porno türk porno rokettube
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 161 to 174 of 174

Thread: cfl's

  1. #161
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 12-September-2013 4:47 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b9bc9mF5mgvU1@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 11-September-2013 4:06 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b963upF2ph2U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> On 08-September-2013 4:49 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:b8v7f7FkjrvU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
    >>>>>> when
    >>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
    >>>>> have
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it switching
    >>>>> off
    >>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
    >>>>> is
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
    >>>>> had
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> 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
    >>>> tv.
    >>> 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
    than bitching

    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott
    http://www.liberal.org.au/ruddfacts/


  2. #162
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b9hleaFf72aU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
    >>>>>>> when
    >>>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>> to
    >>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
    >>>>>> switching
    >>>>>> off
    >>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
    >>>>>> is
    >>>>>> to
    >>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
    >>>>>> had
    >>>>>> to
    >>>>>> 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
    >>>>> tv.
    >>>> 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.


    YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
    turns the TV off!
    Perhaps you are lucky and got one from a good batch, neither of mine are!
    :-(


    >> *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 than
    > bitching


    Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony! :-)
    But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a *suitable*
    solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products, and I'd be right
    because obviously you don't!

    Trevor.





  3. #163
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 16-September-2013 4:38 PM, Trevor wrote:

    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b9hleaFf72aU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
    >>>>>>>> when
    >>>>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
    >>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
    >>>>>>> switching
    >>>>>>> off
    >>>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other solution
    >>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people actually
    >>>>>>> had
    >>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>> tv.
    >>>>> 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.

    > YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
    > turns the TV off!


    That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby. If you are
    watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like ten mins
    as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is after the
    time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.

    > Perhaps you are lucky and got one from a good batch, neither of mine are!
    > :-(
    >


    I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device. What TV is it
    anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be that the device
    is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?

    >>> *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 than
    >> bitching

    > Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony! :-)
    > But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a *suitable*
    > solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,


    yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
    designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.

    > and I'd be right
    > because obviously you don't!
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >
    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    "Right now you're the youngest you'll ever be, and the oldest you've ever been. So embrace life, and make the most of the time that remains"


  4. #164
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b9nt11Fnh8qU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
    >>>>>>>>> when
    >>>>>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
    >>>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
    >>>>>>>> switching
    >>>>>>>> off
    >>>>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
    >>>>>>>> solution
    >>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
    >>>>>>>> actually
    >>>>>>>> had
    >>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>> tv.
    >>>>>> 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.

    >> YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
    >> turns the TV off!

    >
    > That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.


    And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
    trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument you
    seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?


    >If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
    >ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
    >after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.


    That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED to
    do I wouldn't have complained in the first place! You really are having
    trouble understanding what is written, but of course that will never stop
    you continuing to argue for the sake of it will it!


    > I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.


    Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??


    >What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be that
    >the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?


    Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless it
    is faulty of course.


    >>>> *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
    >>> than
    >>> bitching

    >> Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony! :-)
    >> But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
    >> *suitable*
    >> solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,

    >
    > yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
    > designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.


    Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your money
    back. That's the way it's supposed to work. IF an adjustment is needed for
    different TV's, one should be provided, simple as that.

    Trevor.




  5. #165
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 17-September-2013 2:17 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b9nt11Fnh8qU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the remote
    >>>>>>>>>> when
    >>>>>>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you still
    >>>>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
    >>>>>>>>> switching
    >>>>>>>>> off
    >>>>>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
    >>>>>>>>> solution
    >>>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
    >>>>>>>>> actually
    >>>>>>>>> had
    >>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>> tv.
    >>>>>>> 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.
    >>> YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
    >>> turns the TV off!

    >> That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.

    > And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
    > trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument


    You originally said that it "wants to turn the TV off every time you
    switch channels, after flashing for only a few seconds" . I offered a remedy

    > you seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?


    that's what you're doing, as well as hurling insults. I offered a
    remedy, ie. to position the receiver so that it doesn't receive IR when
    you change channels, and rather than admit that it would solve the
    problem, you just poo-hoo'd the idea, and continued to bitch about the
    device

    >
    >
    >> If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
    >> ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
    >> after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.

    > That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED to
    > do I wouldn't have complained in the first place!



    see above comments

    > You really are having
    > trouble understanding what is written, but of course that will never stop
    > you continuing to argue for the sake of it will it!
    >
    >
    >> I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.

    > Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??


    $100. but I wouldn't trust you to be honest

    >
    >
    >> What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be that
    >> the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?

    > Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless it
    > is faulty of course.


    you've already swapped it out once, and the other one does the same
    thing. What are the chances that two devices are faulty? very little.
    Keep swapping it out then and see if EVERY one you get does the same
    thing. If you ever get one that doesn't then you've proved that there
    are faulty devices. Bet you wont tho, you would rather just bitch about
    the product.

    >
    >
    >>>>> *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
    >>>> than
    >>>> bitching
    >>> Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony! :-)
    >>> But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
    >>> *suitable*
    >>> solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,

    >> yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
    >> designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.

    > Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your money
    > back.


    but you never paid for it

    > That's the way it's supposed to work. IF an adjustment is needed for
    > different TV's, one should be provided, simple as that.
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >
    >



    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    "Right now you're the youngest you'll ever be, and the oldest you've ever been. So embrace life and make the most of the time that remains"


  6. #166
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b9q5sdF7j33U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the
    >>>>>>>>>>> remote
    >>>>>>>>>>> when
    >>>>>>>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>>>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you
    >>>>>>>>>> still
    >>>>>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
    >>>>>>>>>> switching
    >>>>>>>>>> off
    >>>>>>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
    >>>>>>>>>> solution
    >>>>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>>>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
    >>>>>>>>>> actually
    >>>>>>>>>> had
    >>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>> tv.
    >>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>> YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
    >>>> turns the TV off!
    >>> That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.

    >> And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
    >> trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument

    >
    > You originally said that it "wants to turn the TV off every time you
    > switch channels, after flashing for only a few seconds" . I offered a
    > remedy


    No you didn't, you offered a useless suggestion, a different thing
    altogether.



    >> you seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?

    >
    > that's what you're doing, as well as hurling insults.


    If you accepted what I said rather than calling me a liar, there would have
    been no argument at all.


    > I offered a remedy, ie. to position the receiver so that it doesn't
    > receive IR when you change channels,


    A useless suggestion which stops the device working as intended.


    > and rather than admit that it would solve the problem, you just poo-hoo'd
    > the idea, and continued to bitch about the device


    Because it DOESN'T *SOLVE* the problem, simply introduces a different
    problem! That YOU fail to see that but still keep arguing is rather
    pointless.


    >>> If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
    >>> ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
    >>> after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.

    >> That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED
    >> to
    >> do I wouldn't have complained in the first place!

    >
    >
    >>> I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.

    >> Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??

    >
    > $100. but I wouldn't trust you to be honest


    I'll take your bet, come see for yourself! I bet you won't!


    >>
    >>> What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be
    >>> that
    >>> the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?

    >> Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless
    >> it
    >> is faulty of course.

    >
    > you've already swapped it out once, and the other one does the same thing.
    > What are the chances that two devices are faulty? very little.


    EXACTLY why I said it was a faulty DESIGN in the first place. You are still
    having trouble keeping up!


    > Keep swapping it out then and see if EVERY one you get does the same
    > thing. If you ever get one that doesn't then you've proved that there are
    > faulty devices. Bet you wont tho, you would rather just bitch about the
    > product.


    You seem to have infinite time to do that perhaps, and to argue as well, but
    I couldn't be bothered.


    >>>>>> *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
    >>>>> than
    >>>>> bitching
    >>>> Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony! :-)
    >>>> But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
    >>>> *suitable*
    >>>> solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,
    >>> yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
    >>> designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.

    >> Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your
    >> money
    >> back.

    >
    > but you never paid for it


    MY TAXES DID!

    Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up crap
    as you like *IF* you don't intend to take up your bet!

    Trevor.



  7. #167
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 17-September-2013 3:16 PM, Trevor wrote:
    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b9q5sdF7j33U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> position the receiver so it doesn't receive the IR from the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> remote
    >>>>>>>>>>>> when
    >>>>>>>>>>>> you change channels
    >>>>>>>>>>> IF it was properly designed it wouldn't be necessary, and you
    >>>>>>>>>>> still
    >>>>>>>>>>> have
    >>>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>>> be able to wake the TV up in the first place, and to stop it
    >>>>>>>>>>> switching
    >>>>>>>>>>> off
    >>>>>>>>>>> every couple of hours when you are still watching. The other
    >>>>>>>>>>> solution
    >>>>>>>>>>> is
    >>>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>>> do what many people do, and simply unplug it altogether.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Bet they wouldn't sell many (after returns anyway) if people
    >>>>>>>>>>> actually
    >>>>>>>>>>> had
    >>>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>>> 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
    >>>>>>>>>> tv.
    >>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>> YOU DON'T THINK, because as I said, mine flashes for a few seconds then
    >>>>> turns the TV off!
    >>>> That will happen if you turn the tv off! ie onto standby.
    >>> And as I said in my case, while I'm still watching it! Are you having
    >>> trouble reading, understanding english, or just following an argument

    >> You originally said that it "wants to turn the TV off every time you
    >> switch channels, after flashing for only a few seconds" . I offered a
    >> remedy

    > No you didn't, you offered a useless suggestion, a different thing
    > altogether.


    It's not useless, it works, stupid

    >
    >
    >
    >>> you seem hell bent on continuing for no apparent reason?

    >> that's what you're doing, as well as hurling insults.

    > If you accepted what I said rather than calling me a liar,


    never called you a liar

    > there would have been no argument at all.


    yes there would, because you didn't want to remedy the situation, just
    complain about everything, even my suggestion that works

    >
    >
    >> I offered a remedy, ie. to position the receiver so that it doesn't
    >> receive IR when you change channels,

    > A useless suggestion which stops the device working as intended.


    but you're complaining that it already doesn't work as intended

    >
    >
    >> and rather than admit that it would solve the problem, you just poo-hoo'd
    >> the idea, and continued to bitch about the device

    > Because it DOESN'T *SOLVE* the problem, simply introduces a different
    > problem!


    oh yeah, big problem.. you have to point the remote at it and press a
    button when it flashes. Huge problem, HUGE!

    > That YOU fail to see that but still keep arguing is rather
    > pointless.
    >
    >
    >>>> If you are watching tv, but not using the remote, it will flash for like
    >>>> ten mins as I said to warn you it is going to turn the tv off; that is
    >>>> after the time you set, 1, 2 or 3 hours.
    >>> That is what it's SUPPOSED to do, and IF it only did what it's SUPPOSED
    >>> to
    >>> do I wouldn't have complained in the first place!

    >>
    >>>> I'm willing to bet there is nothing wrong with the device.
    >>> Fine, I'll take that bet, how much??

    >> $100. but I wouldn't trust you to be honest

    > I'll take your bet, come see for yourself! I bet you won't!


    where are you?

    >
    >
    >>>> What TV is it anyway? Does it change channels very slowly? Could it be
    >>>> that
    >>>> the device is not seeing any current, and so turns the tv off?
    >>> Why would it not see any current if the TV is on (NOT in standby), unless
    >>> it
    >>> is faulty of course.

    >> you've already swapped it out once, and the other one does the same thing.
    >> What are the chances that two devices are faulty? very little.

    > EXACTLY why I said it was a faulty DESIGN in the first place. You are still
    > having trouble keeping up!
    >
    >
    >> Keep swapping it out then and see if EVERY one you get does the same
    >> thing. If you ever get one that doesn't then you've proved that there are
    >> faulty devices. Bet you wont tho, you would rather just bitch about the
    >> product.

    > You seem to have infinite time to do that perhaps, and to argue as well, but
    > I couldn't be bothered.
    >
    >
    >>>>>>> *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
    >>>>>> than
    >>>>>> bitching
    >>>>> Of course you keep right on bitching about me, oh the irony! :-)
    >>>>> But I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference between a
    >>>>> *suitable*
    >>>>> solution, and awkward pandering to badly designed products,
    >>>> yeh, you expect that the product should be perfect in every way, and
    >>>> designed to work with every conceivable item of equipment available.
    >>> Exactly, it should work as stated by the manufacturer or you get your
    >>> money
    >>> back.

    >> but you never paid for it

    > MY TAXES DID!
    >
    > Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up crap
    > as you like *IF* you don't intend to take up your bet!


    well don't post your bitching problems if you don't want ppl to respond
    with suggestions

    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >




  8. #168
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b9qck7F8ri2U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up
    >>crap as you like




  9. #169
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 18-September-2013 12:48 PM, Trevor wrote:

    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b9qck7F8ri2U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up
    >>> crap as you like

    >


    last time I'll ever offer you any help with anything


  10. #170
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b9tjhlFtjm4U1@mid.individual.net...
    > On 18-September-2013 12:48 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>>> Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up
    >>>> crap as you like

    >
    > last time I'll ever offer you any help with anything



    Is that a promise? If that's what you call "help" I can certainly do without
    it!!!

    Trevor.




  11. #171
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 19-September-2013 1:47 PM, Trevor wrote:

    > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    > news:b9tjhlFtjm4U1@mid.individual.net...
    >> On 18-September-2013 12:48 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>>>> Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much follow up
    >>>>> crap as you like

    >> last time I'll ever offer you any help with anything

    >
    > Is that a promise? If that's what you call "help" I can certainly do without
    > it!!!
    >
    > Trevor.


    I offered you a workable solution to your problem so STFU


  12. #172
    Ext User(atec77) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 19/09/2013 6:49 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    > On 19-September-2013 1:47 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >
    >> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >> news:b9tjhlFtjm4U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> On 18-September-2013 12:48 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>>>>> Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much
    >>>>>> follow upen
    >>>>>> crap as you like
    >>> last time I'll ever offer you any help with anything

    >>
    >> Is that a promise? If that's what you call "help" I can certainly do
    >> without
    >> it!!!
    >>
    >> Trevor.

    >
    > I offered you a workable solution to your problem so STFU
    >

    Don't get bitter about tweva , get even

    --









    X-No-Archive: Yes


  13. #173
    Ext User(felix_unger) Guest

    Re: cfl's

    On 19-September-2013 6:58 PM, atec77 wrote:

    > On 19/09/2013 6:49 PM, felix_unger wrote:
    >> On 19-September-2013 1:47 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>
    >>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:b9tjhlFtjm4U1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> On 18-September-2013 12:48 PM, Trevor wrote:
    >>>>>>> Anyway, I've had enough arguning with idiots, so post as much
    >>>>>>> follow upen
    >>>>>>> crap as you like
    >>>> last time I'll ever offer you any help with anything
    >>>
    >>> Is that a promise? If that's what you call "help" I can certainly do
    >>> without
    >>> it!!!
    >>>
    >>> Trevor.

    >>
    >> I offered you a workable solution to your problem so STFU
    >>

    > Don't get bitter about tweva , get even
    >




    --
    rgds,

    Pete
    -------
    http://www.facebook.com/VoteForTonyAbbott


  14. #174
    Ext User(Trevor) Guest

    Re: cfl's


    "felix_unger" <me@nothere.com> wrote in message
    news:b9vs5fFdkpqU1@mid.individual.net...
    > I offered you a workable solution to your problem so STFU


    :-) :-) :-) "workable", if only your brain did!

    Trevor.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •