Bob Brenchley. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:21:20 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
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 £280 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 £380 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 ****e.

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