On 7/2/2013 7:52 AM, wrote:
>
> Before the advent of the LCD/LED, when a "flat screen" was an expensive plasma, my buddy bought a HDTV projector and a silvery motorized screen. Both projector and screen were relatively unobtrusive when not in use. But he and his wife did have to watch TV in recliners.
>

The next generation of OLED TVs will knock you socks off - it's that good!

On 02/07/2013 3:34 PM, Gary wrote:
nb
>>
>> As was ours, but then along comes a medical procedure that needs a few
>> days of bed rest. That is why the modest 13" at first.
>
> I sleep every night with tv on (low volume), fan on for breeze and a bit of
> white noise, and the light on so I can read my current book. This is why
> I'll probably never remarry. No wife would put up with all that.
>
>
'From what you write here, I would have thought those would have been
the minor problems.

On 7/2/2013 1:30 PM, Gary wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> The ones I've seen over a fireplace were too high for comfortable
>> viewing though. Maybe in the right recliner it would be OK.
>
> I've seen a few mounted high like that and I agree with you....seems too
> high for me. I like watching tv on an even eye-to-screen level.
>
> G.
>
Some folks seem to enjoy airport height flat panels, strange...

On 7/2/2013 9:34 AM, Gary wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Jul 2013 13:07:02 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Bedroom went from 13" to 19" to 34" flat to a 40" flat.
>>>
>>> That's something I didn't do. My bedroom was for sleeping.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> As was ours, but then along comes a medical procedure that needs a few
>> days of bed rest. That is why the modest 13" at first.
>
> I sleep every night with tv on (low volume), fan on for breeze and a bit of
> white noise, and the light on so I can read my current book. This is why
> I'll probably never remarry. No wife would put up with all that.
>
> G.
>

My wife will sleep with the TV on. It's always a bummer to be waking up
in the middle of the night with the TV on. In the back of my mind,
there's the notion that the TV is watching you when you're sleeping.
Truly, it's an evil machine. I like to wash clothes when I'm sleeping.
Good thing the machine is outside our door.

I don't believe that I've ever seen her turn a TV off. I guess that's
not in her nature. You two guys might get along fine...

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:56:44 -0700, sf > wrote:



>>
>> The ones I've seen over a fireplace were too high for comfortable
>> viewing though. Maybe in the right recliner it would be OK.
>
>I'm the opposite, I want it high because I don't like watching
>television between my toes.

Just put a pair of socks on!

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:56:57 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:


>
>But, but, but we like the one we have ... Not a matter of cost, we just
>don't see the need.
>
>--

To each his own. Watching the travel and nature shows on a big HD
screen is just wonderful The detail is amazing If you are a sports
fan, it is like being right at the edge of the field.

OTOH, watching a dumb sitcom, who cares?

While some snobs delight in saying how little they watch TV, there are
a few truly good, entertaining, educational, interesting shows on,
especially the cable networks. With a DVR, we control what and when
we watch shows. Watched some of Brain Games on Science channel last
night. Still have an episode of North America.

On 7/2/2013 8:05 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:56:44 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> The ones I've seen over a fireplace were too high for comfortable
>>> viewing though. Maybe in the right recliner it would be OK.
>>
>> I'm the opposite, I want it high because I don't like watching
>> television between my toes.
>
> Just put a pair of socks on!
>
Does that impede the digital signals?

On 02/07/2013 10:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> OTOH, watching a dumb sitcom, who cares?
>
> While some snobs delight in saying how little they watch TV, there are
> a few truly good, entertaining, educational, interesting shows on,
> especially the cable networks. With a DVR, we control what and when
> we watch shows. Watched some of Brain Games on Science channel last
> night. Still have an episode of North America.
>
I don't know about delight. For some people it is a fact. Before I had
satellite I rarely watched television. Once I got cable I started
watching more, but it was primarily on the specialty channels. Other
than Jeopardy, I almost never watch any of the network stuff.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:16:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:



>>
>I don't know about delight. For some people it is a fact. Before I had
>satellite I rarely watched television. Once I got cable I started
>watching more, but it was primarily on the specialty channels. Other
>than Jeopardy, I almost never watch any of the network stuff.


Same here. The networks have little aside from the news at 6. But
every week I find something of interest on History, Science,
Discovery, Travel, etc.

There is a long list of series that I'm proud to say I've never
watched though. Dallas, Friends,The Office and the like.

Some reality shows are interesting for an episode or three. I watched
a bit of Ice Road Truckers the first season. Never knew such things
existed, so it was interesting to a point. Could care less about
drama between drivers though. Top shot has great slow motion
photography. If you FF through the BS, it is an interesting 15 minute
show with good competition. Last episode had slo mo of the bullet
passing through the center hole of a CD.

On 02/07/2013 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:16:52 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>> I don't know about delight. For some people it is a fact. Before I had
>> satellite I rarely watched television. Once I got cable I started
>> watching more, but it was primarily on the specialty channels. Other
>> than Jeopardy, I almost never watch any of the network stuff.
>
>
> Same here. The networks have little aside from the news at 6. But
> every week I find something of interest on History, Science,
> Discovery, Travel, etc.

One of the problems with the specialty channels is the reruns. They have
a limited repertoire and often air the same program several times a day.
Some of those channels are worse than the others.


>
> There is a long list of series that I'm proud to say I've never
> watched though. Dallas, Friends,The Office and the like.

The original BBC version of The Office was great. The American version
sucked big time.


>
> Some reality shows are interesting for an episode or three.

Sorry, but for me, "reality show" is an oxymoron, and I cannot get
excited about watching them. The same goes for the various cooking
competitions, be they professional, semi professional or amateurs.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 22:05:25 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:56:44 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The ones I've seen over a fireplace were too high for comfortable
> >> viewing though. Maybe in the right recliner it would be OK.
> >
> >I'm the opposite, I want it high because I don't like watching
> >television between my toes.
>
> Just put a pair of socks on!

I meant the big toes on each foot, but don't worry - I know how to
separate my feet, but it doesn't stop me from disliking that downward
viewing angle. I'd rather look up. I've never had the opportunity to
watch a TV above a fireplace, so I don't know for sure how I'd like
it. However, my current TV is on top of a tall entertainment center -
which is approximately the same height as my fireplace mantle. AFAIC,
it's the perfect height and there is only (maybe) 12 feet from my 50
inch TV to my eyes.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 23:08:00 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:



>
>One of the problems with the specialty channels is the reruns. They have
>a limited repertoire and often air the same program several times a day.
> Some of those channels are worse than the others.

And it will repeat again in a couple of years. It is was worth
watching, at least you won't miss it.




>> Some reality shows are interesting for an episode or three.
>
>Sorry, but for me, "reality show" is an oxymoron, and I cannot get
>excited about watching them. The same goes for the various cooking
>competitions, be they professional, semi professional or amateurs.
>
>

The key to enjoying them is a DVR. You FF through the drama and see
the small portion that is reality. Many of us in the lower 48 have
never heard of Ice Roads, for instance. It was interesting to find
out about them and see how it is done. You can do that in an episode
or two. This is not life changing subject matter, but just something
interesting that I never knew about. Some people go to their graves
and never know about that stuff and no one seems bothered about it.

As for the competition shows, I agree. Some are downright moronic.
Taste is very subjective so when a pro chef is sent home, it is
usually not because of a bad meal, just the mood of a couple of judges
at that moment. Who cares?

On 03/07/2013 5:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>
>> One of the problems with the specialty channels is the reruns. They have
>> a limited repertoire and often air the same program several times a day.
>> Some of those channels are worse than the others.
>
> And it will repeat again in a couple of years. It is was worth
> watching, at least you won't miss it.

Years? With some channels it is a month or two.


>
>
>>> Some reality shows are interesting for an episode or three.
>>
>> Sorry, but for me, "reality show" is an oxymoron, and I cannot get
>> excited about watching them. The same goes for the various cooking
>> competitions, be they professional, semi professional or amateurs.
>>
>>
>
> The key to enjoying them is a DVR. You FF through the drama and see
> the small portion that is reality.

Not for me. I am not going to bother to record a show just to skip throw
the drama. For some of those shows, that is what it is all about. I
caught a few moments here and there of survivor and saw enough of that.
If I were on an island I would be looking for those with useful skills,
not conspiring on the basis of gender or personality. A bunch of
attention whores sharing a house and getting into conflicts with each
other is a poor replacement for quality programming.

But.... different people have different tastes. I don't watch sports on
TV either. I used to watch the occasional hockey game but after that
nonsense with the lock-out/strike this year I boycotted it. The only
sporting events I like to watch are equestrian events.





> Many of us in the lower 48 have
> never heard of Ice Roads, for instance. It was interesting to find
> out about them and see how it is done. You can do that in an episode
> or two. This is not life changing subject matter, but just something
> interesting that I never knew about. Some people go to their graves
> and never know about that stuff and no one seems bothered about it.


Ice roads are an important means of transport in the far north and a
good thing to know about. But... a series of shows, and all about the
drama? No thanks. There are also shows about other dangerous roads,
like through the Andes and the Himalayas. Okay. We get it. There are
some dangerous parts of the world, but I don't want to see an entire
series of shows about it. The same goes for the one about the Alaska
king crab fleet. It makes the rounds every year or so. Perhaps the
current batch is a new season. I don't know. I don't intend to watch it.
One hour long episode was enough to tell me everything I think I need to
know about the hazards of crabbing.

>
> As for the competition shows, I agree. Some are downright moronic.
> Taste is very subjective so when a pro chef is sent home, it is
> usually not because of a bad meal, just the mood of a couple of judges
> at that moment. Who cares?
>


Can you imagine being a talented and hardworking aspiring chef and
having to put up with the moronic rants of Gordon Ramsay? But the show
is more about the judges than the chefs anyway.

sf wrote:
>
>>I'm the opposite, I want it high because I don't like watching
>>television between my toes.

Who're kidding... with your obeastie 300 lb gut you need your TV at
*altitude*... you haven't seen your toes in 40 years. LOL-LOL

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 5:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>>
>>> One of the problems with the specialty channels is the reruns. They have
>>> a limited repertoire and often air the same program several times a day.
>>> Some of those channels are worse than the others.
>>
>> And it will repeat again in a couple of years. It is was worth
>> watching, at least you won't miss it.
>
> Years? With some channels it is a month or two.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> Some reality shows are interesting for an episode or three.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but for me, "reality show" is an oxymoron, and I cannot get
>>> excited about watching them. The same goes for the various cooking
>>> competitions, be they professional, semi professional or amateurs.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The key to enjoying them is a DVR. You FF through the drama and see
>> the small portion that is reality.
>
> Not for me. I am not going to bother to record a show just to skip throw
> the drama. For some of those shows, that is what it is all about. I
> caught a few moments here and there of survivor and saw enough of that.
> If I were on an island I would be looking for those with useful skills,
> not conspiring on the basis of gender or personality. A bunch of
> attention whores sharing a house and getting into conflicts with each
> other is a poor replacement for quality programming.
>

I figured out the show was surviving conflicts. Could not get into the
show.

Then you watch TRUE TV, and some of the shows are complete faked out, like
the towing shows.

Greg

On 7/1/2013 8:32 AM, jmcquown wrote:

> Oh yes, I remember those days. When I was growing up the "living room"
> was for company. And that didn't include children. Or television.
>
> Jill

When we were kids, we were not allowed in the living room, either. When
mother left to play bridge, have her hair done or go to a sorority
meeting, we invaded the living room like a plague of locusts. Not being
allowed in there, just drew us to it. We did hand stands and back flips,
but we never broke anything, except a beautiful hand-blown glass bowl
from France. We buried it in the back yard and swore each other to
secrecy. Mother has never asked about it.

Becca

On 7/1/2013 11:18 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

> We used our living room, but the TV was downstairs in the rec room. My
> grandparents used their living rooms. Of course you had to be a
> careful... no bare skin or dirty clothes on the good furniture, but it
> was used all the time.
>
>
> One aunt and uncle were a little different. They were quite well off and
> had no kids. Their living room was exquisite.... and out of bounds most
> of the time. The also has a really nice cottage. We had to change in
> and out of bathing suits in the boat house so the water would not be
> tracked into the cottage.

After swimming, we changed clothes in the garage. Our parents never went
swimming with us, now that I think about it.

Becca

On 7/2/2013 4:55 PM, dsi1 wrote:

> My wife will sleep with the TV on. It's always a bummer to be waking up
> in the middle of the night with the TV on. In the back of my mind,
> there's the notion that the TV is watching you when you're sleeping.
> Truly, it's an evil machine. I like to wash clothes when I'm sleeping.
> Good thing the machine is outside our door.
>
> I don't believe that I've ever seen her turn a TV off. I guess that's
> not in her nature. You two guys might get along fine...

George could probably go all week without turning on a TV, he likes the
house nice and quiet. I fall asleep watching the TV every night, but I
use a sleep timer that turns it off in 30 minutes. Everything we watch,
is recorded on the DVR.

Becca

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 2:58:06 PM UTC-7, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>I'm the opposite, I want it high because I don't like watching
>
> >>television between my toes.
>
>
>
> Who're kidding... with your obeastie 300 lb gut you need your TV at
>
> *altitude*... you haven't seen your toes in 40 years. LOL-LOL
>

I'm sure Sheldon's man-boobs get in the way of his viewing.

On 7/4/2013 7:37 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> George could probably go all week without turning on a TV, he likes the
> house nice and quiet. I fall asleep watching the TV every night, but I
> use a sleep timer that turns it off in 30 minutes. Everything we watch,
> is recorded on the DVR.
>
> Becca

George probably has the right idea. :-)

Ema Nymton wrote:
>
> jmcquown wrote:
>
> > Oh yes, I remember those days. When I was growing up the "living room"
> > was for company. And that didn't include children. Or television.
> >
> > Jill
>
> When we were kids, we were not allowed in the living room, either.

Same with me and I always resented it. I vowed that when I grew up and had
kids, my kids would be allowed everywhere. Once I had kids, I held to that
too. :-D

I also grew up with a dining room that was for show and only actually used a
couple of times per year. That was just stupid, imo.

G.

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:58:59 AM UTC-7, Gary wrote:
> Ema Nymton wrote:
>
> >
>
> > jmcquown wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Oh yes, I remember those days. When I was growing up the "living room"
>
> > > was for company. And that didn't include children. Or television.
>

>
> > When we were kids, we were not allowed in the living room, either.
>
> Same with me and I always resented it. I vowed that when I grew up and had
>
> kids, my kids would be allowed everywhere. Once I had kids, I held to that
>
> too. :-D
>
>
>
> I also grew up with a dining room that was for show and only actually used a
>
> couple of times per year. That was just stupid, imo.

It's a small world if you don't have to clean it. I respect my mother's desire to have a room -- or two -- kept tidy in case of unexpected visitors more than ever these days.

Gary > wrote in :

> Same with me and I always resented it. I vowed that when I
> grew up and had kids, my kids would be allowed everywhere.
> Once I had kids, I held to that too. :-D
>
> I also grew up with a dining room that was for show and only
> actually used a couple of times per year. That was just
> stupid, imo.

My parents were not like that. We went where we wanted (unless a
door was closed, of course). We could go in the living room when
there were guests although it took a while to appreciate the
subtleties of adult conversation so we didn't spend too much time
there.

My mother's father was strict but my other three grandparents were
not. But you had to know the rules when visiting.

I had friends however who had strict parents who had really strange
rules about furniture and food (this was in the 50's). It always
weirded me out.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:37:08 PM UTC-7, Michel Boucher wrote:
> Gary > wrote in :
>
>
>
> > Same with me and I always resented it. I vowed that when I
>
> > grew up and had kids, my kids would be allowed everywhere.
>
> > Once I had kids, I held to that too. :-D
>
> >
>
> > I also grew up with a dining room that was for show and only
>
> > actually used a couple of times per year. That was just
>
> > stupid, imo.
>
>
>
> My parents were not like that. We went where we wanted (unless a
>
> door was closed, of course). We could go in the living room when
>
> there were guests although it took a while to appreciate the
>
> subtleties of adult conversation so we didn't spend too much time
>
> there.
>

Ah. If you keep a room ready for entertaining guests, there's a difference between keeping kids from playing in that room between visits, and keeping kids from being in that room even when visitors come.

>
> My mother's father was strict but my other three grandparents were
>
> not. But you had to know the rules when visiting.
>

We basically had to sit and be quiet while the adults talked. My great-uncle would have golf on the television as background, so we would try to amuse ourselves watching that.


>
> I had friends however who had strict parents who had really strange
>
> rules about furniture and food (this was in the 50's). It always
>
> weirded me out.

Guests could snack in the living room, and so could we. All other times and occasions, food was prohibited outside our eat-in kitchen.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:13:56 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

> On Thursday, July 4, 2013 10:58:59 AM UTC-7, Gary wrote:
> > Ema Nymton wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > Oh yes, I remember those days. When I was growing up the "living room"
> >
> > > > was for company. And that didn't include children. Or television.
> >
>
> >
> > > When we were kids, we were not allowed in the living room, either.
> >
> > Same with me and I always resented it. I vowed that when I grew up and had
> >
> > kids, my kids would be allowed everywhere. Once I had kids, I held to that
> >
> > too. :-D
> >
> >
> >
> > I also grew up with a dining room that was for show and only actually used a
> >
> > couple of times per year. That was just stupid, imo.
>
> It's a small world if you don't have to clean it. I respect my mother's desire to have a room -- or two -- kept tidy in case of unexpected visitors more than ever these days.

The house I grew up in was small, casual, and we rarely had visitors -
because it was just kitchen, living room and bedrooms. I own a big,
formal house and I have no shortage of visitors - so I understand why
people want to have rooms to entertain drop in company without feeling
embarrassed by kids toys strewn everywhere. My living room and dining
room are for company and no kids under 7 are allowed unless adults are
present to supervise. The house is huge and there are plenty of other
places they can play.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 6/30/2013 9:37 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> Most folks choose to stream video content through their Blu-Ray player
> that has internet streaming capability - that's what I do. I'll probably
> buy a second-gen Google Nexus Q streamer when it's available. Video
> disks are soooo 90s.
>

http://www.amazon.com/Google-Chromec.../dp/B00DR0PDNE

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:09:48 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> On 6/30/2013 9:37 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > Most folks choose to stream video content through their Blu-Ray player
> > that has internet streaming capability - that's what I do. I'll probably
> > buy a second-gen Google Nexus Q streamer when it's available. Video
> > disks are soooo 90s.
> >
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Google-Chromec.../dp/B00DR0PDNE
>

Yes! I've been talking about chromecast for over a week and I'm
excited about it.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/29/g...mecast-review/

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 7/30/2013 7:40 AM, sf wrote:
>
> Yes! I've been talking about chromecast for over a week and I'm
> excited about it.
> http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/29/g...mecast-review/
>

It's a big step on the road to streaming TV. My guess is that, in the
long run, it's bad news for cable providers. It will probably cause a
big drop in Blu-Ray players. They're obsolete.

The flip side is that it's another way for Google to collect user data.
The little thingie will be shooting out info on you at all times. OTOH,
I guess if we have to see ads, at least it will be ones tailored to fit
one's interest or household. It's a revolution in "selling it."