|
|
Posted by Guest on 11/10/06 15:55
--
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
"Tom Stiller" <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tomstiller-617BC5.08455610112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <NWS4h.3462$IR4.2227@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:55:53 -0500, "Guest" <llcoolj@comcast.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>You have a serious problem. Just do some testing for yourself.
>> >
>> > I hope you don't seriously think what you have done can be called
>> > "testing", do you? That's one of the funniest parts of your posts!
>>
>> It is real world testing. I am not giving a magazine review man. I had
>> one
>> HDMI cable and bought another. I see the difference and my test is
>> complete. I like the results of the non-pack in cable.
>
> Your visual acuity is not the issue here, it's your absurd assertion
> that any difference you might detect can be attributed to the "quality"
> of the HDMI cable linking the source to the destination.
>
> Your position that digital data reproduction and transmission suffers
> from all the same problems as analog techniques makes as much sense as a
> proposal for putting a satellite in polar geosynchronous orbit.
Uh - that's not my position.
>
> You can continue to portray the village idiot to the amusement of those
> of us willing to invest the time, or you can admit (at least to
> yourself) that you don't know jack-shit about digital technology and do
> something to correct that deficiency.
>
> --
> Tom Stiller
>
> PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
> 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|