View Single Post
  #83 (permalink)  
Old 07-28-2011, 02:43 PM
gTen's Avatar
gTen
"The Fuzzy One"
Offline
Location: Internet
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,855
Reputation: 9080
gTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the communitygTen is a trusted member of the community
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Re: Oh No! Is anyone with 3D going to Samsung S II ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackDynamite View Post
I'm going to bow out of this. I will summarize gTen's style here with a series of quotes.
That is very nice of you to summarize it but take into account that a summary is usually done by a neutral 3rd party...effectively your trying to summarize on how I am wrong and you were never ever wrong...

Quote:
First. here is what sparked it all:

Seriously, it's such a ridiculous claim to say that tv sales are down because people don't care about 3D. Hello, global economic recession? 3D tv sales are actually up by the way. But on top of that, he clearly said "and for 25$ you can make any screen 3d" which is also a ridiculous statement.
Well when 3d tvs never existed..then obviously sales would be up of 3d tvs...even if 1 sold and there were 0 before..that would be called sales going up..I am not saying they aren't selling but fact of the matter is 3d tvs are not influencing the majority of people to buy tvs..and I am not the only one who feels that:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...ales-hollywood

As for 25$ I clearly said 25$ for cellphones....but in principle any screen can be turned to 3d using the same method...

Quote:
When I called him on this:

He said:


He then argued this point for 4 or 5 pages, and then "proved" his point by saying:


So basically, he didn't know what he was talking about from the start, and still argued it for 4 or 5 pages. And then he acted like he somehow won the argument by proving himself wrong in the end.
um..translation please?

Quote:
I am done with it. But I had to post the summary to explain to everyone what they missed when they certainly skip over the last several pages.
you summarized nothing...you took 2 quotes out of context and changed them completely and claimed you were right simply because this article was published..just because something is published should not make you turn a 180...

This is equivalent to playing politics when politicians go on TV and start saying random things on how the other guy is wrong without providing any detail.
__________________
Earn some spare cash and get cash back at stores like NewEgg and more:

http://quickrewards.net/?r=!F94VXV35D5MV2

(My shameless referral link)
Reply With Quote