Well you didnt post that, you posted you.they didnt give a shit about picture quality. Now your saying its a value issue and not worth the extra cost for the "not that great" improvement in quality. Well the improvement in quality is huge (great) in my opinion as well as in the opinions of the home theater experts, and considering the run hours of the product, how much money do you think you are saving per hour/month/year by still watching the vastly inferior old analog vs incredible HD? Do the math. Your daily personal entertainment has got to be worth more than that. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith McGuinness Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Please everyone set up an email filter
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Because I dont belive it, that's why. > Why wouldnt they care? Are they legally blind > or something? I have never > heard of anyone who didnt care whether > their TV picture sucks or is good in my > life. And that is what this is, good vs sucks > TV picture. For me, the improvement in picture is not worth the cost of upgrading. It is a VALUE judgement and that is how I see it in MY case. Claiming that the cost (which in Australia is not that small) is not that great, given the improvement in picture, is pointless. My choice is, given present circumstance, the correct one for me. You come to a different decision; fine, that is your choice. I am writing the truth as I see it and I am not blind (legally or otherwise). Keith McG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
