If I had what you have, I would have better things to do to. No wonder you dont wanna waste your time watching it. I refuse to believe you honestly wouldnt rather be watching something better WHEN YOU DO WATCH. Of course the matter of cost determines whether you would upgrade or not, but that was not my point, my point is that picture quality always matters all else being equal, nobody likes a poor looking image equally the same as a good looking image. Thats hogwash to suggest otherwise. But I am not sure if you are suggesting that or not. It sounds like you just dont want to pay for better picture quality, which I can believe, but not caring about picture quality at all, I simply dont believe. It sounds like a case of not wanting to spend any money, not not caring about pictue quality. Why wouldnt you want your picure to be better if it could be without any cost or other drawbacks? jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob W Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:29 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter Well, 'they' in this instance includes me. I have a 14" analogue set. No cable, no satellite, not even an aerial, and the picture is rubbish. I don't care. I've got better things to do with my time and money. You can believe that or not, but it is a fact, not an opinion and your disbelief is no cause to keep banging on about it. And now you have heard of people who don't care whether their TV picture sucks or is good, so lets just get over it and get on with the rest of our lives, shall we? -- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > Sent: 20 December 2006 01:03 > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter > > Because I dont belive it, that's why. > Why wouldnt they care? Are they legally blind > or something? I have never > heard of anyone who didnt care whether > their TV picture sucks or is good in my > life. And that is what this is, good vs sucks > TV picture. > jco > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Bob W > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:51 PM > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter > > > > I asked the question, > > WHY would you stick with analog when you > > can now get something much much better > > for very low cost? > > and plenty of people have given you the answer: they just don't give a > shit. So why not leave it at that? > > -- > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of J. C. O'Connell > > Sent: 19 December 2006 23:30 > > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > > Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter > > > > I will respond to one thing, and its not > > to "win" its on the topic. I have already > > stated this about 10 times, these sets > > are now CHEAPER than they were 10 years > > ago with way better picture quality which > > give you ( I think I forgot to mention this) > > way better VIEWING EXPERIENCE. I remember > > when I first started viewing really good > > HD sources, that now only was the the > > picture better than I expected, it was > > better than I could even imagined was possible. > > That was my first impression of it all. > > > > Secondly, you get fairly easily get a whole > > bunch of HDTV feeds for no monthly fee > > at all by buying a good antenna for around > > $100. > > > > As for the "stupid comments" I didnt > > say anyone was stupid, I asked the question, > > WHY would you stick with analog when you > > can now get something much much better > > for very low cost? Its like sticking > > with dialup even after DSL came way down in > > price, or sticking with an old PC just > > because it still works. If the new product > > is cheap enough to be affordable, who > > cares if its 100 times the price of the > > old one if it does things the old one cant? > > NTSC cant do for you what HD can. Trust > > me on this, the difference is not subtle > > and I am not talking about specs, I am > > talking about the difference in the viewing experence. > > > > I not only wouldnt watch an old analog > > NTSC set even if you gave me the best > > one ever made and for free. that means > > HD would be infinately more costly, but > > it not the "cost factor" that counts, > > its the entertainment value that counts. > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Cory Papenfuss > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:19 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: RE: Please everyone set up an email filter > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > > > I forgot something, THE PICTURE (quality) IS NOT IMPORTANT "for a > > > lot" of people? Are you crazy? I am posting this > > > stuff in a photo forum inhabited by mostly photographers. > > They should > > > know better than that unless all they watch is hillbilly shows > like > > > COPS, Pro Wrestling, AND Fear Factor. Thats not the demographic of > > > > this group I dont think makes any sense to say that. Vastly > > improved > > > picture quality enhances motion pictures just as much it > does still > > > pictures...Come on with this stuff! jco > > > > > For a factor of 2-3x in price to replace a TV set, followed > with > > > > (often significantly) higher costs for high-def feeds? Most people > I > > know > > don't spend 5 hours a day watching TV. I personally watch about 3 > > hours, but it's on my homebrew Tivo (MythTV, actually), so I can > > watch 3 hours > > of > > network television (documentaries, mostly) in about 1.5 hours. No > > commercials and sped up a few percent. > > > > You stated a few facts. High-def is better, technically, yes. > > > HD sets have gotten cheaper, yes. Imposing your OPINION that > > everybody who hasn't bought a new set and upgraded their service is > > stupid is, > > well, > > stupid. State your facts, correct others' incorrect facts in > > a polite > > way, state your opinions, and then respect the fact that > > others may not > > agree. > > > > I'm sure you will find the need to rebut this response to > "win," > > > > so feel free. I will not reply anymore. You have already "won." > > Cheers. > > > > -Cory > > > > -- > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > ********** > > * > > * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA > > * > > * Electrical Engineering > > * > > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University > > * > > ************************************************************** > > ********** > > * > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
