«

On 23 Feb 2004 18:22:27 GMT,
(Waterperson77) Gave us:

>>
>
>I believe that the hdtv consortium itself disagrees with you on their own
>website.
>
>The ones that came up with the standard.
>
The broadcasters are using General Instrument hardware. The GI
spec, which was the one that got approved by the consortium et al,
most certainly states that an antenna upgrade is required on the
receiver.

The broadcasters also had to erect new towers for their new medium
as well. Some were able to retrofit their existing towers, but not
many.

Again, since GI makes no such antenna product, they have no special
interests in forwarding the requisites for the use of THEIR systems.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:33:21 -0500, "madkevin" <>
Gave us:

>
>"DarkMatter" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>
>> The point was that ANY show that has aired that long should have no
>> problem keeping up with, and complying with the new standards.
>>
>> This is simple ****. They ****ed up.... Period.
>
>Dude, chill. Dvdgu...

**** you.

> I mean,

I know exactly what you mean.

snipped kaka about the twit.

>Obviously, somebody ****ed up. I'm just curious as to who.

No ****.

From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU madkevin
<>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
> Well, now, that is really strange. Perhaps it's different down there,
> but in Canada the Home Shopping Network doesn't have "shows", per se.
> It just has people hawking stuff, twenty-four hours a day. What was
> the name of this entertainment show on The Home Shopping Network in
> 1989? Is it listed on www.tvtome.com?
>
> Kevin "Curiouser And Curiouser" Cogliano

Kevin, I hate to break it to you but waterperson is a complete idiot
who posts a lot of really false information and such on this newsgroup.
He used to post under the name dvdguy2 eons ago, it the same crap
back then as it is now. Some of the myths include:

- The first "Harry Potter" film being aired on a Canada TV station
before it was even on DVD.

- X-Files DVD boxsets being sold at Best Buy for $200.

- 2.35:1 TVs exsist.

- He swore he saw a movie one time on TV that showed the
"End Of Laserdisc Side A" in the middle of the movie.

That is just a small sampling of some of his "facts."

--
Demolition Man
A reminder to the world....
"Well, in my case, I get VCRs from the Goodwill thrift store that
allows a return in 7 days, that way I can ascertain the similar
components (or lift a fuse or belt for my own evil purposes)!"
-Bill Schwenke

From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU Waterperson77
<>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is
Pink?"
>> op spamming this group with your baby bullshit, simply because you
>> are ****ed that nobody here likes or agrees with your retarded ass.
>>
>
> 1. I'm not spamming this newsgroup. I'm not even selling anything. To
> be spam, I have to be selling something in my posts here, which I'm
> not doing.

You don't have to be selling anything in order for it to be considered
to be spam. Heck, I consider your posts to be spam myself.

> 2. As for nobody in this newsgroup liking me as you claim, no I'm not
> ****ed about that, because I don't care anymore. I used to care years
> ago, and tried to be nice and do what everyone else wanted, and
> because of it, I got screwed over royally by the people who I did
> exactly what they wanted me to do and was nice to them.

There's a difference between being nice and being an idiot. Please
learn it as soon as you can.

> After that, I decided I would do the right thing no matter what
> everyone else says, and always tell the accurate truthful information
> even if nobody else likes it and even if they all pretend to disagree
> with it.

About that 2.35:1 TV again.....

> Besides, there's plenty of other newsgroups where they do like me.
> It's only the stuck-up ignorant morons in the dvd newsgroups that
> don't for various reasons.

You aren't liked because you are a freakin idiot. Am I not making this
simple enough for your mind to figure out yet?

> One of those reasons is because of my past experiences, I now try to
> always tell the truth, which ****es off the stuck-up morons in this
> newsgroup because it (the truth) exposes them for what they really
> are

Like $200 X-Files boxsets at Best Buy eh?

> 1. MPAA shills who say it's illegal to download movies that the
> copyright holders theirselves said is perfectly legal to download. (
> the reason for this is because they don't want anyone to watch aany
> movies that weren't made by MPAA approved Hollywood companies because
> they're afraid that people might like these other companies' products
> beter than a lot of the garbage that the MPAA approved Hollywood
> companies are turning out, andare afraid that they (the MPAA approved
> Hollywood companies will lose money if people choose to watch movies
> made and produced by non-MPAA companies over ones made by
> MPAA-approved Hollywood companies.
>
> Therefore, they want to limit everyone's movie viewing to only
> Hollywood companies' products.

Whatever. I've downloaded quite a few films that are not done by a
MPAA company. Once again you are showing how thick your
waterbrain really is.

> 2. widescreen screen fillers who claim that they're always for the
> directors' intents ( but really just want to fill the screen of their
> widescreen tv sets since they paid so much money for it. They are as
> bad as the 4:3 screen fillers. Yet these widescreen screen fillers
> even if the oroiginal was 4:3, seems to be the majority of this
> newsgroup.
> There's only a few people in this neeewsgroup who are truly for the
> directors' intents, for original aspect ratio.

I own a 4:3 HDTV yet I want my films in their OAR. As Richard C
would say.. period, end of story.

Oh, and for your information Mr. Waterbrain - I have a HUGE
amount of respect for Richard C because he is truthful in what he
says and damn it - he's just as passionate as I am on OAR
presentations on DVD.

> 3. The posters in this newsgroup who want both widescreen and
> remastered 5.1 sound on all dvd discs (even if the original was in
> mono, even though the remastered sound compromises the original
> productions' intents.), and then when called on it, say that all dvd
> discs should be in 5.1 sound because no one can tell the differencve
> betwwen 5.1 sound and mono anyways.
>
> Then when called on it, "Well, if no one can tell the difference
> bewtween 5.1 sound and mono anyways as you say they can't, then why
> not just use the original mono track since no one can tell tyhe
> difference between them anyways as you say", they just ignore it or
> come back with name-calling insults because they can't think up of a
> good honest counter-argument to that, since there isn't any.

1) I can sure as hell tell the difference between 5.1 and mono.
2) I got no problem with a 5.1 remix being on a disc as long as the
original mono is also on the disc. I also don't got a problem with
the 5.1 remix if its well done. But in many cases I still prefer the
mono mix since - after all - its more faithful to how the film was
intended to be heard.

--
Demolition Man
A reminder to the world....
"Well, in my case, I get VCRs from the Goodwill thrift store that
allows a return in 7 days, that way I can ascertain the similar
components (or lift a fuse or belt for my own evil purposes)!"
-Bill Schwenke

>he broadcasters are using General Instrument hardware. The GI
>spec, which was the one that got approved by the consortium et al,
>most certainly states that an antenna upgrade is required

okay, but then that still doesn't explain how come when I used antennas that
specifically said "made for hdtv reception" and also stated that they were
"hdtv antennas", I got the worst HDTV reception of any of the antennas IO tried
including analog ones.

I got better HDTV recepton with analog antennas not made for hdtv than I did
with these so-fcalled "HDTV antennas""made especially for HDTV reception".

Theefore, I must agree with the other poster that the so-called HDTV antennas
are a marketing scaam.

>Whatever. I've downloaded quite a few films that are not done by a
>MPAA company. Once again you are showing how thick your
>waterbrain really is.

I never said it was illegal to download non-MPAA movies. I said another poster
in this newsgroup said that it was illegal to download non-MPAa movies, period.
even if the copyright holders of them say you can.

I disagreed with him.

Therefore, you're actually agreeing with me in the above statement about
downloads of non-MPAA movies being perfectly legal, as long as the copyright
holders say you can.

>Oh, and for your information Mr. Waterbrain - I have a HUGE
>amount of respect for Richard C because he is truthful in what he
>says

and so am I. It's just that most people in the dvd newsgroups don't want to
believe the truth.

It sure is strange how of all the newsgroups I'm in, it's only the dvd
newsgroups that don't want to believe the truth.





>I am on OAR
>presentations on DVD.
>

I never said everyone in this newsgroup is a screen-filler. I said that "most"
are, not "everyone", and I even specifically said that there are a few people
in the dvd newsgroups who truly are for oar.

(and yes, Richard was and is one of the ones who is truly for oar).

>> Well, now, that is really strange. Perhaps it's different down there,
>> but in Canada the Home Shopping Network doesn't have "shows", per se.
>> It just has people hawking stuff, twenty-four hours a day. What was
>> the name of this entertainment show on The Home Shopping Network in
>in
>> 1989? Is it listed on www.tvtome.com?

no, it's not on tvtome, but I do know the name of it.

It was:

"Majic TV" with Lannigan & Webster.



>Kevin, I hate to break it to you but waterperson is a complete idiot
>who posts a lot of really false information and such on this newsgroup.

my information was all truthful, not false. so there.
>Some of the myths include:

not myths. It was the truth.

>- X-Files DVD boxsets being sold at Best Buy for $200.
>

okay, nitpicker. Just because I rounded it off to $200 when the stickers said
$199.99

>He swore he saw a movie one time on TV that showed the
>"End Of Laserdisc Side A" in the middle of the movie.
>

I did and I think I even have the videotape to prove it.

production company: "Prestige Media" located on Deise Avenue in Cleveland.

tv station: WBNX-TV channel 55/WBNX-DT channel 30 Akron, Ohio, studios in
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.

name of show: "The Ghoul Show"which was on Saturday mornings at 3:30 AM through
the end of 2003, and was and is still supposed to be on Saturday mornings at 4
AM starting the first Saturday in 2004, which it never has been to date, becaue
their tape format is incompatible with WB's new format that started at the
beginning of 2004.

The show's website:

www.theghoul.com

The show's communications director: Bob

I think it's" Bob the Geek" After all, a geek would know a LOT about technical
stuff like that, which proves that the formats are incompatible since a geek
said they are.

>The first "Harry Potter" film being aired on a Canada TV station
>before it was even on DVD.
>

It was. Then people in this newsgroup wanted the call letters of the station
because Canadian tv stations are NOT required to identify themselves at all,
unlike U.S. tv stations which are required to identify theirselves every hour.

Then the bozos in these newsgroups told me that Canadian tv stations are too
required to identify the call letters of their station every hour.

Well, if that's so, then every Canadian tv station I've ever seen is breaking
Canadian law.

CFPL-TV does identify theirsaelve sometimes, but that wasn't the station with
Harry Potter on at the time I was talking about.

The station it was on, I watched the rest of the day and night to get call
letters of, and they never did identify because Canadian tv stations are NOT
required to identify at all, not even at sign-off or sign-on, because I
watched.

Waterperson77 wrote on [24 Feb 2004 02:09:30 GMT]:
>>The first "Harry Potter" film being aired on a Canada TV station
>>before it was even on DVD.
>>
>
> It was. Then people in this newsgroup wanted the call letters of the station
> because Canadian tv stations are NOT required to identify themselves at all,
> unlike U.S. tv stations which are required to identify theirselves every hour.
>
> Then the bozos in these newsgroups told me that Canadian tv stations are too
> required to identify the call letters of their station every hour.
>
> Well, if that's so, then every Canadian tv station I've ever seen is breaking
> Canadian law.
>
> CFPL-TV does identify theirsaelve sometimes, but that wasn't the station with
> Harry Potter on at the time I was talking about.
>
> The station it was on, I watched the rest of the day and night to get call
> letters of, and they never did identify because Canadian tv stations are NOT
> required to identify at all, not even at sign-off or sign-on, because I
> watched.
>
>

The call letters were WACKO