I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with the
recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought that
might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T


The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with the
recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought that
might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T


The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.




This newsgroup is plagued with couch potato(e)s.

"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T


The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.


This newsgroup is plagued with couch potato(e)s.
And tomato(e) heads.

On Feb 1, 12:19*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...46xbr4/4505-64...

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T

DLP has a lot to offer as well...

wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:19 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...46xbr4/4505-64...

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T

DLP has a lot to offer as well...

I think DLP is no longer an option.

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T

The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.

This newsgroup is plagued with couch potato(e)s.

Hey! I resemble that remark (watching Football and Baseball that is).

BTW: I see Reggie continues to butt in on my decision to go LCD. What an
ass.

I really don't care about your decision, the question is about Plasma vs
LCD.

BTW2: LCD is the better choice in rooms with a lot of light. The Sony
that Wayne purchased (and I will be purchasing) was rated #1 and equal to
the many Plasmas in terms of picture quality.

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with
the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought
that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T

The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.

This newsgroup is plagued with couch potato(e)s.

Hey! I resemble that remark (watching Football and Baseball that is).

BTW: I see Reggie continues to butt in on my decision to go LCD. What an
ass.

BTW2: LCD is the better choice in rooms with a lot of light. The Sony
that Wayne purchased (and I will be purchasing) was rated #1 and equal to
the many Plasmas in terms of picture quality.




What's it cost you to see the Indians play in person?

I took my inlaws to see an Orioles game last summer and between tickets,
food, drink and parking, I think I dropped about $600. Is that possible?

My father and I used to drive from New Haven to New York to see the
Dodgers or Yankees play. I think the tickets were maybe $5 each, a hot
dog and a soda went for a buck.

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message ...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets,
with the recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I
thought that might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...-32468193.html

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T
The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.
This newsgroup is plagued with couch potato(e)s.
Hey! I resemble that remark (watching Football and Baseball that is).

BTW: I see Reggie continues to butt in on my decision to go LCD. What
an ass.

BTW2: LCD is the better choice in rooms with a lot of light. The Sony
that Wayne purchased (and I will be purchasing) was rated #1 and equal to
the many Plasmas in terms of picture quality.

What's it cost you to see the Indians play in person?

I took my inlaws to see an Orioles game last summer and between tickets,
food, drink and parking, I think I dropped about $600. Is that possible?

My father and I used to drive from New Haven to New York to see the
Dodgers or Yankees play. I think the tickets were maybe $5 each, a hot dog
and a soda went for a buck.


When we go we get field box seats, no more than 10 rows back, usually behind
the Indians dugout. We buy them from a season ticket holder and pay
anywhere from $40 to $60/ticket, depending on who is playing the Tribe.

The good seats are sold out to season ticket holders. I liked sitting in
the bleachers when I was younger.




Yeah, I did, too. I think I paid $80 a ticket last summer, and the seats
weren't that good.

On Feb 1, 12:52*pm, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
I had been reading that Plasma was the way to go with larger sets, with the
recent improvements in LCD with the 120 hz refresh rate, I thought that
might have some benefits over Plasma.

After reading this:
http://review.zdnet.com/flat-panel-a...46xbr4/4505-64...

I really don't see any.

Why would someone prefer the LCD or the better Plasma models?

T

The plasma TV can be used to save lives when there aren't enough blood
donors. This is so obvious.

This newsgroup is plagued with couch potato(e)s.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Get off your fat ass then.