"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes


Not an art connoisseur are we?
Who said it was - golden rectangles are normally used to highlight
important areas of interest.

Garbage - If you think there is a GR in Mona face you are deluded, there
are so many points on a persons face I could make any shape fit into
it 4:3, 2:1, 5:3, 9:4, 7:2

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.


All natures creatures, apart form a few specalists such as seagulls
evolved a circular visual system to do its panning and scanning.
This is to be expected since given any random selection of images
you will find a best coverage is achieved with a circular apperture.



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.

Why should I need to lug a TV about?
I have one in every main room of the house

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)


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.

There must be a market for portable TV's (which you appear
to deny) because they make up about 30-50 percent of the TV
market .

I don't recall having said anything of the kind

Not explicitly no.

Also not everyone wants to spend £280 on a TV when they can
get one for £69,

Aah - you like sex channels then

Not really I can get all my filth on line for free.


but I guess you call paying 4 times what you used
to pay is 'progress', just like digital radio, where you can pay
10 times the price for a product which will not even work unless
you pay a futher £400 for an ariel the size of Jodrell Bank.

Who needs Joderell Bank ?

What I'm saying is:

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 poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks ****e.
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)

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!!"

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.


--
geoff



--
geoff

In message , half_pint
writes


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?

You are (as I am ) totally insignificant in the big picture (so to
speak)


The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks ****e.
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.

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

(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)

Football on TV is ****e whatever resolution you use


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 will happen


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.


I agree, but the format is changing, what ever your wishes might be

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , half_pint
writes


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?

You are (as I am ) totally insignificant in the big picture (so to
speak)

its a thin picture to be correct.


The poll tax was good for business but it died a death.
16:9 looks ok on a 4:3 but 4:3 on a 16:9 looks ****e.
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.

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

It used to have some great humour in it at one time, but still not really
my cup of tea.


(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)

Football on TV is ****e whatever resolution you use

It is if your watching Nottm Forest these days sadly :O(

Well personally I think most films are ****e, but then horses for courses.
I have to have a real interest in the result/players to watch most footballs
though,
otherwise is basically a bag of air being kicked arouond.


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 will happen

hopefully not in my lifetime and I have plenty of years left (I hope).


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.


I agree, but the format is changing, what ever your wishes might be

--
geoff

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:47:49 +0000, geoff 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?

There would be an interesting tale there.......:-)


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:47:49 +0000, geoff 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

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:04:33 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:47:49 +0000, geoff 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

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.

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.

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.


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.



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.

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

The Community Charge system was the fairest tax ever used.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

--
Bob.

You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.

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

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:57:01 -0000, "half_pint"
wrote:

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

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 £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)

28" @ £280 is not smaller and not cheaper. You want small, go smaller.
You want cheap then go cheaper - you can get WSTVs for under £200
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 ****e.

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).