| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the
females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to appreciate the joys of high-definition television. I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go digital!". Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD. "You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's horrible!". I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them - maybe that's a good thing. They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. MR |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote:
I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them Yup. And the color of the car. -- Adrian C |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT), MartinR
wrote: They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. If your TV picture resembles a Youtube video then something is far wrong .:-) |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
....snip...
I sometimes remember happily watching programmes on a 12inch B&W portable. You become far more discerning as to what is a good program, and what is simply eye-candy. I imagine that for the moment, HD is heavily in the eye-candy phase until it becomes "just normal" and people stop trying to exploit it and get back to making decent programmes. Same can be said for Real-D at the cinema where many films just throw things "out of the screen" because they can whilst few make full use of the technology. I felt genuinely uncomfortable watching some of the "running along tree trunks over huge canyons" shots in Avatar - now that impressed me. Paul DS. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT), MartinR wrote: They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. If your TV picture resembles a Youtube video then something is far wrong .:-) Read his post again he did not say what you have read into it. David |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24 Mar, 14:24, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT), MartinR wrote: They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. If your TV picture resembles a Youtube video then something is far wrong .:-) A YouTube video on my TV looks like a YouTube video, a HD picture looks superb. MR |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24 Mar, 13:36, Adrian C wrote:
On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote: I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them Yup. And the color of the car. -- Adrian C Too true. The number of times my daughters whinge about the lack of something or a fault on their pink fluffy mobile phones. MR |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:28:33 -0000, "David"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT), MartinR wrote: They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. If your TV picture resembles a Youtube video then something is far wrong .:-) Read his post again he did not say what you have read into it. David I just have and now I know even less what he meant but anyway .Who cares . |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24/03/2010 15:00, MartinR wrote:
On 24 Mar, 13:36, Adrian wrote: On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote: I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them Yup. And the color of the car. Too true. The number of times my daughters whinge about the lack of something or a fault on their pink fluffy mobile phones. For most practical things, the attention span of most females with regard to technical things is a lot shorter than men. Unfortunately nothing new there. However, as cooking is a life or death thing, I'm thankful at least that skill has been mastered. Saves me washing up ;-) -- Adrian C |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
In article
, MartinR wrote: Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD. "You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's horrible!". Set for a career as Head of Production, then. -- *If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Adrian C" wrote in message
... On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote: I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them Yup. And the color of the car. And they choose a new tyre because they like the tread pattern. -- Max Demian |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24 Mar, 16:28, "Max Demian" wrote:
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote: I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them Yup. And the color of the car. And they choose a new tyre because they like the tread pattern. No, the tyre shop sees them coming from ****ing miles away on their GullibleWoman radar, giving them plenty of time to dig out the most expensive tyres in the place. -- Halmyre |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On Mar 24, 1:30*pm, MartinR wrote:
I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them - maybe that's a good thing. * MR Yes, I'm a male and that's certainly my view, Eastenders is just as tedious with three times as many pixels as before... Having said that, a few months back I decided to switch the Digibox to RGB, having used it on composite for 9 years or so. To me the difference seems obvious on reasonable quality source material ( sky arts 1 for example) but neither of my teenaged daughters or wife even noticed. They're also quite happy to watch everything in stretchyvision with all those short fat people etc. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24/03/2010 13:30, MartinR wrote:
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to appreciate the joys of high-definition television. I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go digital!". Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD. "You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's horrible!". I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them - maybe that's a good thing. They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. MR Even the content does not matter as long as it's either pink, has some hunk (in their opinion) or has some fluffy cute animal/kid in it. Dave -- Blow my nose to email me |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24 Mar, 13:30, MartinR wrote:
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to appreciate the joys of high-definition television. I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. Worth turning off thanks to their retarded logo. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On 24 Mar, 18:07, Mike Henry wrote:
In , MartinR wrote: Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD. "You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's horrible!". The sad result of a decade of parsimonious bitrates on SD. Which is why, no doubt, they're reducing the HD bitrate in spades too. They really haven't got a clue. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"MartinR" wrote in message ... Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to appreciate the joys of high-definition television. I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go digital!". Bizarrely, they point out what they deem to be the problems with HD. "You can see all the wrinkles on people's faces. You can see individual clumps of grass on HDTV football matches - that's horrible!". I get the impression that the content of the programmes is more important to them - maybe that's a good thing. They will happily watch something resembling a YouTube video as long as it's one of those bloody property programmes or anything with Gok Wan in it. My better half can tell the difference between HD and SD. I was a bit skeptical when we installed HD but it really does make a difference. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Martin.R wrote:
Apart from the fact that this NG is nearly exclusively male, the females in my family (I am in a minority of 1) seem to fail to appreciate the joys of high-definition television. I will happily put on the far superior picture of Channel Four HD (we have Virgin Media), but the Mrs and daughters then complain about the lack of subtitles on HD and ask to turn to the SD equivalent. They seem to fail to notice the difference between HD and SD, they say things such as "why do we need HD, we already have had to go digital!". If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less? And do any of your HD channels have an on-screen logo telling you that it's in HD, while the upscaled SD version is clean & uncluttered? Fliss -- She said: I sneak in the salmon under my sweater. He said: Good. That way we don't have to pay for that overpriced movie fish. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Brian Gaff wrote:
The thing is though, unless the picture is really awful, if the program does not demand hd, and you get into it, then nobody I know notices if its hd or not, no matter what gender they are. Every TV has a magic button which improves quality. It's the OFF button. Its a bit like hi fi etc, if the sound is reasonable and you like the music, who cares, whereas the hi fi buff nver listens to the music, he/she compares it with some mythical realness to see if its been altered. When I was younger, I inadvertently annoyed a wealthy friend by noticing a problem with his over-priced hi-fi which he could not hear. It was like having a bad table at a jazz club, sitting very close to the bassist. Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I remember when I was being told about my eyesight, they showed us the quality of the image most retinas see, its crap. The brain is what constructs the image, constantly aiming the macular at the bit where the action is, as its there where the definition is not bad. The rest is total rubbish and jiggling about all the time. True, there are even holes you're programmed not to notice. The vertebrate eye is so badly constructed that it's proof against Intelligent Design. Fliss -- She said: His house was on a bluff over a lake. I always loved the view, sunlight over water - my favourite spot. He said: Yes, magical. Too bad you nuked it. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Felicity S." [email protected] wrote in message news:[email protected] If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less? I'm no expert, but I imagine it must depend a lot on what is meant by "upscaling", anyway. For instance, I imagine the SD picture could be resized, with no other processing, to fill the 1920 x 1080 screen. On a better telly there might be all sorts of additional processing (sharpening, etc) to fool the eye into thinking it's looking at a higher-def picture than it really is. Perhaps it all depends on the telly. SteveT |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
In article [email protected],
Felicity S. [email protected] wrote: If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less? Upscaling in the television can't introduce any detail that isn't there in the signal. And SD broadcasts, whether analogue or digital, don't by any means fully use the SD resolution of the television - an HD broadcast scaled down and displayed on an SD screen ought to look much better than an SD broadcast. So there's no reason in principle why it should be anything but bigger. But in practice the quality of SD display on HD televisions has improved a lot in the last few years, and may well now be better than an old SD television. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
The message [email protected]
from "Felicity S." [email protected] contains these words: Brian Gaff wrote: The thing is though, unless the picture is really awful, if the program does not demand hd, and you get into it, then nobody I know notices if its hd or not, no matter what gender they are. Every TV has a magic button which improves quality. It's the OFF button. Its a bit like hi fi etc, if the sound is reasonable and you like the music, who cares, whereas the hi fi buff nver listens to the music, he/she compares it with some mythical realness to see if its been altered. When I was younger, I inadvertently annoyed a wealthy friend by noticing a problem with his over-priced hi-fi which he could not hear. It was like having a bad table at a jazz club, sitting very close to the bassist. Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I remember when I was being told about my eyesight, they showed us the quality of the image most retinas see, its crap. The brain is what constructs the image, constantly aiming the macular at the bit where the action is, as its there where the definition is not bad. The rest is total rubbish and jiggling about all the time. True, there are even holes you're programmed not to notice. The vertebrate eye is so badly constructed that it's proof against Intelligent Design. That's a false argument to use against the creationists' theory of "Intelligent Design". The function of the vertebrate eye is radically different to that of a camera (movie or still). The retina represents an outpost of the brain which, after all, has to process the information in order to achieve the sense we call 'vision'. Evolution has come up with a superbly optimised solution to the problem of sensing, without generating processing overload, an environment which contains both hazards and rewards. Being able to rapidly respond to threats and rewards was a major survival factor in our evolutionary history. The eye, taken in isolation, might seem to be a very poor device compared to a camera but its extremely low resolution peripheral field of vision is excellent at detecting changes (ie movement) which is all that is required when the brain has immediate and full control over its direction of gaze and also, most importantly, all that is required to detect threats from predators or the detection of prey in order to handle the challenges of staying alive long enough to procreate. If the designers of roving robotic machines wish to endow them with a sense of vision, they could hardly do better than to emulate the vertebrate eye and the associated processing algorithms. A really savvy creationist could then use your argument that the eye is a poor camera as an argument for "Intelligent Design" by a 'Creator' with the consumate patience to get it 'just right'. -- Regards, John. Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying. The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I have to disagree. Pictures are affected very much by the brightness and colour of anything that surrounds them within the field of view, and by the general ambient brightness and colour of the light in the room, not to mention objects which may be seen reflected in them if they have shiny surfaces. Why do you think cinemas are always dark? Rod. -- Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/ |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:04:06 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote: In article , Brian Gaff wrote: Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I have to disagree. Why do you think cinemas are always dark? Snogging, and stuff. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Paul D.Smith wrote:
...snip... I sometimes remember happily watching programmes on a 12inch B&W portable. You become far more discerning as to what is a good program, and what is simply eye-candy. Up until about 5 years ago I had an ancient B&W set that gave an excellent picture and was perfectly watchable. Plus a really good B&W film watched on a colour set is fine, you forget it's B&W if there's a good plot with excellent acting. And would Laurel & Hardy have been any funnier in colour? It would have looked downright weird if you ask me. -- Col And all the stars that never were Are parking cars and pumping gas. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Felicity S. wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote: The thing is though, unless the picture is really awful, if the program does not demand hd, and you get into it, then nobody I know notices if its hd or not, no matter what gender they are. Every TV has a magic button which improves quality. It's the OFF button. Turning the radio on has much the same effect. -- Col And all the stars that never were Are parking cars and pumping gas. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff wrote: Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I have to disagree. Pictures are affected very much by the brightness and colour of anything that surrounds them within the field of view, and by the general ambient brightness and colour of the light in the room, not to mention objects which may be seen reflected in them if they have shiny surfaces. Why do you think cinemas are always dark? And why watching TV oudoors on a sunny day is pointless. -- Col And all the stars that never were Are parking cars and pumping gas. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Richard Tobin" wrote in message ... In article [email protected], Felicity S. [email protected] wrote: If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less? Upscaling in the television can't introduce any detail that isn't there in the signal. And SD broadcasts, whether analogue or digital, don't by any means fully use the SD resolution of the television - an HD broadcast scaled down and displayed on an SD screen ought to look much better than an SD broadcast. So there's no reason in principle why it should be anything but bigger. But in practice the quality of SD display on HD televisions has improved a lot in the last few years, and may well now be better than an old SD television. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. This debate is valid but pointless because you are all comparing different things in different ways. Firstly a sky box will upscale. That is how mine is set. All pictures come out at 1080. So the tv has no processing to do for SD as it is not SD. My TV is connected by HDMI so the picture is digital. My TV is quite a good one. when we first got our HD TV we used a normal dig box and the RF connection. The picture was SD and the box was SD and the picture was good. The same system on our old TV was not as good a picture. So the new TV was an improvement. Then i got the HD box and the HDMI connection. The picture on all channels was SOOOOOO much better. and HD was WOW. 2 years on if i put the TV in RF analogue mode and look at the results, it looks so bad it makes you wonder how you ever put up with it, and that was the better picture on the NEW TV! It all depends on what you expect and what you consider normal. I use the RF analogue and the HDMI on a HD channel to demonstrate HD TV. Everyone can see the difference and if they have not got HD then the person is more than likely to be using RF on their own TV at home so the comparison is valid. remember most people cannot tell the difference between scart and RF My son felt he was bashing his head with his wife as no matter what he did she could not see the improvement on HD. She insisted it looked nice but could not really tell the difference or was bothered about it. Time passed and one day she said 'What's wrong with the TV' it turned out to be nothing was wrong but they were on a SD channel and now she could see not the HD improvement but the lack of quality on SD and she did not like it. Women are different, but not a lot. Gary |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Johnny B Good" wrote in message
.. . The message [email protected] from "Felicity S." [email protected] contains these words: Brian Gaff wrote: [...] Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I remember when I was being told about my eyesight, they showed us the quality of the image most retinas see, its crap. The brain is what constructs the image, constantly aiming the macular at the bit where the action is, as its there where the definition is not bad. The rest is total rubbish and jiggling about all the time. True, there are even holes you're programmed not to notice. The vertebrate eye is so badly constructed that it's proof against Intelligent Design. That's a false argument to use against the creationists' theory of "Intelligent Design". The function of the vertebrate eye is radically different to that of a camera (movie or still). The retina represents an outpost of the brain which, after all, has to process the information in order to achieve the sense we call 'vision'. Only a deranged Designer would wire up the retina so that the nerve fibres block the light path. [...] If the designers of roving robotic machines wish to endow them with a sense of vision, they could hardly do better than to emulate the vertebrate eye and the associated processing algorithms. Optically a cephalopod eye would be a better bet. Or an insect. A really savvy creationist could then use your argument that the eye is a poor camera as an argument for "Intelligent Design" by a 'Creator' with the consumate patience to get it 'just right'. Except He cocked the vertebrate eye up because He was spending all his time creating millions of different beatle species. -- Max Demian |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:47:00 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote: Only a deranged Designer would wire up the retina so that the nerve fibres block the light path. "Look here friend. The design was fine when it left my office. It is not my fault that the production team screwed up. The fault was not detected at an early enough stage to do anything about it. Recalling units and replacing the eyes was just not feasible from an engineering point of view. The alternative was a mass extinction and a restart. As the affected units were managing adequately with the faulty eyes it was decided to take no action. Best regards, The Designer" -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
In article ,
Gary wrote: remember most people cannot tell the difference between scart and RF Those 'most people' must be registered blind. The difference on a menu or EPG etc is immediately obvious - before you even watch the first picture. -- *Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Gary" wrote in message ... Most people not geeks and nerds look at a TV and if it glows than it is a success after nigh on 30 years in TV repair i know what people watch and it isn't good. Your right. I was told a long time ago when the first TV sets came out with 2 loudspeakers that TV now had stereo sound, this was years before stereo sound was broadcast here. My brother was sent out to repair a TV sound fault he fixed the sound and noticed the TV picture colour was wrong, one of the 3 colour guns on the crt was not connected, he connected it. On his return to base his manager was jumping up and down, the lady of the house had given him an ear bending on how the engineer and ruined their TV picture. My brother returned and disconnected the that colour again and all was well with the customer. Regards David |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Gary wrote:
remember most people cannot tell the difference between scart and RF Ye gods - the world is doomed. Is that really true? BugBear |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:47:00 -0000, "Max Demian"
wrote: "Johnny B Good" wrote in message . .. The message [email protected] from "Felicity S." [email protected] contains these words: Brian Gaff wrote: [...] Now pictures of course, should be hi fi, as it were, as they are not affected by the room, only the electronics they are processed through. I remember when I was being told about my eyesight, they showed us the quality of the image most retinas see, its crap. The brain is what constructs the image, constantly aiming the macular at the bit where the action is, as its there where the definition is not bad. The rest is total rubbish and jiggling about all the time. True, there are even holes you're programmed not to notice. The vertebrate eye is so badly constructed that it's proof against Intelligent Design. That's a false argument to use against the creationists' theory of "Intelligent Design". The function of the vertebrate eye is radically different to that of a camera (movie or still). The retina represents an outpost of the brain which, after all, has to process the information in order to achieve the sense we call 'vision'. Only a deranged Designer would wire up the retina so that the nerve fibres block the light path. [...] If the designers of roving robotic machines wish to endow them with a sense of vision, they could hardly do better than to emulate the vertebrate eye and the associated processing algorithms. Optically a cephalopod eye would be a better bet. Or an insect. A really savvy creationist could then use your argument that the eye is a poor camera as an argument for "Intelligent Design" by a 'Creator' with the consumate patience to get it 'just right'. Except He cocked the vertebrate eye up because He was spending all his time creating millions of different beatle species. Thought there were only four Keith |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Steve Thackery wrote:
Felicity S. wrote: If I might be permitted by this newsgroup to make a slightly technical point, might I suggest that you are not watching anything in SD on your television, but upscaled SD, so the qualitative difference is less? I'm no expert, but I imagine it must depend a lot on what is meant by "upscaling", anyway. For instance, I imagine the SD picture could be resized, with no other processing, to fill the 1920 x 1080 screen. On a better telly there might be all sorts of additional processing (sharpening, etc) to fool the eye into thinking it's looking at a higher-def picture than it really is. Our telly does just that; and as Brian mentioned in his post, our eyes are low-def, with all sorts of additional processing in the brain. Fliss -- She said: You campaigned for me? Why? You think all this... 'school spirit' stuff is stupid. He said: I never said it was stupid, I said it's beneath you. |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
Col wrote:
Felicity S. wrote: Brian Gaff wrote: The thing is though, unless the picture is really awful, if the program does not demand hd, and you get into it, then nobody I know notices if its hd or not, no matter what gender they are. Every TV has a magic button which improves quality. It's the OFF button. Turning the radio on has much the same effect. True, the pictures are just wonderful. Fliss -- She said: If it weren't for you I would still be the Queen of Portugal. And now, what am I? He said: You are drunk and you are foolish! |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
keith wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:47:00 -0000, "Max Demian" wrote: Except He cocked the vertebrate eye up because He was spending all his time creating millions of different beatle species. Thought there were only four Only two now :( "An inordinate fondness for beetles" - JBS Haldane. Andy |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Andy Champ" wrote in message . uk... "An inordinate fondness for beetles" - JBS Haldane. Hah! Totally OT, but that quotation reminds me of a dictionary definition I read for coprophilia which went "An undue interest in faeces." This immediately made me wonder what a "due" interest in faeces might be! SteveT |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"keith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:47:00 -0000, "Max Demian" wrote: "Johnny B Good" wrote in message ... [...] A really savvy creationist could then use your argument that the eye is a poor camera as an argument for "Intelligent Design" by a 'Creator' with the consumate patience to get it 'just right'. Except He cocked the vertebrate eye up because He was spending all his time creating millions of different beatle species. Thought there were only four Damn! That was a genuine mistake. I still think 'beetle' looks wrongly spelt. I wonder why the spellchecker didn't pick it up? -- Max Demian |
Just got an HD telly - also just discovered HD is a bloke thing!
"Max Demian" wrote in message ... I wonder why the spellchecker didn't pick it up? Probably because of the pop group. It also lets through "Slade", "Abba" and various others which aren't real English words. SteveT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com