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

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:44:19 +0100, Pyriform wrote:

snip

So Pyriform, once again half_wit has suckered you into arguing
about global warming to disrupt this group. Oh boy.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:59:54 +0100, Cynic wrote:

Cynic, you're always getting suckered by half_wit into joining
disruptive arguments. You're dancing on a troll's hook.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:53:52 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
[email protected] wrote:

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!

Not generally true with modern flat panel displays, though it was when
they first came out.

The biggest downside with a reasonably modern flat-panel display is
likely to be a decreased viewing angle - though even there it is
almost certainly going to be more than adequate for most users.

--
Cynic

John Maybury wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:44:19 +0100, Pyriform wrote:

snip

So Pyriform, once again half_wit has suckered you into arguing
about global warming to disrupt this group. Oh boy.

Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or ignore
the thread.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:08:26 +0100, Cynic wrote:

snip

Don't engage with this. It's disrupting several groups and you're
just looking like a fool.

Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:22:06 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

The science underpinning global warming has nothing to do with the
"nanny state". Carbon dioxide does not care how you vote, or even if
you vote.

No, it doesn't. And it would also appear that none of the warm phases
of the many historic climate changes in the past could have been
caused by man's activities - especially seeing that the earlier cycles
occured before there *were* any men on the planet.

Quite. They had other causes, such as the Milankovitch cycles, which is why
the present warming can be seen to be acyclic.

The cycles are reasonably regular, and this present cycle is occurring
at the same time that the cyclical changes would predict it would
occur. Mere coincidence?

Neither coincidence nor true! What "cycle" did you have in mind? It appears
to be unknown to conventional science.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:13:08 +0100, Pyriform wrote:

Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or ignore
the thread.

Do you dispute that half_wit deliberately intended to generate this
argument that you've so enthusiastically joined?

Do you dispute that many people have posted to say that they find
these crossposted arguments to be swamping and damaging to the group?

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
John Maybury wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:44:19 +0100, Pyriform wrote:

snip

So Pyriform, once again half_wit has suckered you into arguing
about global warming to disrupt this group. Oh boy.

Ah, but I'm not arguing with him, am I? Feel free to killfile me, or
ignore the thread.

I don't bother discussing global warming any more. If the theories are true
then we're snookered because there's no way the Third World is going to
reduce their CO2 output. I doubt if they'll even reduce the rate of growth
of their CO2 output during the next 50 years. So let's hope the theories
aren't true.

Bill

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:57:35 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

various snips

"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.

No I'm right - if you don't believe me go read the article. You
obviously haven't, it doesn't mention 'widescreen TV' once!!! That was
my point. Which you haven't contested.

Still if warching a thin strip of a picture is more important than saving
the planet so be it.

Saving the planet from what? I'm a geologist, I take the long view :-)

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

How much do you use your TV for reading text?

50% includinig monitor.


So seems you accept the rest though is true


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

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

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.

Have you got one eye mounted above the other? ..-)