On 12-September-2013 4:47 PM, Trevor wrote:
> "felix_unger" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> On 11-September-2013 4:06 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> "felix_unger" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>>> On 08-September-2013 4:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>>> "felix_unger" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
>>>>>> you change channels
>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it switching
>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
>>>>> pay for them!
>>>> Seems to me you're more interested in bitching about it than actually
>>>> fixing the problem.
>>> NO, *fixing* the problem would mean a redesign so it works properly! You
>>> really mean I should use a kludge as a work around for a poorly designed
>>> device so the manufacturer can make more money at taxpayer expense.
>>>> It shouldn't be difficult to place the receiver where you can still fire
>>>> the remote at it, but it doesn't get IR when you point the remote at the
>>> You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for the manufacturer to design it to
>>> work properly in the first place either, but apparently NOT :-(
>> Like I said.. you're more interested in bitching about it than solving
>> *your* problem. I have no trouble with mine.
> Lucky you, or you would realise your suggestion is crap!
> The sensor is supposed to see the remote so it can reset the timer as you
> use it, AND you have to be able to see it while watching TV, or the first
> you know it is going to switch the TV off is after it has already done so!
Hey, smartarse, the thing flashes for like 10 minutes I think, before it
switches the tv off. so all you have to do is position it so you can see
it and point the remote at it and press some key when it flashes.
> *NOT* a satisfactory "solution" IMO.
> But hey I wouldn't expect you to understand.
and I wouldn't expect you to be more interested in finding a solution