J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Well you didnt post that, you posted you. ?
> The 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. I did NOT say that the improvement in quality was "not that great". The improvement in quality IS substantial. No argument there. > Your daily personal entertainment has got to be worth more > than that. Well it isn't. I've got plenty of other things I would rather spend the money on. Keith McG > 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
