 and 16:9, my
interpretation of that is that for older fims it's a tossup, for
newer films 16:9 is the clear winner, looks like a point scored for
WS.

Perhaps my view on this subject is also due to the fact that I
can't think of anything worth watching on TV aside from movies and
a very occasional show on the history channel, if 95% of the TV's
use is for wide material then it would make sense to go with a wide
set should I ever get a newer one than I have.

Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception, do you
think your cinema proprietor knows better.

Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3
TV.

That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC. It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*.
Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more misleading
and inaccurate garbage.

I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
seating, a wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
hence greater profits.

Rubbish.

Fact

With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.

Why not?

Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
10% of the seating capacity below.

Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
phrase)

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[half_pint]

Bob Brenchley. wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:21:20 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:urrJ$6bGei8$EwCT@ntlworld.com...
In message <bst6bk$15gbn$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes


Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that

You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.

No it isn't.

Troll

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.

Did you miss my comment above?

No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)

There are several 16/17" sets (which have the same vertical screen
height as a 14" standard.

No - prove it - give a some links - you cannot. EOS

Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.

Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
portable)

I don't fancy a paying Ł280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.

Then get a smaller/cheaper set.

That as a smaller cheapo set. It's Ł380 for a set 10% bigger. (32 in)

The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to
win because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not
what you happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what,
economically , is going to generate best profits.

And you are right but wrong.
I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?

The profit is the extra sales generated by people like you.

WS has causes me to stop buying TV's, mugs like you cough up merrilly.

The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.

The Community Charge system was the fairest tax ever used.

For the filthy rich yes.

16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.

One reason so few programmes are made in 4:3.

You get what you are served not what you choose.

Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
My footie is still 4:3 :O)

No it isn't. All football is now recorded and most is transmitted in
widescreen.

Not where I live (central UK).

Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit
in front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the
constant, safe secure world that you once knew is no more, get used
to it

Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"

It is already on its way. In a few years time you will not be able to
watch analogue broadcasts.

Wrong.

I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC
though. It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General
of
the BBC in every room?

We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.

But we are going digital. The majority of people now have digital TV
and the size of that majority grows every day.

Yes and a cure for cancer is just around the corner.

If my 78 year old Mother can see the advantage of digital then so will
everyone else - except idiots like you.

Is she blind and senile? (like you)

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[half_pint]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

half_pint wrote:


Nature chose a circular image for human visual perception,

Ah, but that is where you are completely wrong.

depending on teh species, there are huge variations in visual
perecp[ion. Cats for example have vertical irises,which allow
extermely shapr vision in teh horizontal plane, less so in teh
vertical, at night.

Horses have near 360 degree vison horizontally, but only 180
vertically.
And precious little binocular.

We as tree and plains dwellers, have good binocular, and about 120
degree horizontally and about 90 degree vertically peripheral vision.

Wrong our field of viable 20/20 vision is about 20 degrees IIRC, look it up.
You *cannot* effectively use peripheral vison to watch TV.

do you think
your cinema proprietor knows better.
I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
seating, a wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
hence greater profits. With a taller screen you cannot seat people
in vertical space
required to show the film.


Er, you can. Old formay 35mm screens worked juts fine on seating, but
more and more they only got the film projected in teh middle bit. So
the newer cinemas are a bit lower. Wide screen - e.g. cinerama - has
been
around a while. The main driver has always been te ability to show
more sideways. Its so happens that teh majority of pictures do not
featire a single talking head, and things like car chases benefit
from gerater horizontal stuff.

Thats a bit garbled. It is a fact the the taller the picture the less people
you can seat per unit area, a 10 year old child could work that out.
( You may find tha maths a bit taxing presumably)

Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
phrase)


Both, but not your ecomomic argument. Most films are really mde for
DVD/video these days. Only teh really big blockbusters make cinema
money.
And most are not even WS, I seem so many complaints about it from

pretentious 'purists'

Its an artistic and practical thing. And the equipment makers follow
fashions

to help obosolete old kit.

The fashion of economics and profit, not good picture making.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[half_pint]

Bob Brenchley. wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:16:33 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:




"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:6c04vvsj012tder7e1pmmks7nfr91gkgag@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:50:14 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5cU8Cx16re8$EwiS@ntlworld.com...
In message <bssmil$117v1$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>,
half_pint <esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes



I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

There is no such thing as a golden rectangle, its a myth which
developed in the 18th-19th century. Google in it but be careful
to avoid the red herring sites.

Well Leonardo and the ancient greeks certainly recognised it


The greeks may have a golden ratio in maths however it is nothing
to do with art.
Oh and claims about the Mona Lisa are b*llocks.
Apart from anything else the picture is not widescreen it is
quite the opposite. Its much taller than it is wide.
Bit odd that eh?

No.

Yes.

You have been told no - by lots of people.

Yes people who don't have a clue and no evidence to support them.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is
on it's way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty
old 4:3 finally croaks - stop watching TV?

No I will buy a proper sized TV, there are still plenty of
propper broadcasts available. A WS TV of a reasonable hight is
ridiculously expensive.

What will you do when your old 4:3 portable vacuum tube
TV croaks bye the way?
I look forward to hearing your answer

I'll have to resort to watching my 32" widescreen I suppose

You will need strong arms lugging that b*stard about.

Who would want to lug a large TV about?

Someone who has a large portable?

But "large" and "portable" do not equate. If you want a portable then
you have a portable - a 16/17" Widescreen is only a couple of pounds
heavier than a normal 14".

Nobody sells em - slight problem

Forgive me if I am overstating the obvious.

I will forgive you, this time, for being stupid.

You are wrong EOS.

--
geoff
--
---------------
regards half_pint

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can
be summed up in one word -- YOU.

Still can't work out how to use a newsreader I see.

Its worked ok the last 5 years and I am not changing it.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[half_pint]

Bob Brenchley. wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:49:51 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I2pIb.79969$VB2.162248@attbi_s51...


No I find it funny that people use the (invalid) golden rectangle
arguement for WS TV's when the rectangle is as likely to be
horizontal as vertical, thus making a square a better shape
for a TV, and taken a little futher circular would be the
best comprimise (as mother nature discovered as she evloved
human vision thus resulting in round eyes, pupils, iris's
fovea and macular.)




Where are you even getting that from? A portrait display (taller
than wide) is great for showing just that, a portrait of one
person, or a full document, but since our eyes are side by side,
not one over the other, when


Your eyes may be side by side but they produce a single 3D circular
image.

No they don't. The produce a wide angle view, which modern widescreen
TVs still can't achieve but at least they come closer to a natural
view than the old 4:3 sets.

Completely wrong. Prove it. You can't

( Unless you are pissed out of your mind and have double vision)

you look out over a scene you see more width than height. There's
little of interest on the ground or up in the sky, hence the
popularity of panoramic photos for showing a scene.

Unfortunatly only ~10% of images are panoramic most are portrait,
unless you are a seagull which require a widescreen view as viewing
the horizon seems to
the be all and end all of their exiatance.

We naturally have a panoramic view on ther world - regardless of what
we are looking at.

Wrong.

Just the same, yes if the standard was square and movies were shot
assuming a square screen it would work just fine and dandy aside
from having to try harder to keep mic booms, etc out of the picture
and needing to be zoomed out unnessesarily far to fit many scenes,
but the fact of the matter is that's not the case, and movies are
filmed wider than they are tall. That's the way it's been for a
long time and it's unlikely for that to change. Are you a troll or
what? You must have been one of those kids who'd try to jam the
round peg in the square hole for reasons not apparent to anyone
else.

I think u r the troll, the movie of 911 will look great in WS, you
will have to film it from 20 miles away to get both towers in.

Images on average are of a random shape so round, like our eyes
vision is best.

But your vision is NOT round - that is the part you keep getting
wrong.
yes it is.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:50:03 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:



Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than 4:3
TV.

That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC.

Hohohoho!! Add a zero to that dumbo.

It is *not possible* to watch a film using

*peripheral vision*.

Ideally the picture should be far wider.

Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more misleading
and inaccurate garbage.

Try doing the same dumbo - maybe then you would not look so stupid.

I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
seating, a wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
hence greater profits.

Rubbish.

Fact

No it isn't.

With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.

Why not?

Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
10% of the seating capacity below.

Not been to an Imax cinema have you?

Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
phrase)

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

 

[half_pint]

Bob Brenchley. wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:50:03 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:



Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than
4:3 TV.

That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC.

Hohohoho!! Add a zero to that dumbo.

Your the only zero here.

It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*.

Ideally the picture should be far wider.

Hence our eyes in the back of our heads.

Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more
misleading and inaccurate garbage.

Try doing the same dumbo - maybe then you would not look so stupid.

You are stupid.

I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
seating, a wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
hence greater profits.

Rubbish.

Fact

No it isn't.

Don't argue with better educated people.

With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.

Why not?

Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
10% of the seating capacity below.

Not been to an Imax cinema have you?

No I don't flush my money down the loo either.

Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
phrase)

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <an00vvsjig9h5vjq03599rn34eljjfq2lo@4ax.com>, Bob Brenchley.
<Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> writes

No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a
widescreen view of the wall.

Half_pint's eyes work about as well as his brain!

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:57:01 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:21:20 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:


"geoff" <raden@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:urrJ$6bGei8$EwCT@ntlworld.com...
In message <bst6bk$15gbn$1@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes


Again, I made no mention of the Mona Lisa - it's a portrait over a
portrait. You have to dig a bit deeper into the art world than that

You mentioned leonardo, the ML is a common example given for the GR.

No it isn't.

Troll

You are, and a very sick one at that.

Well for two reasons one you might need to move it about a lot,
maybe a student or some other type who travels a lot.

Did you miss my comment above?

No I didn't, you appear to have missed my point however.
( which is there are few/no portable WS vacuum tube TV's)

There are several 16/17" sets (which have the same vertical screen
height as a 14" standard.

No - prove it - give a some links - you cannot. EOS

They have been posted in the past, you ignored them.

Also you may not have a very large house, I would like a portable
in the kitchen and anything bigger than a portable would take
up too much room, ditto for the bedroom.

Nah - 28" in the bedroom, portable but static in the kitchen (4:3
portable)

I don't fancy a paying Ł280 for a TV in the bedroom which I would
hardly ever watch, besides it would take up too much room anyway.

Then get a smaller/cheaper set.

That as a smaller cheapo set. It's Ł380 for a set 10% bigger. (32 in)

28" @ Ł280 is not smaller and not cheaper. You want small, go smaller.
You want cheap then go cheaper - you can get WSTVs for under Ł200
these days.

The 16:9 is becoming the new standard, like it or not. You are in a
changing world, you can dig your heels in, but you're not going to
win because it's a massive business whose primary interest is not
what you happen to find aesthetically pleasing, but what,
economically , is going to generate best profits.

And you are right but wrong.
I was considering buying a new main TV and two portables but all this
WS crap has put me off. So where is the profit in that?

The profit is the extra sales generated by people like you.

WS has causes me to stop buying TV's, mugs like you cough up merrilly.

It will be very good for the television industry - this promotion of
widescreen you do for them. Because if Half-Brain says it is bad then
it must be a "must have" for normal people.

The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.

The Community Charge system was the fairest tax ever used.

For the filthy rich yes.

For everyone.

16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks shite.

One reason so few programmes are made in 4:3.

You get what you are served not what you choose.

That is broadcasting for you. Apply to set up your own station and
then you can dish out your own programming. See if you can find a few
mugs that think 4:3 is better than 16:9.

Most of my viewing is still 4:3, the soaps (which I don't watch)
are in 16:9 but soap viewers will watch anything.
(Actually soaps look bad in 16:9 cos its mainly indoors so no
landscape shots, its mainly portrait type shots).
My footie is still 4:3 :O)

No it isn't. All football is now recorded and most is transmitted in
widescreen.

Not where I live (central UK).

Yes, where YOU live.

Digital TV will eventually take over from analogue and you can sit
in front of your old TV looking at snow if you want to - the
constant, safe secure world that you once knew is no more, get used
to it

Don't under estimate the power of the masses, we may have no cake
to eat Marie Anttiornette(?).
It will be a brave polititian who says "Let them watch snow!!"

It is already on its way. In a few years time you will not be able to
watch analogue broadcasts.

Wrong.

No, the switch off of analogue broadcasts started several years ago
when Sky and the Cable companies started to move to Digital. Sky
completed its move two years ago, most cable companies have also
switched off analogue or plan to do so very soon. Normal terrestrial
TV will start in the next three or four years - first with relay
transmitters but then the main ones. 6 or 7 years from now there will
be not analogue broadcasts in the UK.

I have noticed a lot of heavy pushing of 'new technology' by the BBC
though. It make me wonder who is controling the situation.
MAybe we will be required to have a portrait of the Governer General
of
the BBC in every room?

We haven't gone digital yet and it will take a long time I expect.

But we are going digital. The majority of people now have digital TV
and the size of that majority grows every day.

Yes and a cure for cancer is just around the corner.

Many are already cured, others are just around the corner - what to
stop that development as well?

If my 78 year old Mother can see the advantage of digital then so will
everyone else - except idiots like you.

Is she blind and senile? (like you)

Stupid Troll.

--
Bob.

Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).

 

[half_pint]

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article <an00vvsjig9h5vjq03599rn34eljjfq2lo@4ax.com>, Bob
Brenchley. <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> writes

No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a
widescreen view of the wall.

Half_pint's eyes work about as well as his brain!

I do indeed have perfect vision.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:41:05 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article <an00vvsjig9h5vjq03599rn34eljjfq2lo@4ax.com>, Bob
Brenchley. <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> writes

No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a
widescreen view of the wall.

Half_pint's eyes work about as well as his brain!

I do indeed have perfect vision.

Not if you claim a circular view on the world.

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:05:37 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:50:03 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:58:32 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:



Well, better than you anyway - at least he knows that humans have a
wide angle view on the world which widescreen comes closer to than
4:3 TV.

That garbage, the human field of active 20/20 vision is very narrow
about 20 degrees IIRC.

Hohohoho!! Add a zero to that dumbo.

Your the only zero here.

Still well above you.

The human field of vision is about 200 degrees by the way.

It is *not possible* to watch a film using
*peripheral vision*.

Ideally the picture should be far wider.

Hence our eyes in the back of our heads.

Please read up on how human vision works (but not on a site
designed for 5 year old children), before contributing more
misleading and inaccurate garbage.

Try doing the same dumbo - maybe then you would not look so stupid.

You are stupid.

Looking in the mirror again dumbo.

I think he is more influenced by the the economics of audiance
seating, a wide
seating area allows him more 'bums' (pun intended) per unit volume,
hence greater profits.

Rubbish.

Fact

No it isn't.

Don't argue with better educated people.

I'm not - I'm arguing with a moron like you.

With a taller screen you cannot seat people in vertical
space
required to show the film.

Why not?

Because anyone below then has their vision obscured, a high and
distant 'upper circle' is the best that can be managed, with abour
10% of the seating capacity below.

Not been to an Imax cinema have you?

No I don't flush my money down the loo either.


Economics not "how the director intended" ( thats so pretentious
phrase)

--
Bob.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.

 

[half_pint]

Andy Hall wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:15:31 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:




I don't lose often, you should seee my yahoo pool rating (when
sober).


Do you score well at pocket pool as well?

Shouldn't you be in a paedophile group swopping pics of children with
similar perverts?
This is uk.legal, I think you clicked on the wrong group.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[James Sweet]

Holy crap guys, can we stop feeding the troll already? *one* person stirring
up *many* other people, *nobody* agreeing with him, if that doesn't define a
troll then what does? Let's kill it already, it was interesting for a while,
now it's just lame.

 

[Andy Hall]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:00:52 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 03:15:31 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:




I don't lose often, you should seee my yahoo pool rating (when
sober).


Do you score well at pocket pool as well?

Shouldn't you be in a paedophile group swopping pics of children with
similar perverts?

Not really. I always understood that it was trolls who were to be
found under bridges.........

This is uk.legal, I think you clicked on the wrong group.

Actually it's uk.d-i-y. It's you who has been cross-posting and
behaving like Rumpelstilzchen. He was a half pint as well, I
understand.........



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

 

[Nozza]

Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Are widescreen TVs closer to 625 or 415 lines?

I have a 625 line "old fashioned" tv, and when watching stuff in W/S
(which I prefer for movies), there must be a whole lot of lines which
are "black" - but I have never seen figures as to what the number of
lines on a W/S TV actually is.

So... how many lines on a W/S TV?

Thanks

Noz
--
Email nozza underscore wales at yahoo co uk

 

[half_pint]

Nozza wrote:

Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Are widescreen TVs closer to 625 or 415 lines?

I have a 625 line "old fashioned" tv, and when watching stuff in W/S
(which I prefer for movies), there must be a whole lot of lines which
are "black" - but I have never seen figures as to what the number of
lines on a W/S TV actually is.

So... how many lines on a W/S TV?

I believe there are 625 but it is hard to get any real info, there doesn't
seem to be any available. the mugs who buy WS TV's would buy
anything.
I also see some references to 480 lines but these may be from USA or
other countries sites.
The only thing which is clear is that the whole thing is a mess. Black bars
all over the place - yuck.
4:3 is best, you can pan and scan a WS movie with excellent results.
You cannot however pan and scan a 4:3 picture with a WS apperture.
I have no doubt that the slitty eyed Japs are behind it all (Sony).

When the switch to digital TV takes place I will stop watching TV
and use the license money to pay for a fast broadband connection.
It seems like the only solution to this fiasco.
TV will be so f*cked up by then it wont be worth watching.
They can shove their WS TV's up their arses (it should be a good fit).
I have no intension of becoming a WS TV victim.
Its not WideScreen its WankerScreen.
WSTV = WankerScreen.TechnoVictim.

Thanks

Noz

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 23:34:21 +0000, Nozza
<nozza_again_gns@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Are widescreen TVs closer to 625 or 415 lines?

I have a 625 line "old fashioned" tv, and when watching stuff in W/S
(which I prefer for movies), there must be a whole lot of lines which
are "black" - but I have never seen figures as to what the number of
lines on a W/S TV actually is.

So... how many lines on a W/S TV?

Thanks

Noz

No, widescreen TVs are the same 625 line standard as old fashioned 4:3
sets.

--
Bob.

Seen on a sign in the window of a restaurant: "Life is short, start
with dessert."