Eeyore wrote:


FYI, I did briefly watch 'Lost' purely because it was highly hyped on UK's
Channel 4 (which once had a good record for decent drama).

I have barely (never ?) seen such an utterly worthless US programme ever. It's
so detached from reality that I wonder if Americans have even the tiniest clue
about the world that exists around them.

I am definitely _NOT_ a fan of 'Lost'; but don't you suppose that you Brits
ought to take a little responsibility since you started it all with
'The Prisoner' (Patrick McGoohan).

Regards,

Michael

Spurious Response wrote:

snip
Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" without
seeing the first four episodes that constituted the first season?


IMHO, 'Lexx' may have incorporated some good conceptual science
fiction but its embodiment and style left out pretty much anyone
over age 21.

Regards,

Michael

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:11:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.

You certainly do not know much about gyroscopic inertia.

They spin at around 100k rpm, that's one hell of a gyro mass, and after
the crash were considerably slower, but any fuel remnant would
auto-ignite as it trickled in from the lines from the temperature of
them.

Not 100% realistic, but it was possible.

One of flight 77's engines went right through five sets of wall at the
pentagon, just on inertial energy alone.

You're a goddamned retard.

That's why they call it Fiction, dip****.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:16:51 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Graham


Here, you goddamned idiot! I responded to a post YOU made where all you
****ing did was quote a remark I made in ANOTHER POST!

You are a true piece of ****, boy.

YOUR POST:

Path:
be05.phx!hwmnpeer02.phx!hw-filter.phx!hwmnpeer01.phx!news.highwinds-media.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!ne wsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!85.12.40.130 .MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!multikabel.n et!newsfeed10.multikabel.net!news.astraweb.com!new srouter-eu.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:33:45 +0100
From: Eeyore
Organization: Eeyore's gloomy place
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.repair
Subject: Prong speaks his mind !
References:










Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 7
NNTP-Posting-Host: 97f20c0a.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace:
DXC=LQ380R]b2ITE2gdJ]P=SGL?0kYOcDh@J]WEZ@Q1WnGEaQ3MfcN^7LYS`@2JBI2kKjad1;GlU1cL2Io:`G\ mO4G
Xref: Hurricane-Charley sci.electronics.design:398124
sci.electronics.repair:119345
X-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:33:58 MST (be05.phx)



Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:11:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.

snip

That's why they call it Fiction, expletive deleted

The title of this thread is "So what's the truth..."; I encourage anyone who
objects to the appalling lack of scientific vetting of television scripts
to complain frequently to production companies, sponsors, TV stations, etc.
Fiction need not descend to alternate-Earth fantasy to accommodate continuity
errors, anachronisms, and fallacies, like the rearranging of the geography
of Kansas and Colorado on 'Jericho' (adding mountains to a flat topography,
replacing East with West, etc.). In fact I have given up on Jericho as I
simply cannot continue to suspend belief on depictions that should have
been rendered correctly and would not alter the storyline. Military and
Amateur Radio operators complained about the sloppy fist and uncopyable CW
during the opening credits and evidently that produced some changes but
still the producers don't use the services of a scientific advisor or
heed his advice.

Search the web for complaints and errors in 'Jericho', or similar shows,
to see that this is a real issue and audiences have more intelligence and
less tolerance than the industry acknowledges.

Regards,

Michael

msg wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

FYI, I did briefly watch 'Lost' purely because it was highly hyped on UK's
Channel 4 (which once had a good record for decent drama).

I have barely (never ?) seen such an utterly worthless US programme ever. It's
so detached from reality that I wonder if Americans have even the tiniest clue
about the world that exists around them.

I am definitely _NOT_ a fan of 'Lost'; but don't you suppose that you Brits
ought to take a little responsibility since you started it all with
'The Prisoner' (Patrick McGoohan).

'The Prisoner' was always clearly full-blown escapionist nonsense. Along with the
likes of The Avengers. Entertaining but not to be taken seriously ever.

Quite different.

Graham

msg wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:

Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" without
seeing the first four episodes that constituted the first season?

IMHO, 'Lexx' may have incorporated some good conceptual science
fiction but its embodiment and style left out pretty much anyone
over age 21.

Oh Lord ! Did he say Lexx was to be taken seriously ?

It was a hoot for sure... but *serious*... !!!! ?????

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.

You certainly do not know much about gyroscopic inertia.

You clearly are a cheap ****.

Jet engines with no source of fuel spool down *very* quickly.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Here, you goddamned idiot! I responded to a post YOU made where all you
****ing did was quote a remark I made in ANOTHER POST!

You are a true piece of ****, boy.

I KNEW it would be too challenging for you.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:53:42 -0500, msg wrote:

, like the rearranging of the geography
of Kansas and Colorado on 'Jericho' (adding mountains to a flat topography,
replacing East with West, etc.). In fact I have given up on Jericho as I
simply cannot continue to suspend belief on depictions that should have
been rendered correctly and would not alter the storyline.


What if you had never seen either area before, you stupid dolt!?

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:53:42 -0500, msg wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:11:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.

snip

That's why they call it Fiction, expletive deleted

The title of this thread is "So what's the truth..."; I encourage anyone who
objects to the appalling lack of scientific vetting of television scripts
to complain frequently to production companies, sponsors, TV stations, etc.
Fiction need not descend to alternate-Earth fantasy to accommodate continuity
errors, anachronisms, and fallacies, like the rearranging of the geography
of Kansas and Colorado on 'Jericho' (adding mountains to a flat topography,
replacing East with West, etc.). In fact I have given up on Jericho as I
simply cannot continue to suspend belief on depictions that should have
been rendered correctly and would not alter the storyline. Military and
Amateur Radio operators complained about the sloppy fist and uncopyable CW
during the opening credits and evidently that produced some changes but
still the producers don't use the services of a scientific advisor or
heed his advice.

Search the web for complaints and errors in 'Jericho', or similar shows,
to see that this is a real issue and audiences have more intelligence and
less tolerance than the industry acknowledges.



Yet you never once expressed you feelings about the show under
discussion, which is "Lost".

msg wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.


That's why they call it Fiction, expletive deleted

The title of this thread is "So what's the truth..."; I encourage anyone who
objects to the appalling lack of scientific vetting of television scripts
to complain frequently to production companies, sponsors, TV stations, etc.
Fiction need not descend to alternate-Earth fantasy to accommodate continuity
errors, anachronisms, and fallacies, like the rearranging of the geography
of Kansas and Colorado on 'Jericho' (adding mountains to a flat topography,
replacing East with West, etc.). In fact I have given up on Jericho as I
simply cannot continue to suspend belief on depictions that should have
been rendered correctly and would not alter the storyline. Military and
Amateur Radio operators complained about the sloppy fist and uncopyable CW
during the opening credits and evidently that produced some changes but
still the producers don't use the services of a scientific advisor or
heed his advice.

Search the web for complaints and errors in 'Jericho', or similar shows,
to see that this is a real issue and audiences have more intelligence and
less tolerance than the industry acknowledges.

Good post.

BTW, you know the film, "Krakatoa, East of Java" ? It's actually **West** of Java.

Another own-goal in the stupidity stakes for Hollywood. Hey, but we shouldn't ever lets
facts get in the way of a 'good' movie !

Krakatoa is, in fact, west of Java
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa,_East_of_Java

Feel free to pony up your own map.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:58:36 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



msg wrote:

Spurious Response wrote:

Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" without
seeing the first four episodes that constituted the first season?

IMHO, 'Lexx' may have incorporated some good conceptual science
fiction but its embodiment and style left out pretty much anyone
over age 21.

Oh Lord ! Did he say Lexx was to be taken seriously ?

It was a hoot for sure... but *serious*... !!!! ?????

Graham


No one said a goddamned thing about taking ANY fiction seriously, you
complete and utterly retarded loon.

I said that a twit like you could not get the show without watching the
entire 4 episode first season.

It was a pretty good show.

Another good one was... of course, Farscape.

You're so stupid, you probably liked "Battlefield Earth".

The Forbidden Planet is one of my all time favorite films, but in a
hard look at it, it could easily be defines as fairly simplistic, and
many things today outdo it by far.

I have several copies in several formats of it. The HD version is the
best, by far.

You're not a donkey, you're a goddamned cockroach.

Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:53:42 -0500, msg wrote:

, like the rearranging of the geography
of Kansas and Colorado on 'Jericho' (adding mountains to a flat topography,
replacing East with West, etc.). In fact I have given up on Jericho as I
simply cannot continue to suspend belief on depictions that should have
been rendered correctly and would not alter the storyline.

What if you had never seen either area before, you stupid dolt!?

Is that meant to be an excuse for changing geography ?

The IPCC would be proud of your ability to deny facts.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Yet you never once expressed you feelings about the show under
discussion, which is "Lost".

Good Lord !

Seen a shrink recently ?

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:00:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I shall never forget the idiotic shots thar showed a jet engine still running when
it clearly had no source of fuel.

You certainly do not know much about gyroscopic inertia.

You clearly are a cheap ****.

Jet engines with no source of fuel spool down *very* quickly.


There was obviously spurts of fuel as evidenced by the occasional
sputtering that caused it to surge UP in rpm every now and again.

Get a clue, dip****.

In reality, NO engine of that weight, particularly a turbo-fan, could
survive the impact from that altitude, or any altitude above fifty feet,
much less 5000. Nor could ANY of the passengers, etc., etc., etc.

You obviously do not know how to watch a fictional tale... at all.

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
msg wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" without
seeing the first four episodes that constituted the first season?

IMHO, 'Lexx' may have incorporated some good conceptual science
fiction but its embodiment and style left out pretty much anyone
over age 21.

Oh Lord ! Did he say Lexx was to be taken seriously ?

It was a hoot for sure... but *serious*... !!!! ?????

No one said a goddamned thing about taking ANY fiction seriously, you
complete and utterly retarded loon.

" Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" "

Care to distance yourself from the above ? Especially the 'deep' bit ?

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:02:23 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Here, you goddamned idiot! I responded to a post YOU made where all you
****ing did was quote a remark I made in ANOTHER POST!

You are a true piece of ****, boy.

I KNEW it would be too challenging for you.

I DID check the thread, you stupid ****. YOU AUTHORED IT, and the first
post in it was yours, and THAT is the post I quoted to prove it, and that
is the post I was referring to as being one YOU posted.

So NO, I did NOT respond to myself, you stupid ****tard.

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Jet engines with no source of fuel spool down *very* quickly.

There was obviously spurts of fuel as evidenced by the occasional
sputtering that caused it to surge UP in rpm every now and again.

I'm sure the FAA and NTSB would be delighted to have your expert input in this respect.

Especially when the engine pod is totally detached from the fuselage / wing and there's
obviously no fuel lines rmaining. I simply couldn't keep a straight face. Actually it was
more of a grimace. Are Americans really so stupid that they accept this kind of nonsence
without objection ?

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:11:48 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:53:42 -0500, msg wrote:

, like the rearranging of the geography
of Kansas and Colorado on 'Jericho' (adding mountains to a flat topography,
replacing East with West, etc.). In fact I have given up on Jericho as I
simply cannot continue to suspend belief on depictions that should have
been rendered correctly and would not alter the storyline.

What if you had never seen either area before, you stupid dolt!?

Is that meant to be an excuse for changing geography ?

Had he never seen it before, he would not know anything was changed.

The IPCC would be proud of your ability to deny facts.

You're an idiot. What "fact" did I deny, cockroach?

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Here, you goddamned idiot! I responded to a post YOU made where all you
****ing did was quote a remark I made in ANOTHER POST!

You are a true piece of ****, boy.

I KNEW it would be too challenging for you.

I DID check the thread, you stupid ****. YOU AUTHORED IT, and the first
post in it was yours, and THAT is the post I quoted to prove it, and that
is the post I was referring to as being one YOU posted.

So NO, I did NOT respond to myself, you stupid ****tard.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH (fantasy) BLAH.

You impress no-one.


Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

snip

The Forbidden Planet is one of my all time favorite films, but in a
hard look at it, it could easily be defines as fairly simplistic, and
many things today outdo it by far.

I have several copies in several formats of it. The HD version is the
best, by far.


Thanks for mentioning 'Forbidden Planet'; I sadly only have it on Beta.
Indeed, it breaks ground in a very-well executed fashion using the
cinematic technology available at the time and its characters are
believable IMHO -- also a good script doesn't hurt

Star Trek, for example, owes a great deal to it as many of its core concepts
are first realized in the film.

Regards,

Michael

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:14:58 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
msg wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" without
seeing the first four episodes that constituted the first season?

IMHO, 'Lexx' may have incorporated some good conceptual science
fiction but its embodiment and style left out pretty much anyone
over age 21.

Oh Lord ! Did he say Lexx was to be taken seriously ?

It was a hoot for sure... but *serious*... !!!! ?????

No one said a goddamned thing about taking ANY fiction seriously, you
complete and utterly retarded loon.

" Do you actually think you could grasp a deep show like "Lexx" "

Care to distance yourself from the above ? Especially the 'deep' bit ?



You obviously do not understand what part of the show was deep.

The insect war was over thousands of years prior...

Or so everyone thought. In fact, the insect(s) were still alive.

Like I said, it wasn't "serious", but it was quite deep.

Far beyond a twit like you, cockroach boy.

Spurious Response wrote:

The insect war was over thousands of years prior...

Or so everyone thought. In fact, the insect(s) were still alive.

Uhuh.

Seen a shrink recently ?

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

I'm sure the FAA and NTSB would be delighted to have your expert input in this respect.


READ IT AGAIN, DIP****...


F I C T I O N

When you can grasp the English language past that of a three year old
retard, it will be time for you to have a clue.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Especially when the engine pod is totally detached from the fuselage / wing and there's
obviously no fuel lines rmaining. I simply couldn't keep a straight face. Actually it was
more of a grimace. Are Americans really so stupid that they accept this kind of nonsence
without objection ?


You have to watch the episode that came later that actually had video of
the crash. along with the reason for it.

The wings were literally ripped off the plane, and the plane itself was
ripped apart, and the whole mess was being pulled toward the Island.

Viola! No fuel laden wings to cause burning explosive frenzies!

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:36:59 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:20:55 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Here, you goddamned idiot! I responded to a post YOU made where all you
****ing did was quote a remark I made in ANOTHER POST!

You are a true piece of ****, boy.

I KNEW it would be too challenging for you.

I DID check the thread, you stupid ****. YOU AUTHORED IT, and the first
post in it was yours, and THAT is the post I quoted to prove it, and that
is the post I was referring to as being one YOU posted.

So NO, I did NOT respond to myself, you stupid ****tard.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH (fantasy) BLAH.

You impress no-one.

I think he may just have impressed them in alt.hackers.malicious,with
his reckless stupidity in abusing the group with a threatening troll
and including all his headers.


You're an idiot. YOU added the group, you retarded twit.

Eeyore wrote:
snip

'The Prisoner' was always clearly full-blown escapionist nonsense. Along with the
likes of The Avengers. Entertaining but not to be taken seriously ever.


Indeed... In one of the many cycles of airing 'The Prisoner' on PBS here in the
States, there was 15 minutes of psycho-social analysis and commentary at the end
of each episode, some segments even included Mr. McGoohan who evidently had some
control over production and scripts. It was all very heavy, full of cold-war themed
allegory and psychiatric theory, existentialism, psychedelic references, etc., etc.

BTW, humor My spell checker always suggests replacing your handle with
'Eyesore' /humor

Regards,

Michael

Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

I'm sure the FAA and NTSB would be delighted to have your expert input in this respect.

READ IT AGAIN, DIP****...

F I C T I O N

Uhuh. Crap fiction for American retards like yourself.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Especially when the engine pod is totally detached from the fuselage / wing and there's
obviously no fuel lines rmaining. I simply couldn't keep a straight face. Actually it was
more of a grimace. Are Americans really so stupid that they accept this kind of nonsence
without objection ?

You have to watch the episode that came later that actually had video of
the crash. along with the reason for it.

The wings were literally ripped off the plane, and the plane itself was
ripped apart, and the whole mess was being pulled toward the Island.

Viola! No fuel laden wings to cause burning explosive frenzies!

You're an idiot.

Every large passenger jet has a fuel tank *between the wings*. Boeing call it the CWT (centre
wing tank). It was the CWT that exploded on TWA800.

Graham

msg wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
snip

'The Prisoner' was always clearly full-blown escapionist nonsense. Along with the
likes of The Avengers. Entertaining but not to be taken seriously ever.


Indeed... In one of the many cycles of airing 'The Prisoner' on PBS here in the
States, there was 15 minutes of psycho-social analysis and commentary at the end
of each episode, some segments even included Mr. McGoohan who evidently had some
control over production and scripts. It was all very heavy, full of cold-war themed
allegory and psychiatric theory, existentialism, psychedelic references, etc., etc.

BTW, humor My spell checker always suggests replacing your handle with
'Eyesore' /humor

Yes, Phil Allison does that.

The Prisoner was shot at Portmeiron on the Welsh coast. It's a tourist destination now.
http://www.portmeirion-village.com/e...p?id=24&MID=38

Nice village btw.

The father of a friend of mine was once offered the opportunity to buy the place !

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Especially when the engine pod is totally detached from the fuselage /
wing and there's
obviously no fuel lines rmaining. I simply couldn't keep a straight
face. Actually it was
more of a grimace. Are Americans really so stupid that they accept this
kind of nonsence
without objection ?

You have to watch the episode that came later that actually had video of
the crash. along with the reason for it.

The wings were literally ripped off the plane, and the plane itself was
ripped apart, and the whole mess was being pulled toward the Island.

Viola! No fuel laden wings to cause burning explosive frenzies!

You're an idiot.

Every large passenger jet has a fuel tank *between the wings*. Boeing call
it the CWT (centre
wing tank). It was the CWT that exploded on TWA800.

Graham


Sorry, I know it's only low-level fiction, but I loved "Lost" right from the
off. It's just escapism really - a bit frustrating in some episodes where
everything changes just as you feel that you've got the measure of it - but
the whole trick is just to suspend your belief in science and reality, and
enjoy it for what it is, an intriguing bit of fantasy drama. Now Harry
Potter. That's a different matter. How could anyone ever believe that a boy
and his chums could fly without a Cessna underneath them, or that a huge
train could hide in a station, and not be spotted by military satellites
that would want to know what it's up to. Ludicrous ...

BTW, I think that 100k RPM is a little fast for a commercial airliner
turbofan engine. More like a third to a half of that max at take off.

Arfa

"msg" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
snip

'The Prisoner' was always clearly full-blown escapionist nonsense. Along
with the
likes of The Avengers. Entertaining but not to be taken seriously ever.


Indeed... In one of the many cycles of airing 'The Prisoner' on PBS here
in the
States, there was 15 minutes of psycho-social analysis and commentary at
the end
of each episode, some segments even included Mr. McGoohan who evidently
had some
control over production and scripts. It was all very heavy, full of
cold-war themed
allegory and psychiatric theory, existentialism, psychedelic references,
etc., etc.

BTW, humor My spell checker always suggests replacing your handle with
'Eyesore' /humor

Regards,

Michael

I seem to think that Patrick McGoohan was executive producer or some such,
and the concept was born out of his earlier black and white show "Danger Man
". I remember seeing an interview with him ( which was rare as he didn't do
interviews about the show normally ) on a programme that examined the whole
series, and he was asked about the final two parter "Fallout" I think it's
called. He said that by that time, the whole story thread had gone out of
the window, and they literally had no clue as to how to end it, or even
really what exactly it had been about in the first place. It had basically
just got swept along with the hype and its popularity, until it became a
living thing just existing to keep the fans happy. It was a brave decision
to end it in the way that they did, and it probably let a lot of fans down.
I love Lost to bits - except when it's going through one of its frustrating
patches - but I think that there may be rather more parallels with The
Prisoner than are at first apparent, and that Lost might be heading down the
same road ...

Arfa

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:02:50 +0100 Eeyore
wrote in Message id:
:



Spurious Response wrote:

Who is confused? Not me. Not you either... you are just ****ing stupid
about it.

It seems you have degraded into an alternate ego. The very same one that all the regular
posters here have regularly found very offensive.

It's that moron DarkMatter. He's nymshifted again to avoid bozo bins.

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:31:48 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in :


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:35:53 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

To enlighten the others: to buy anything with any sort of analog output
sucks,
as analog is dead at least here in the Netherlands (except for audio).
Buying a settop box with USB output, if you have a laptop with USB,
creates the
portable TV with much better quality and recording possibility.
The USB settop box I bought runs from a 12 V adapter, so also from a car
battery.
I researched quite a bit to get the best deal, and SCART was not part of
that,
let alone a horrible interference prone, PAL coding artefacts decorated
UHF analog output.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/dvb-t-nl.txt

You must have some rubbish kit over there then. A good PAL analogue TV
set,
with a decent signal going in, beats a crappy highly compressed digital
signal, hands down, every time.

Well, maybe you do not have digital yet.
And for sure you have not seen the HDTV tests on satellite like those from
France.
I am not denying mpeg2 compression has artefacts, but those very much
depend on
bandwidth (bitrate), and bitrate is a bit less then 4000 kbps on digital
here.
(non HD).
Although that is less then DVD max, it is absolutely enough for a stunning
_noise free_, _moire free_ (PAL & NTSC composite), _easy to record_ (as
.ts),
_no loss editing_ (digital), _space saving_ (both on disk and in the
ether),
allowing as many sub-channels as you like (more languages, more subtitles,
teletext, other services, timecode, all in the same stream).

It seems to me you do not _HAVE_ digital yet.
I have had digital sat now for about 7 years, and terrestrial for about a
year.
As to range an signal to noise, I can get stations that I could only get
with a lot of noise and some reflections too in analog, now as clear as
glass.
Really, only an inexperienced person would claim that composite PAL
in _whatever way_ was better.
And I know composite PAL better then many of you here, as I worked many
years
at the source,
Even studio quality (directly from a PAL camera) has all sorts of
artefacts,
just where the right striped shirt.

I say: Just buy a good digital set :-)

Of COURSE I have digital, foolish person. That is how I am able to comment
on this. I have had analogue satellite since it was first available as DBS,
and I changed over to digital as soon as that became available. I also still
take analogue from the terrestrial transmissions, and carry out repairs to
digital terrestrial STBs as part of my living, so I am able to compare all
standards at all times. I feed signals around my house at UHF, and have
perfectly clean signals at every TV - and there are a lot of them. As far
as HDTV signals go, they just about manage to get back up to the standard of
a *good* analogue transmission. As far as your opinion of my being
inexperienced goes, I have been directly involved with this stuff from the
service angle for 37 years. If that makes me 'inexperienced' in your eyes,
sobeit.

As for beat interference atrifacts from tweed jackets and loud ties, this
has not been much of a problem for years, since people in studios were
dressed properly for the job. Even so, I would still rather see a 'busy' tie
on a newsreader, than motion artifacts - both edge pixelation and motion
blur - any day of the week.

It's all very well saying that compression artifacts are a product of
available bandwidth, but that bandwidth is much limited with terrestrial
digital, if you want to pack in the number of channels that they seem to
want to. This allows for a perfectly satisfactory picture so long as it is
standing still, but does not if the bitrate needs to go up high enough to
prevent motion artifacts. For the most part, however, I would agree with you
that this is not an issue with the satellite transmissions, where the
limiting factor becomes how good a transponder, bit rate-wise, the station
can afford to lease.

Make no mistake, I am not trying here to compare a good digital signal - say
Sky Movies Premiere - with a poor noisy anlogue signal. What I am saying is
that the general public is being 'sold a pup' with the digital terrestrial
channels, where even the best quality transmissions, struggle to produce a
picture subjectively as good as that produced on a *good* analogue TV with a
*good* analogue PAL signal going in.

Arfa

A very interesting posting.
Indeed.
Sure, we must see that the 'aim of the game' is to sell new stuff to the
customers.
In many case 'new' is not 'better', as we see for example with mp3 on
portable players and even being played via HiFi, but then Vinyl was
better then 44100 CD LOL hahahahahaha
Well according to some anyways.
In the same way MPEG2 (or H264) or whatever compression is not a lossless
compression and YES has artefacts, BUT these are (the system is designed
that way) not normally percieved as anying.

The truth for me is that movies I have seen in the past on VHS do not touch
me more then movies I see in HD, or normal digital.

So 37 years, that puts you back to 1970, I started in professional broadcasting
in 1968....
Almost a year after color started here.
I have seen it all, from iconoscope camera upwards...

So, anyways, stuff needs to be sold, the madness started with widescreen,
stretching people so they became really short and fat, and the consumer
bought it...
LOL

And even that still goes on.
In the early color days transmisisons were closely guarded by many specialized capable
engineers with years of experience and training.
Thse days anyone can but a digital camera and produce quality that is better.
Or quality that is worse.

I have my house wired with cat, RJ45 is the connector, no UHF cables here,
except form an antenne in the attick for long range digital terrestial.

I absolutely have to disagree about the quality of HD satellite versus
analog PAL, you must be joking right?

At a resolution of 1980x1080i there is NO WAY analog can compare.
I wanted to show you a screenshot, so I tuned to Astra HD promo,
shows National Geograhics Channel, I have to agree no HD material :-)
just flipper in the water etc....

The French had much better high detail demos.....

Of course if you watch 1920x1080 progressive downscaled via UHF on a PAL TV
in the other room it will not be better then than PAL TV's say 6MHz
bandwidth, but I am sure you know that, SAME for settop box on a SCART with
50MHz bandwidth video amps, you need 200MHz pixel clock at least.

I can only repeat: real HDTV you must see it to believe it, and the conclusion
is that perhaps you only ever watched BBC and astra flipper stuff without
any details.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:14:19 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:18:54 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

Especially when the engine pod is totally detached from the fuselage / wing and there's
obviously no fuel lines rmaining. I simply couldn't keep a straight face. Actually it was
more of a grimace. Are Americans really so stupid that they accept this kind of nonsence
without objection ?

You have to watch the episode that came later that actually had video of
the crash. along with the reason for it.

The wings were literally ripped off the plane, and the plane itself was
ripped apart, and the whole mess was being pulled toward the Island.

Viola! No fuel laden wings to cause burning explosive frenzies!

You're an idiot.

Every large passenger jet has a fuel tank *between the wings*. Boeing call it the CWT (centre
wing tank). It was the CWT that exploded on TWA800.



That part landed in the water, idiot. I am talking about the show, so
don't go getting confused, cockroach. I know how easy it is for you to
forget how to grasp what you read.

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:01:51 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:


On my PC I have voice control, I can just say:
show BBC1
show ITV1
show ARD
show RAIuno

and in a second or so (as the motorized dish moves to a different sat)
I have it on the 1680x1050 LCD (no not yet 1980).
All it needs is a PCI card and a satellite dish.


Aha ! So you are comparing wide bandwidth high bit rate satellite
transmissions, displayed on your high res PC screen, with an analogue PAL
signal. That is not quite the same as a low bit rate highly compressed
digital terrestrial transmission, displayed on an ordinary household TV set.


That makes no sense, terrestial digital, here where I am, uses the SAME bandwith
as satellite.
An HOW can you compare the 2 things if you watch both on the same set?
Of course it will be worse, now you have the problems of BOTH, minus
the advantages of digital.
As I stated befo Buy a good digital setup.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:15:16 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.


The best purchase you can make for examining such things:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video-...003634&sr=1-12

http://www.videoessentials.com/

I cannot do a capture from the HD DVD output, but I'd bet that even my
Std DVD (it's a combo disc) side would look quite good coming though the
computer, and I could post it in a.b.s.e.

This oughtta be good... ;-]

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:59:17 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:13:52 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
wrote in
:

Eeyore wrote:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Spurious Response wrote

Right, I turned in a portable TV last week.
This one was about 30 years old (seventies), and was still working
OK, but no analog transmissions here anymore, all you get is nice
equal distributed noise when tuning in to a digital station.

There are SEVERAL HDTV set top tuners out there that will pipe the
finished signal into a standard TV.

The boxes that are sold here are equipped with a SCART connector, a
waste.

I imagine you haven't looked very hard in that case. Many have UHF
outputs.

I would like one which simultaneously decodes ALL OF the four main
channels (BBC1, 2, ITV, CH4) and then re-modulates ALL of them as PAL onto
different UHF frequencies, to basically recreate the old analog spectrum
(albeit with
some MPEG artefacts...). I want one of these because I'm pretty sure that
I won't find a set top box that is as easy for my grandmother to use as
the four-position rotary switch that is on her present TV, and I don't
want it
to be harder to use when the analogue transmitter is turned off. I think
a box like that would sell very well even for a high price, to the elderly
or basically to anyone who can't get that excited about a new modulation
method like these fanboys, but who just wants to watch TV. Perhaps when
the time comes I'll just have to buy 4 digiboxes and some splitters and
combiners and make one of these boxes. At least then all her elderly
neighbours could use it too, at the same time, so it might work out
cheaper as well.

Chris

On my PC I have voice control, I can just say:
show BBC1
show ITV1
show ARD
show RAIuno

and in a second or so (as the motorized dish moves to a different sat)
I have it on the 1680x1050 LCD (no not yet 1980).
All it needs is a PCI card and a satellite dish.

Your granny could do it, if she could find the power button on the PC
and monitor.


You can find the scripts on my website (Linux of course).
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/dvd/index.html
login with user 'guest' and password 'none' without the quotes.
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/dvd/show


Thank you, that's helpful.

I still think it might not be for grandmothers, e.g. explaining why you
can't just unplug it when you're finished watching, etc. It would take me
a day of driving to go and replace a failed HDD, and whilst the local TV
shop can happily repair the analogue TV set, they might not be so hot on
reinstalling perl scripts. At least the start-up time would not be
unfamiliar, it would a reminder of waiting for the valves to warm up in the
set before the present one (which was still working when it was scrapped,
but it was 405 lines and B/W).

Chris

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.
Other shorter, but no failures so far, other makes have long ago failed.
Yes PC boot up is slow, but having the PC allows one to also easily
check the program schedules, read background info on programs, use
VOIP, watch YouTube, post to Usenet etc.. something your granny would
love to do I am sure.
I would not trust anything to a repair shop....
LOL
I know repair shops.
;-)