Re: digital has nothing to offer ?

[yipee yahoo]

Foxtel digital *may* have something to offer in the future -- but at
the moment buying a digital STB for free-to-air television in
Australia is just a waste of money....

There is *still* the same number of pathetic commercial choices in
this country, it is simply incredible how backward and primitive this
country is.....

Perhaps when one of the commercial channels begins multichanneling
24/7, then it would be worth considering (Seven is the only commercial
broadcaster interested at the moment)

Australians are just too backward and primitive it beggars belief !!!!

================================================== ===========================


mickd <mickd.10zqs5@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:<mickd.10zqs5@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au>...
> I have Foxtel via sat & it seems to me I have nothing to gain by signing
> up with the new 'digital' service, interactive ? who needs it, sports ?
> overated, news ?, I can wait 'til 6;00 pm on FTA, my signal is already
> digital so what is to gained ?
> PERHAPS if Foxtel allowed us to select the channels we wanted to watch
> at a far more reasonable cost it may be worth considering.......waiting
> for the pigs to take off !

[yipee yahoo]

Prankster <Prankster.10zvvi@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:<Prankster.10zvvi@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au>...
> mickd Wrote:
> > I have Foxtel via sat & it seems to me I have nothing to gain by
> > signing up with the new 'digital' service, interactive ? who needs
> > it, sports ? overated, news ?, I can wait 'til 6;00 pm on FTA, my
> > signal is already digital so what is to gained ?
> > PERHAPS if Foxtel allowed us to select the channels we wanted to
> > watch at a far more reasonable cost it may be worth
> > considering.......waiting for the pigs to take off !
>
> Yeah, good on ya mate.... another intelligent post by someone that
> expects the world for nothing.
>
> Nothing new, huh? what do you call a dozen or so new channels, 30 NVOD
> channels, 30 Audio channels, Heap of channels in WS, and handful of
> those AC3 surround, an interactive EPG service that makes the current
> one look like a turd, etc, etc,....?? Not to mention the 300 - 400+
> channels hopefully over the next few years, and so on.

Agreed !

At least what Foxtel is offering brings this stupid backward country
out of the stone age and into the 21st century !

Free-to-air television has absolutely nothing to offer in this
counntry when we are limited to a stupid choice of only 3 commercial
channels.........

The sooner the free trade agreement is signed with America, the
better.....

Hopefully it will lead to more American content and more free-to-air
(commercial) tv channels.....

Forget about ABC or SBS -- most of the time little worth watching --
and ABC Television is just a stooge for the boring British crap that
the Poms cannot sell elsewhere because their programs are too boring,
vapid, archaic and staid........

[John Leister]

Well you will get Blue Heelers in high definition
according to channel 7 advertising. LOL

[ET]

"yipee yahoo" <yipeeeyahooo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d52f86ab.0402022000.fe1ad37@posting.google.co m...
> Prankster <Prankster.10zvvi@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<Prankster.10zvvi@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au>...
> > mickd Wrote:
> > > I have Foxtel via sat & it seems to me I have nothing to gain by
> > > signing up with the new 'digital' service, interactive ? who needs
> > > it, sports ? overated, news ?, I can wait 'til 6;00 pm on FTA, my
> > > signal is already digital so what is to gained ?
> > > PERHAPS if Foxtel allowed us to select the channels we wanted to
> > > watch at a far more reasonable cost it may be worth
> > > considering.......waiting for the pigs to take off !
> >
> > Yeah, good on ya mate.... another intelligent post by someone that
> > expects the world for nothing.
> >
> > Nothing new, huh? what do you call a dozen or so new channels,

It's about time! They should have been here ages ago.

> > 30 NVOD channels,

Fuck that for a joke. My wallet can't afford it.

> > 30 Audio channels,

I subscribed to Pay TV, not Pay music

> > Heap of channels in WS,

Just what I DON'T want on my 4:3 TV

> > and handful of those AC3 surround, an interactive EPG service that makes
the current
> > one look like a turd, etc, etc,....??

Two benefits but i'm not willing to pay $99 to get them.

> > Not to mention the 300 - 400+
> > channels hopefully over the next few years, and so on.
>
But probably not so you're just dreaming there.

> Agreed !
>
> At least what Foxtel is offering brings this stupid backward country
> out of the stone age and into the 21st century !
>
> Free-to-air television has absolutely nothing to offer in this
> counntry when we are limited to a stupid choice of only 3 commercial
> channels.........
>
> The sooner the free trade agreement is signed with America, the
> better.....
>
> Hopefully it will lead to more American content and more free-to-air
> (commercial) tv channels.....
>
> Forget about ABC or SBS -- most of the time little worth watching --
> and ABC Television is just a stooge for the boring British crap that
> the Poms cannot sell elsewhere because their programs are too boring,
> vapid, archaic and staid........

[Pat]

Of course you could go to the US and enjoy your TV programs ?


"John Leister" <sizzlesizzleslotslot@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:401F2041.51EC3FC1@senet.com.au...
> Well you will get Blue Heelers in high definition
> according to channel 7 advertising. LOL
>

[pharro]

"yipee yahoo" <yipeeeyahooo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d52f86ab.0402021954.166e6d6d@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> Perhaps when one of the commercial channels begins multichanneling
> 24/7, then it would be worth considering (Seven is the only commercial
> broadcaster interested at the moment)
>
>



Point and laugh at the twee dickhead who still uses the term "24/7".

pharro

[pharro]

"John Leister" <sizzlesizzleslotslot@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:401F2041.51EC3FC1@senet.com.au...
> Well you will get Blue Heelers in high definition
> according to channel 7 advertising. LOL
>


By a dubious technical definition, yes.

pharro

[John Leister]

yipee yahoo wrote:

> Foxtel digital *may* have something to offer in the future -- but at
> the moment buying a digital STB for free-to-air television in
> Australia is just a waste of money....
>
> There is *still* the same number of pathetic commercial choices in
> this country, it is simply incredible how backward and primitive this
> country is.....
>
> Perhaps when one of the commercial channels begins multichanneling
> 24/7, then it would be worth considering (Seven is the only commercial
> broadcaster interested at the moment)
>
> Australians are just too backward and primitive it beggars belief !!!!
>
> ================================================== ===========================
>
> mickd <mickd.10zqs5@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote in message news:<mickd.10zqs5@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au>...
> > I have Foxtel via sat & it seems to me I have nothing to gain by signing
> > up with the new 'digital' service, interactive ? who needs it, sports ?
> > overated, news ?, I can wait 'til 6;00 pm on FTA, my signal is already
> > digital so what is to gained ?
> > PERHAPS if Foxtel allowed us to select the channels we wanted to watch
> > at a far more reasonable cost it may be worth considering.......waiting
> > for the pigs to take off !





What not to wear in HD Hmmmm

on second thoughts no thanks... Though those pommy birds are OK

[Alex]

In aus.tv yipee yahoo <yipeeeyahooo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> At least what Foxtel is offering brings this stupid backward country
> out of the stone age and into the 21st century !

Uh, right. I have some of whatever he's on, thanks.

> Free-to-air television has absolutely nothing to offer in this
> counntry when we are limited to a stupid choice of only 3 commercial
> channels.........

Yeah - nothing defines a country like how many commercial channels it
has. Australia DESERVES at least six - possibly eight - pointless
commercial channels to really cement it's place in the 21st century!
Then we can really get off our arses and watch endless repeats of "The
Simpsons" and "American Idol XIX" in glorious widescreen, digital
sound and in virtual NVOD with the same repeat on six or seven of the
commercial stations!

> The sooner the free trade agreement is signed with America, the
> better.....

Yeah, screw the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - more TV will solve
everyone's problems!

> Forget about ABC or SBS -- most of the time little worth watching --
> and ABC Television is just a stooge for the boring British crap that
> the Poms cannot sell elsewhere because their programs are too boring,
> vapid, archaic and staid........

Careful "yipee yahoo", you're blaspheming against your god, Foxtel. Or
are you <gasp> criticising their decision to broadcast an entire
channel devoted to "British crap"?

Alex.

--

"You're a nutcase! You're a bleeding nutcase!"
"They said the same of Jesus Christ, Freud, and Galileo..."
"They said it of a lot of nutcases too!"
- Stanley and George ("Bedazzled")

[Daran]

"Alex" <alexm@leng.zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:XAiUb.838$KS1.37285@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>
> Yeah, screw the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - more TV will solve
> everyone's problems!
>

What and have no Dr. James Wright? heaven forbid

[T-rev]

"yipee yahoo" <yipeeeyahooo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d52f86ab.0402022000.fe1ad37@posting.google.co m...

> The sooner the free trade agreement is signed with America, the
> better.....
>
> Hopefully it will lead to more American content and more free-to-air
> (commercial) tv channels.....
>
> Forget about ABC or SBS -- most of the time little worth watching --
> and ABC Television is just a stooge for the boring British crap that
> the Poms cannot sell elsewhere because their programs are too boring,
> vapid, archaic and staid........

You are clearly insane yipeeeyahooo. More American shite???!!!! Why don't
you fuck off to America if that's what you want you idiot.

T-rev

[Bru]

Digital is not about programme choice. It is about:

WIDESCREEN - how many movies are made in the old TV format?

Technical quality - NO NOISE, NO GHOSTING.

Extra features (which most stations haven't had the money to implement yet).

Programmes are a different matter entirely.

[LaoFuZhi]

> Digital is not about programme choice. It is about:
>
> WIDESCREEN - how many movies are made in the old TV format?
>
> Technical quality - NO NOISE, NO GHOSTING.
>
> Extra features (which most stations haven't had the money to implement
yet).


No noise? Hmmm. given that most TV's connect to the DTV box via baseband
video connections such as SCART that's not quite true. In many cases that
will be PAL (or presumably NTSC in some places) and will exhibit many of the
old problems associated with those systems. As a UK DTV viewer my
experience is of a system that often displays digital artefacts which are
just as objectionable as noise or ghosting. Often more so. Last night's BBC
transmission of an episode of "One Foot In the Grave" was almost
unwatchable! We have a moderately large (40") projection TV in the living
room and pictures which are clearly blocky and aliased are common... Slight
'ghosting' due to edge ringing (the result of poor impedence matchine
between DTV box and TV) is common...

The system's fragile too. It's all or nothing and reception in marginal
areas can be quite a problem. If your aerial signal is on 'the cusp' so to
speak you can find that a heavy shower of rain will kill TV reception
altogether! The average UK viewer who happily watches a very poor PAL
picture largely due to a duff aerial coupled to a crappy TV will invariably
have to get a [proper aerial installed... One that would have got them a
near perfect PAL picture anyway!! Other odd effects can occur. Right now I'm
watching a BBC transmission which appears to have the sound leading the
vision by about a frame..... One of our DTV boxes 'twitters' slightly on
the audio at high modulation. The other exhibits very strange audio glitches
that sound like short bursts of tape flutter....

I've worked in broadcasting all my life. I'm a cameraman, producer and now
lecture in TV production. SO I'm paerhaps more aware than the average viewer
of how to get good results from my equipment.Frankly I prefer a good PAL
picture over the average DTV. But with that said for the average viewer DTV
is perhaps the way to go. There are a few more channels. One or two are
even worth having. Picture quality is not great but it's not bad either....
Really though the main reasons for DTV lie with our political overlords and
their wanting to do a little more asset stripping of the public worth!!!!

[Rod Speed]

"LaoFuZhi" <the.real.address .is@mattATtfgtvDOTcoDOTyewkay.itsaspam thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out> wrote in message
news:c0o9sv$pei$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>
> > Digital is not about programme choice. It is about:
> >
> > WIDESCREEN - how many movies are made in the old TV format?
> >
> > Technical quality - NO NOISE, NO GHOSTING.
> >
> > Extra features (which most stations haven't had the money to implement
> yet).
>
>
> No noise? Hmmm. given that most TV's connect to the DTV box via baseband
> video connections such as SCART that's not quite true. In many cases that
> will be PAL (or presumably NTSC in some places) and will exhibit many of the
> old problems associated with those systems. As a UK DTV viewer my
> experience is of a system that often displays digital artefacts which are
> just as objectionable as noise or ghosting. Often more so. Last night's BBC
> transmission of an episode of "One Foot In the Grave" was almost
> unwatchable! We have a moderately large (40") projection TV in the living
> room and pictures which are clearly blocky and aliased are common... Slight
> 'ghosting' due to edge ringing (the result of poor impedence matchine
> between DTV box and TV) is common...
>
> The system's fragile too. It's all or nothing and reception in marginal
> areas can be quite a problem. If your aerial signal is on 'the cusp' so to
> speak you can find that a heavy shower of rain will kill TV reception
> altogether! The average UK viewer who happily watches a very poor PAL
> picture largely due to a duff aerial coupled to a crappy TV will invariably
> have to get a [proper aerial installed... One that would have got them a
> near perfect PAL picture anyway!!

Completely different in this country which isnt as microscopic as yours.

> Other odd effects can occur. Right now I'm watching a BBC transmission
> which appears to have the sound leading the vision by about a frame.....
> One of our DTV boxes 'twitters' slightly on the audio at high modulation.

You can get dud anything.

> The other exhibits very strange audio glitches
> that sound like short bursts of tape flutter....

> I've worked in broadcasting all my life. I'm a cameraman, producer
> and now lecture in TV production. SO I'm paerhaps more aware than
> the average viewer of how to get good results from my equipment.
> Frankly I prefer a good PAL picture over the average DTV.

Bogus comparison.

> But with that said for the average viewer DTV is perhaps the way to go.

No perhaps about it.

> There are a few more channels.

More than a few more here.

> One or two are even worth having. Picture quality is not
> great but it's not bad either....Really though the main
> reasons for DTV lie with our political overlords and their
> wanting to do a little more asset stripping of the public worth!!!!

Wota fucking wanker.

[LaoFuZhi]

> Completely different in this country which isnt as microscopic as yours.

Which country? And in what way is it completely different? If anything huge
geographical spread will cause more problems, at least as far as terestrial
transmission is concerned. Which is something you'd realise if you had the
slightest glimmer of engineering knowledge.

> You can get dud anything.

Quite so, but there seem to be an AWFUL lot of dud digiboxes out there....
Very few good ones!

> > I've worked in broadcasting all my life. I'm a cameraman, producer
> > and now lecture in TV production. SO I'm paerhaps more aware than
> > the average viewer of how to get good results from my equipment.
> > Frankly I prefer a good PAL picture over the average DTV.
>
> Bogus comparison.
>

BOGUS?????? In what way exactly?


> > But with that said for the average viewer DTV is perhaps the way to go.
>
> No perhaps about it.

No there is a HUGE perhaps!!! The current PAL broadcasting system is
perfectly adequate. The advantages of DTV are debateable....

> More than a few more here.

Again, where exactly. There are many many new 'channels' here too. But only
one or two with sufficient levels of real content to really merit the
title....

> Wota fucking wanker.

No, actually, you're quite wrong there. But if that's the best you can come
up with in terms of a cogent argument then I think it's clear who actually
spends their time spanking the monkey......

[Rod Speed]

LaoFuZhi <the.real.address .is@mattATtfgtvDOTcoDOTyewkay.itsaspam
thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out> wrote in message
news:c0otjc$6ea$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

>>>> Digital is not about programme choice. It is about:

>>>> WIDESCREEN - how many movies are made in the old TV format?

>>>> Technical quality - NO NOISE, NO GHOSTING.

>>>> Extra features (which most stations haven't
>>>> had the money to implement yet).

>>> No noise? Hmmm. given that most TV's connect to the DTV box via
>>> baseband video connections such as SCART that's not quite true.

Mindlessly superficial and thats got nothing to do with the system anyway.

>>> In many cases that will be PAL (or presumably NTSC in some places)
>>> and will exhibit many of the old problems associated with those systems.

Mindless silly stuff.

>>> As a UK DTV viewer my experience is of a system
>>> that often displays digital artefacts which are just as
>>> objectionable as noise or ghosting. Often more so.

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> Last night's BBC transmission of an episode of
>>> "One Foot In the Grave" was almost unwatchable!

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> We have a moderately large (40") projection TV in the living room
>>> and pictures which are clearly blocky and aliased are common...

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> Slight 'ghosting' due to edge ringing (the result of poor
>>> impedence matchine between DTV box and TV) is common...

Nothing to do with DTV.

>>> The system's fragile too.

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> It's all or nothing

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> and reception in marginalareas can be quite a problem.

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> If your aerial signal is on 'the cusp' so to speak you can
>>> find that a heavy shower of rain will kill TV reception altogether!

More mindless silly stuff.

>>> The average UK viewer who happily watches a very poor
>>> PAL picture largely due to a duff aerial coupled to a crappy
>>> TV will invariably have to get a [proper aerial installed... One
>>> that would have got them a near perfect PAL picture anyway!!

>> Completely different in this country which isnt as microscopic as yours.

> Which country?

Australia. Even you should have been able to
work that out from the newsgroups list, even
if you couldnt manage it from the headers.

> And in what way is it completely different?

There's plenty that dont get a near perfect PAL
picture even with the best antenna installed.
Who get a near perfect DTV picture instead.

> If anything huge geographical spread
> will cause more problems, at least as
> far as terestrial transmission is concerned.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

The realist is that heaps who have a rather poor PAL
service who get a close to perfect DTV service here.

> Which is something you'd realise if you had the
> slightest glimmer of engineering knowledge.

Likely been doing that since before
you were even born thanks child.

>>> Other odd effects can occur. Right now I'm watching
>>> a BBC transmission which appears to have the sound
>>> leading the vision by about a frame..... One of our DTV
>>> boxes 'twitters' slightly on the audio at high modulation.

>> You can get dud anything.

> Quite so, but there seem to be an AWFUL lot of dud digiboxes out there....
> Very few good ones!

They must have seen you stupid poms coming.

>>> I've worked in broadcasting all my life. I'm a cameraman, producer
>>> and now lecture in TV production. SO I'm paerhaps more aware than
>>> the average viewer of how to get good results from my equipment.
>>> Frankly I prefer a good PAL picture over the average DTV.

>> Bogus comparison.

> BOGUS??????

YEP!!!!!!

> In what way exactly?

Utterly mindless comparing a good PAL picture with an average DTV.

>>> But with that said for the average
>>> viewer DTV is perhaps the way to go.

>> No perhaps about it.

> No there is a HUGE perhaps!!!

Crap!!!!

> The current PAL broadcasting system is perfectly adequate.

More crap.

> The advantages of DTV are debateable....

In spades.

>>> There are a few more channels.

>> More than a few more here.

> Again, where exactly.

Again, Australia. Even you should have been
able to work that out from the newsgroups list,
even if you couldnt manage it from the headers.

> There are many many new 'channels' here too. But only one or
> two with sufficient levels of real content to really merit the title....

Wota fucking wanker.

>>> One or two are even worth having. Picture quality is not
>>> great but it's not bad either....Really though the main
>>> reasons for DTV lie with our political overlords and their
>>> wanting to do a little more asset stripping of the public worth!!!!

>> Wota fucking wanker.

> No, actually, you're quite wrong there.

Nope, you clearly are a fucking wanker.

> But if that's the best you can come up with in
> terms of a cogent argument then I think it's clear
> who actually spends their time spanking the monkey......

Even you should be able to wank more
convincingly than that pathetic effort, child.

[thomo]

Hey he not just another wanker, he's our old ARSE-HOLE!

ARSE-HOLE (Another Rod Speed Excretia-He Only Loves Excrement)
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0p8np$19lsq1$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> LaoFuZhi <the.real.address .is@mattATtfgtvDOTcoDOTyewkay.itsaspam
> thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out> wrote in message
> news:c0otjc$6ea$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> >>>> Digital is not about programme choice. It is about:
>
> >>>> WIDESCREEN - how many movies are made in the old TV format?
>
> >>>> Technical quality - NO NOISE, NO GHOSTING.
>
> >>>> Extra features (which most stations haven't
> >>>> had the money to implement yet).
>
> >>> No noise? Hmmm. given that most TV's connect to the DTV box via
> >>> baseband video connections such as SCART that's not quite true.
>
> Mindlessly superficial and thats got nothing to do with the system anyway.
>
> >>> In many cases that will be PAL (or presumably NTSC in some places)
> >>> and will exhibit many of the old problems associated with those
systems.
>
> Mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> As a UK DTV viewer my experience is of a system
> >>> that often displays digital artefacts which are just as
> >>> objectionable as noise or ghosting. Often more so.
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> Last night's BBC transmission of an episode of
> >>> "One Foot In the Grave" was almost unwatchable!
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> We have a moderately large (40") projection TV in the living room
> >>> and pictures which are clearly blocky and aliased are common...
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> Slight 'ghosting' due to edge ringing (the result of poor
> >>> impedence matchine between DTV box and TV) is common...
>
> Nothing to do with DTV.
>
> >>> The system's fragile too.
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> It's all or nothing
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> and reception in marginalareas can be quite a problem.
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> If your aerial signal is on 'the cusp' so to speak you can
> >>> find that a heavy shower of rain will kill TV reception altogether!
>
> More mindless silly stuff.
>
> >>> The average UK viewer who happily watches a very poor
> >>> PAL picture largely due to a duff aerial coupled to a crappy
> >>> TV will invariably have to get a [proper aerial installed... One
> >>> that would have got them a near perfect PAL picture anyway!!
>
> >> Completely different in this country which isnt as microscopic as
yours.
>
> > Which country?
>
> Australia. Even you should have been able to
> work that out from the newsgroups list, even
> if you couldnt manage it from the headers.
>
> > And in what way is it completely different?
>
> There's plenty that dont get a near perfect PAL
> picture even with the best antenna installed.
> Who get a near perfect DTV picture instead.
>
> > If anything huge geographical spread
> > will cause more problems, at least as
> > far as terestrial transmission is concerned.
>
> Not a fucking clue, as always.
>
> The realist is that heaps who have a rather poor PAL
> service who get a close to perfect DTV service here.
>
> > Which is something you'd realise if you had the
> > slightest glimmer of engineering knowledge.
>
> Likely been doing that since before
> you were even born thanks child.
>
> >>> Other odd effects can occur. Right now I'm watching
> >>> a BBC transmission which appears to have the sound
> >>> leading the vision by about a frame..... One of our DTV
> >>> boxes 'twitters' slightly on the audio at high modulation.
>
> >> You can get dud anything.
>
> > Quite so, but there seem to be an AWFUL lot of dud digiboxes out
there....
> > Very few good ones!
>
> They must have seen you stupid poms coming.
>
> >>> I've worked in broadcasting all my life. I'm a cameraman, producer
> >>> and now lecture in TV production. SO I'm paerhaps more aware than
> >>> the average viewer of how to get good results from my equipment.
> >>> Frankly I prefer a good PAL picture over the average DTV.
>
> >> Bogus comparison.
>
> > BOGUS??????
>
> YEP!!!!!!
>
> > In what way exactly?
>
> Utterly mindless comparing a good PAL picture with an average DTV.
>
> >>> But with that said for the average
> >>> viewer DTV is perhaps the way to go.
>
> >> No perhaps about it.
>
> > No there is a HUGE perhaps!!!
>
> Crap!!!!
>
> > The current PAL broadcasting system is perfectly adequate.
>
> More crap.
>
> > The advantages of DTV are debateable....
>
> In spades.
>
> >>> There are a few more channels.
>
> >> More than a few more here.
>
> > Again, where exactly.
>
> Again, Australia. Even you should have been
> able to work that out from the newsgroups list,
> even if you couldnt manage it from the headers.
>
> > There are many many new 'channels' here too. But only one or
> > two with sufficient levels of real content to really merit the title....
>
> Wota fucking wanker.
>
> >>> One or two are even worth having. Picture quality is not
> >>> great but it's not bad either....Really though the main
> >>> reasons for DTV lie with our political overlords and their
> >>> wanting to do a little more asset stripping of the public worth!!!!
>
> >> Wota fucking wanker.
>
> > No, actually, you're quite wrong there.
>
> Nope, you clearly are a fucking wanker.
>
> > But if that's the best you can come up with in
> > terms of a cogent argument then I think it's clear
> > who actually spends their time spanking the monkey......
>
> Even you should be able to wank more
> convincingly than that pathetic effort, child.
>
>

[Kwyjibo.]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said

>
> Mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> More mindless silly stuff.
> Not a fucking clue, as always.
> They must have seen you stupid poms coming.
> Utterly mindless comparing a good PAL picture with an average DTV.
> Crap!!!!
> More crap.
> In spades.
> Wota fucking wanker.
> Nope, you clearly are a fucking wanker.
> Even you should be able to wank more
> convincingly than that pathetic effort, child.

Hey Rod. Do you mind if I use this material in my diplomatic corps training
manual? I'm always after fresh stuff to use.


--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[LaoFuZhi]

Tsk Tsk, what a lonely lonely person.......

> More mindless silly stuff.

....Something you repeat ad nauseum without offering the slightest cogent
challenge to what I'm saying. Each point I made I can justify. Certainly
you've expressed nothing in the way of an opinion based on any substance or
logic. It's perfectly obvious that you are simply an completely ignorant,
unqualified and ill-informed idiot who for some strange reason has chosen to
evangelise the DTV cause.

As for being a "child". Well this particular child has spent almost a
quarter century working in professional broadcast. I've founded five
production Companies and worked everywhere from Sydney, Hong Kong, New York,
Hamburg, Paris and London and of course my Native Glasgow. I've been part of
a BAFTA award winning production team and have three lesser awards in my own
right. I am well qualified in matters of broadcast technology. To the extent
where I lecture (by invite) in such matters at one of the UK's leading
Higher Education establishements. That, ignoramus, means that I actually DO
know exactly what I'm talking about. What's more I can prove it!

Simply get the telephone number for Stow College in Glasgow (try the
website). The college will be pleased to confirm both my identity and status
as lecturer. The name's Matt Rathney-Quinn, MCI department.

It's unfortunate that you see fit to offer nothing else other than personal
abuse. To do this someone you don't know and have never corresponded with
before, and in such a context, indicates that you suffer from some very
serious psychological problems. NO civilissed person would lend the
slightest credence to the rantings of the likes of you... But then your
kind are incapable of doing anything else when faced with arguments you are
simply not capable of understanding!! You're a very cowardly, pitiful and
obvious troll with absolutely nothing of any consequence to say. And, sadly
you re-enforce all those highly innacurate Stereotypes of the so-called
typical pig-shit-thick beer laden ignorant sheep-shaggin' Aussie. Which
leads me to doubt whether you are Australian at all!!! FYI it's not obvious
that you're referring to Australia on some of the NGs you've cross posted
to. The headers I'm looking at indicate origins in Germany!

I'll simply place you on my ignore list.

[E.T.]

"LaoFuZhi" <the.real.address .is@mattATtfgtvDOTcoDOTyewkay.itsaspam
thing.not.too.hard.to.work.out> wrote in message
news:c0q7qg$pvj$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Tsk Tsk, what a lonely lonely person.......
>
> > More mindless silly stuff.
>
Since you appear to be new I'll let you in on a little secret. There's no
point talking to Rod. He doesn't understand words with more than one
syllable, or any word that has consonants or vowels. In short, he's a knob
and I'm being very polite.