Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

LTC.

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.


Steady half_pint - your total obsession with widescreen TV's leaves Lord
Turkey looking *almost* sane.

--
Joe Lee



LTC

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs
eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about
plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't
even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not
widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a
nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and
centre.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs
eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about
plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't
even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not
widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a
nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and
centre.

No I am afraid you are wrong. Widescreen is highly inefficient, it's
basically
too wide which in turn leads to bigger TV's to give then a decent amount of
height
in the picture. If you make them extremely large you don't notice they are
too wide
because you can't see the sides anyway. The result is using at least twice
as much energy use.
as a standard TV. This is also one of the reasons to mobe to a flat screen
because otherwise
the TV takes up too much space and if you want a decebt picture on a flat
screen it has
to be plasma, which is horrendously inefficient, even compared to CRT's.
And when you add your 10 billion from China, India and other developing
couontires that amounts to humongous amounts of wasted energy and CO2 gas.

Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving
the planet so be it.
It's all in the sake of 'art' (lol).

Of course good old Mother Nature never developed a widescreen camera because
it was too inefficient to survive the process of natural selection.

Ask Lord Charles Darwin :O)

It is the nanny state which has forced widescreen upon us - stick that in
your widescreen pipe and smoke it.
Or rather don't smoke it inside because it's banned.

LTC - Always Right..

Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down, this is because
our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose
which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only
two lines.




Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On 2 Jul, 04:57, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
"Mike Ross" wrote in message

...

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

You're talking utter ********. The actual headline reads 'Plasma TVs
eat into energy savings' I've read that story and it's all about
plasma vs. CRT vs. LCD, not widescreen - the term 'widescreen' isn't
even mentioned once. You're advocating banning plasma TVs, not
widescreen TVs, and being highly mendacious about it. Go and find a
nanny state to live in if you want to ban things left, right, and
centre.

No I am afraid you are wrong. Widescreen is highly inefficient, it's
basically
too wide which in turn leads to bigger TV's to give then a decent amount of
height
in the picture. If you make them extremely large you don't notice they are
too wide
because you can't see the sides anyway. The result is using at least twice
as much energy use.
as a standard TV. This is also one of the reasons to mobe to a flat screen
because otherwise
the TV takes up too much space and if you want a decebt picture on a flat
screen it has
to be plasma, which is horrendously inefficient, even compared to CRT's.
And when you add your 10 billion from China, India and other developing
couontires that amounts to humongous amounts of wasted energy and CO2 gas.

Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving
the planet so be it.
It's all in the sake of 'art' (lol).

Of course good old Mother Nature never developed a widescreen camera because
it was too inefficient to survive the process of natural selection.

Ask Lord Charles Darwin :O)

It is the nanny state which has forced widescreen upon us - stick that in
your widescreen pipe and smoke it.
Or rather don't smoke it inside because it's banned.

LTC - Always Right..

Newspapers of course have always been taller than wide, the columns always
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down, this is because
our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you lose
which line you are on read a reall wide post. Obviously it's easy with only
two lines.



Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

Why does a screen that is 33% bigger use 100% more energy? Where is
all that additional energy going?

Also the width of a newspaper is limited by the span of your arms. If
you need more area on a page you can only make papers taller.

Also most African animals (eg wildebeest) that live on the plains have
widescreen vision enabling them to scan the whole horizon.

Also the binocular field of vision is wider than tall.

Also the EU consider digital boxes - especially sky - a bigger
environmental 'headache' than widescreen TVs.

Also I'm sure you will reject all these points and continue with your
inane ill-informed yandering.

Also please learn about apostrophes and abbreviation marks, they make
you appear uneducated which would be unfortunate.

On 2 Jul, 01:20, "Lord Turkey Cough" wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

LTC.

If you think anything us puny humans are doing is affecting the
climate then you are an even bigger arse than you make out.

Doc

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

And the sad thing is that unless you are feeding these flat-panel screens
with a High Definition source, the picture quality is invariably inferior to
that on an 'old-fashioned' CRT TV!

Uno-Hoo!

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down, this is because
our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you
lose which line you are on read a reall wide post.

When you watch TV you don't work from left to right and then move down a
line do you? You aren't reading it!

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:20:41 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...624165361.html

About time they were, like smoking ,banned.

Yes, I agree it should be illegal to light one in a public place.

Rod.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:57:35 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

No I am afraid you are wrong. Widescreen is highly inefficient, it's
basically
too wide which in turn leads to bigger TV's to give then a decent amount of
height
in the picture. If you make them extremely large you don't notice they are
too wide
because you can't see the sides anyway. The result is using at least twice
as much energy use.

I'm bored with this. You've done it before - relentlessly. Can't you
think of something new to rant about in order to amuse us?

Rod.