flat screen TV

Subject: RE: flat screen TV
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 02 - 06:07 PM

Only $100 difference? A lot more than that over here currently.

All the ones I've seen seem to want you to watch them from one particular place, which would be a nuisance.

Subject: RE: flat screen TV
From: nickp
Date: 04 Nov 02 - 10:10 AM

They look good but there appears to be a slight delay while the picture is built up which doesn't seem to happen on the ordinary cathode ray tube. Maybe there's a techie answer. I think I might find that annoying. Mind you, if space comes into it...

Subject: RE: flat screen TV
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Nov 02 - 09:53 AM

It would probably be better FOR you to get drunk enough to halucinate and stare into the corner. Unless something has gone terribly wrong, there are no ads inside your own head. The programming's usually better, too.

Subject: RE: flat screen TV
From: Bob Bolton
Date: 03 Nov 02 - 09:50 PM

G'day GUEST,

Considering same question - My previous TV died a few months ago ... and I can live without it ... but Patricia gets twitchy in Cricket Season!

I'll definitely go for the flat screen ... but that has a lot to do with the specific spot where I want to put it - I'll need to control reflections and the flat screen will help. The picture will also look better, but not by enough to push me to the higher price, otherwise.

Regards,

Bob Bolton (Anything to keep the cricket in a quiet corner!)

Subject: flat screen TV
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 02 - 09:32 PM

Time to buy a new TV. Is it worth spending an extra $100 for flat screen?

Thanks.