terminology

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill

On 18 Apr, 02:59, "Bill Wright" wrote:
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

It does hurt to use the incorrect terminology but for the sake of
expediency and getting the point across it has its virtues.
I find that all the time working in IT but rather than spend hours re-
educating the uneducated you end up tailoring your wording for your
audience. I have to present ideas to Directors and Geeks alike. That
can be fun :/

Bill Wright wrote:
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill



Doesn't seem any worse than the "official promotional" information :-)

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

In message , Bill Wright
writes
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


Is this the slippery slope to recommending "digital" aerials?
--
Ian

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:05 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill

And I bet it's a lot lot cheaper!


Werner Heisenberg

I used to be uncertain on principle but now I am just undecided.

Well we used to have low loss as the buzz word, but exactly how low was low?
Everything is relative. An old fashioned thin flexibly type of coax, if in a
short run in a high signal area gives fine results, after all.



Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital' or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This
is an appalling simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain
wrong. However, it has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the
point across.

Bill

I don't think he is lying though, what he is saying is that the non tech
side of the industry has decided to call good co-ax digital, it could just
as well called it Herbert or Clinton, but that would have been silly.



Of course I expect the counterfeiters are at this very moment branding
inferior product as Digital just to make more on crap.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:05 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as
'non-digital'
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

Bill


And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

wrote:

And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

What's the betting that "Andy" is "Ian" aka The Tiscali Idiot?

--
Dave Farrance

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
When talking to customers I now refer to poor quality coax as 'non-digital'*
or 'pre-digital' and good quality cable as 'digital'. This is an appalling*
simplification and as such is inaccurate and just plain wrong. However, it*
has the virture of simplicity, and it seems to get the point across.

For your own peace of mind you could regard "digital cable" as a verbal
contraction of "cable suitable for digital reception", which seems a perfectly
fair description to me, even if the cable happens to be suitable for other
things as well, and on occasions when you have more time to spare you might
even choose to utter the phrase in full.

Rod.

Dave Farrance wrote:
wrote:

And now you've told the world and your past customers you woffle to
them, good move. Are you applying for the next series of "The
Apprentice"?

What's the betting that "Andy" is "Ian" aka The Tiscali Idiot?

That was my first thought.