"David Hemmings" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:18:05 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

David Hemmings wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:33:39 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


That is so nice to hear.

If your TV won't work have a look
out of you letter box, you will get a similar effect to WS.
I believe I mentioned here earlier that WS tubes would be more
prone to failure for various reason which I won't explore here.

Good, because with your incredibly limited knowledge of electronics
we know you will get it totally wrong.


Garbage.
His post proves I am correct.

to draw any conclusions from a study size of one is a total rubbish

I include the thousands who didn't post.


For shame, did they ask you to post on their behalf, guessing and
misrepresentation don't count either.

please go away and learn something useful before posting something you
allege is fact again.

btw, your post on WS is rubbish as well. I predominantly use my WS tv
to watch dvds as content from tv is generally crap, as you should know
16:9 is more representative than 4:3 for most transfers to dvd.

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

****tard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

(seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
of any merit anymore)

There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.

and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.

Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.


What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?

You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.


Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......