I have already supplied relevant websites stating that interlace TVs could cause problems that supports what I actually said.Therefore, since you still disagree then you should provide your medical references instead of deliberately misinterpreting what I actually said.

Since, I have already asked you to supply proof that I stated that people obtained epilepsy from watching TV and you have not done so, I must assummed that you are knowingly misinterpreting what I said.

You should provide the objective facts instead of your own opinion.

I have provided a number of websites with trustworthy medical experts opinion stasting that Tv could make some people's epilepsy worst. That you have knowingly wrongly interpreted that I claimed that people obtain epilepsy from watching TV. Now, you can provide proof that the experts don't know what they are talking about.

You should ask WebMD is it possible that TV interlacing could make epilepsy worst instead of knowingly misinterpreting what I said.

Fine, you can argue with WebMD instead of me, because you are probably misinterpreting their stance, and for the record I wasn't giving my opinion but quoting what I read. It is obvious that you are claiming that they have stated that there is no correlation with some any epilepsy person's condition getting worst by watching an interlace TV. I have provided proof that experts says it does now what you have to do is find emminent people who disagree.

You have admitted that you have misinterpreted what I said, but don't realise it, to quote, '...The seizures you wrote about are associated with Epilepsy so you implicate interlace as a cause of seizures and epilepsy,...'

Just, because I associated seizures with Epilepsy actually and literally doesn't mean that I am stating that TV causes epilepsy - Ask WebMD, since you trust what they say and then you can apologise?

As I have already stated are some epilepsy person more or less likely to make their epilepsy worst by watching interlace or progressive, because the experts says yes. - If you are telling the truth then you should have absolutely no problem in supplying medical experts who claim that my experts are wrong, and you can start with WebMD - then you can apologise.

Therefore, providing prices continue to plummet, and the quality continues to substantially improve I am happy.

Probably, Plasma versus LCD and Blu-ray versus HD DVD wars does not exist.

This is, because the situation probably is every person for theirselves - sink or swim, verified also by the number of redundancies sofar.

It was probably a fluke how the epilepsy debate was created, but since it is extremely important - It should end within two or three replies that would soon be a victory for people who are people who are epilepsy if experts are correct about possible solution for some people.

Hey, Mr. Moderator, how come he got away with using the term "nonsense"? Does not sound respectfull at all.

Then, yep I do say that televisions (and we both know we are talking about TV's for home use, so let's stay on topic, shall we) are intended for display of moving images...which is not to say completely static images. I mean TV shows, movies, and so on and you know exactly what I mean. Please do not create straw men. Please do not misquote me. Please do not insult my intellegence. Please do not make yourself look, well, silly, by doing any of these things. It is getting tiring.

"I think that you have stated that Pioneer does not warn their consumers about the problems of 'burn-in'. Therefore, wouldnot all Pioneer's plasma customers be covered if their TV suffers from 'burn-in' and if not why not?"

You are free to think what you want, but, nope, never said it. They may very well do it. Don't know. Do know that after over a year of normal use there is no burn in on mine. Also, do not see any on any of the plamas in Circuit City, Best buy, Sears, that are on all the time the store is open. Sorry.

"I am sure hat the company was not Samsung, because I don't think that the company made domestic models."

I guess you mean models sold in your home country. OK. Cool.

"What LCD panels were they talking about, because it probably was not about the latest LCD top of the range panels? What is the off centre range for the top of the Sony 1080p TVs, because the review that you read would have stated the viewing angle and named the TV. Top of the range Sony 1080p TVs' range should satisfy most people. The exaggeration by some people that a person has to sit exactly in the centre of the sweet spot doesnot apply in reality."

I recall that they were testing models up to about $4000 for LCD's and about $3000 for plasmas. The problem, by way of direct comparison, is that for a given screen size (at 42" and above), plasmas are a lot cheaper than LCD's. They may well not have tested the very "best" and most expensive Sony LCD flat panels, but that would be because of their high price. Which is my point, to a large extent. And you are absolutely right, most people would be very happy with a good quality, moderate price, LCD just as they would be with a plasma. I merely contend that on a cost basis, plasma gives you more bang for the buck (or pound or euro). No one is saying, by the way, that you have to sit exactly on center to get a good image with an LCD, but it is true, that if some of your seating will be significantly off to the side with an LCD, you better check into that before you buy. With plasmas, no issue. (And please don't start to argue that I am claiming you can view plasmas 90 degrees off axis.)

"Which competent review has stated that plasma TVs are superior than LCDs in bright light, please supply website? How many plasma TVs had less blackness than for example the best Sony 1080p TVs wen they were launched?"

You are right, in very bright light, LCD's look better. Further, until recently plasmas had reflective faces that would mirror whatever was opposite tem in a brightly lit room. Now some are being sold with antireflective screens that work mor or less well. LCD's have little or none of this problem because their face is not glass. This certainly an issue for people who watch in brightly lit rooms. I rarely find it a problem, but it does exist.

"I am not talking about domestic plasma TVs 'burn-ins, but about the large ones in the streets and sports grounds. If I was talking domestic than like you inmplied I would have remembered the name. The objective fact is that you have admitted that 'burn-in' problem can occur but you claimed that plasma have not been designed to displayed still images/objects that is impossible in the real world. The sooner Laser and OLED besides other technology arrives and makes plasma obsolete the better. No conspiracy involved - for example some manufacturers alleviate the, 'burn-in' problem better than others - you imply that nothing can be done about 'burn-in'."

Well, given that we are talking consumer electronics here, I am talking about home TV's and always have been. I thouht you were, too. (Foolish me.) I have no interest in discussing commercial displays. You can pursue that thread alone. I imply nothing of the sort. You can infer what you want and be completely wrong, as you are.

"The best projeection TVs have solved the rainbow problems, Sony being one."

They never solved the rainbow problem because they never used the technology that causes it: DLP with a spinning color wheel. Sony uses LCOS/LCd for their rear projectors. No color wheel needed or present. The only DLP shop that has "sorta" solved the rainbow problem is samsung with their LED sets, but I read somewhere that even their LED sets can show the rainbow rarely. Surprised to read that.

"Some of the things that I take into acoount what things are likely to be coming in the future; 1080p, 24p, HDMI 1.3 (properly configured - I think that you implied that everbody knows about, 'burn-in' that I disagree with - If manufacturers tell consumers everything then what about the fiasco with HDCP (HDMI connectors falling off products ( the official HDMI's website:http://hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx ), and placing HDMI 1.3 labels on products even if they donot have the proper features implemented and you would probably say that consumers are aware of the con)."

I agree, the world is not perfect. Never will be. We must all learn to endure these minor outrages in our lives. Stiff upper lip and all hat. I do have two HDMI devives, and the connectors have worked just fine. Guess I'm lucky.

"I think that at one moment you are claiming that plasma is superior than LCD and the next moment it appears that you are saying that plasma TVs' picture qualities are better or equal to LCDs but at a cheaper price. What happens if you get; 'burn-in or 1080p or superior resolution is created that makes properly configured 1080p TVs' picture quality superior than 720p/1080i. What happens with extremely fast and slow moving objects, especially with sound and frames being skipped?"

The very best plasmas have better pictures than the very best LCD's. That is irrespective of price and assumes you are`watching in a normal home environment. (Go read the buff magazine reviews.) This not to say that the best LCD's look bad or anything less that really good, the plasmas are just a bit better. At a given price point and screen size, plasmas completely blow away LCD's. Affordable large LCD's still have problems with displaying a fast moving object, for example. (By affordable, I am talking about under $3,000, by the way.) I am surprised you bring up this LCD, problem, by the way. I have no idea what you are talking about in your last phrase.

"Did the consumer review stated that all LCD TVs suffered badly from the off centre problem and if so they must have quoted the range for Sony 1080p TVs."

It was a general warning about LCD's telling the prospective buyer to check before buying. The effect varies in extent among modesl, I understand.

"Ask the consumer magazine how many plasma TVs was the top of the range Sony 1080p TV able to beat when it was launched."

What does this have to do with anything? Go to the library and read the test yourself.

"Ask Pioneer do they know about the, 'burn-in' problem with plasma TVs? Ask how many plasma companies and insurance companies won't include, 'burn-in' with warranties? Then ask yourself why not if there is no problem?"

We've been here, remember. I've had one over a year and no signes whatsoever of burn-in. Our five year old rear-projector Hitachi never showed burn-in. I have first hand experience that if you use a TV as a TV it is not a problem. I am not going to use my set to display airline schedules. Get off this horse. It is dead.

"I look at things independently, but it is obvious that you are biased. When you at least imply that all plasmas are superior to LCDs I have to produce only one example to verify that you are wrong, for example Pioneer's expensive I think is a 50" TV that is a 1080p that you probably despise, prefer 720p."

Honestly, you have an amazing ability to distort what I write, get my reply correcting the distortion, and then go off and distort something else...or the same thing again. Impressive, if annoying. Nothing you wrote iabout me in the last paragraph is true. Nothing. Actually, for non-HD signal there are some reviews that say that a 720p set gives a better image than a 1080p set because of less scaling being required. Our 720p Pioneer does a very nice job with non-HD digital signal. Even with analog. I think that, in general, plasmas do a better job with non-HD signal than do LCD sets. This based on having read a lot of magazine and on-line reviews over the years.

"why are you knowingly ignoring 1080p Blu-ray and HD DVD that have properly been made with 1080p cameras that somebody would have to probably be blind not to notice the difference between native 1080p and an upscaled 1080i DVD."

I'm not even sure what you mean here. I do have the Planet Earth series in HD-DVD, it does look great. Would be interesting to see the DVD version on a good scaling set just to see how much worse it would be. I suspect the difference would be noticeable, but not overwhelming. Dunno.

"When you say that plasma never had viewing problems is incorrect. Plasma Tvs have had problems with bright lights and therefore would have had problems with viewing angles (thanks for your posting - I have just worked it out that plasma did and some probably still does have offset problems, albeit in bright lighting)."

If you mean glare, yes. Already mentioned the relectivity/bright room issues. There is NO off angle viewing problem with plasmas (other than bright room glare which is not the plasma itself, but the screen surface).

"The easiest way to see if LCD's range especially the top of the range Sony 1080p LCDs is to count the steps from the left and right hand sid of the television and then forwards to wards the viewing position. The reason for quoting Sony is that they may have been the first with 178 degree range LCDs and producing excellent 1080p TVs."

OK, fine, I will just have to ignore what my own eyes show me, what I read in LCd reviews, and trust Sony advertising. I would llove to see their test protocol and what their definition of terms is, though.

"I am too lazy too check but I think that you implied that all HD TVs are equally reliable, but you should ask the consumer organisation that you have trust in how reliable did they find Sony 1080p TVs. Sony may have had a display problem (foggyiness) - impossible for me to know whether it was due to faulty tube or the TV not being calibrated properly, but problem should not exist if properly calibrated any more. Which? Magazine in the UK stated that there was some noise proble that meant either; TV was faulty (loose wire or interference between components - why I don't think that TVs should be made extra thin increase unreliabilities), sound not properly calibrated (Which? Magazine have consistently refused to tell me what were the settings for the sound controls and why wasn't the surround sound used, because it appears that it wasnot used (Bass and Treble should probably be on 0 (middle),"

Comsumer Reports surveys readers each year on product reliability. it is not a perfect survey (voluntary), but the sample sets are huge and the results pretty reliable. There are brand to brand differences, but in general LCD and plasma sets are holding up well, while rear-projectors do less well. (Mine failed twice in 5 years, so I believe them on that one.) They tell LCD/plasma buyers to skip the service contract. If you were more of a gentleman, I would look the brand failure rates up for you.

Somebody who I know has an old plasma TV before HD plasma Tvs were created. Probably created in the UK by; Samsung, Pioneer and Sony.

"I like it! To quote you, 'You are thinking of rear projectors...and most LCD flat panels.' You have admitted that there are viewing problems with some and not all HD LCDs TVs. You have forgotten that before HD; Rear Projection TVs, plasmas, and LCDs there were also; LCDs, and plasma large televisions. Ask Pioneer, Panasonic (possibly), Samsung and Sony for proof - what was that about a credibility issue?"

Huh?

Well, this has been a lot of fun, but I think I'm pulling out now. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you.