 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 21, 2020 - 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
Anyone owning or planning to own an OLED TV surely appreciates their uniquely stunning black level performance, a must for noir genre movie fans. On a related topic, perhaps 55% or more of your favorites were probably shot in 1.85:1 aspect, so the horizontal bars you see shouldn’t be too thick on your standard 16:9 OLED. Some recent movies and some old classics like “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Sound of Music”, “Three Women”, “Ben Hur” and “Hud” were shot in 2.35: 1. Consequently, they will all have thicker horizontal bars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
Everyone hates bars but it’s much worse for many cinephiles like me who also enjoy movies released prior to the mid-50s. Many of those, both “A” and “B” pictures, were filmed in 1.37:1 aspect, such as
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038559/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042039/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038355/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057207/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048261/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023245/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044314/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043131/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041954/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187684/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034587/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
Ditto for decades of vintage TV shows from the early 60s (Perry Mason) to the mid-90s (X-Files).
Try watching any of it even on a 77” OLED. If you’re like me the vertical bars, which will be even thicker than horizontal bars when viewing most widescreen aspect content, will be unbearable. And stretching Perry Mason or cropping Gilda’s (or Scully’s) matador hat is unthinkable. Consequently, many of us are compelled to watch this “pillarboxed” 4:3 content on CRT TVs. Picture quality is not too bad and CRTs have excellent OLED-like contrast ratio. But except for a 40” direct view CRT which Sony once released about 17” years ago, virtually all CRTs are a painfully small 32”, less than half the area of 65” widescreen TVs. And the best of performing CRTs (flat CR tube. component video inputs) are becoming impossible to find, and to get serviced. The same for refrigerator sized rear projection CRTs, which while some had 50” screens picture quality couldn’t match that of direct view CRTs. And though direct view projectors can deliver high contrast ratios and large 4:3 images many of the better models cost at least $5,000. and may present placement problems for some users.
The obvious solution here to persuade select TV brands to market a 4:3 OLED TV, size ~ 40” to 50”.
Unfortunately, as much of the CE industry is closely tied to Hollywood, it’s not surprising that cutthroat aspects of that business reflect indifference towards consumer opinions and expectations, at least among the major TV brands, all of whom no longer accept consumer feedback at their websites. Indeed, “apparent” demand might have grown substantially larger if cinephiles hadn’t given up in disgust with asking OLED brands to release 4:3 TVs. Again, except for perhaps Pioneer, most of the majors are deaf to consumer requests, save perhaps from what they glean from their own prognostications. And try finding their marketing VPs’ contact info to share new product ideas; good luck with that.
However, I am about to begin proposing this new product to several other approachable brands .
While demand for a 4:3 OLED may not be huge it is certainly vibrant and long lived. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/1852162-will-anybody-ever-make-4-3-oled-display-watching-old-tv-shows-stuff-4-3-a.html
Additionally, there still are communities at AVS and at other home theater forums devoted to long defunct direct view CRT TVs, of course which are almost exclusively 4;3. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/64-direct-view-single-tube-crt-displays/ And here only two months ago members are still calling to bring CRTs back into production,
as they have for years. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/64-direct-view-single-tube-crt-displays/1423003-please-bring-back-crt-tv-s-into-production-line-again.html
It’s also well known among videophiles that CRTs, plasmas and OLEDs share very similar performance levels-unmatched by any existing display technology. But as Anthony1 from the first AVS link above suggested, many CRT fans would instantly embrace a space saving flat panel 40” or larger 4:3 OLED TV.
A good sized 4:3 OLED is the way to go-and ideally with a processor at least nearly as good as Sony’s
to upscale DVD and BD content.
Analog Video Connectivity: A Must for the 4:3 OLED
Whatever the reasons for the CE industry’s imposed Analog Sunset, it unfairly deprives cinephiles of enjoying their feature packed Denon, Marantz, Pioneer and other high end DVD players. Sony includes one (1) composite input, though most inconveniently placed on the side of their A9G OLED (presumably just for camcorder playbacks)-but which is unsightly and would require longer cable runs from the TV to the DVD player.
But all high end DVD players have component video outputs. And as that connection yields the highest quality analog signal it likely will make it easier for the OLED’s processor to upscale the DVD video signal.
Furthermore, virtually no currently produced BD players have zoom control-a highly prized viewing tool among cinephiles. I was badly upset that my otherwise excellent Oppo BDP-95 has only partial zoom control; it doesn’t allow you to reposition and center a desired part of the zoomed image on the screen. My new Pioneer UDP-LX500 BD player and the discontinued Arcam 411p are about the only BD players which can. But virtually all DVD players have this advanced zoom control functionality, like my trusty JVC XV-NA70BK.
Cinephiles have long been victimized by the Blu-Ray Assn for mandating Oracle’s BD-J disc authoring-which by default or deliberately locks out zoom and sometimes also slow motion features-and forces compliance upon BD player brands. But all DVDs are free of these oppressive restrictions that rob consumers of the freedom to enjoy as they please the products they purchase. Advanced zoom and slow motion controls are invaluable viewing tools allowing cinephiles more intimate viewing and appreciation of select scenes. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=17681489#post17681489
Sadly, few if any DVD players have an HDMI output. Thus, all OLED TVs should include component video inputs-or at the very least a rear mounted composite and/or S-video input. Indeed, all OLED TV brands can be assured that adding this analog video connectivity to the proposed 4:3 OLED will further endear this long awaited niche product to the home theater enthusiast community.
Pixel Count and DVD/BD Upscaling
All currently produced OLED TVs have 4K resolution; the pixel count being roughly four times that of the LCD or LED panels used to build earlier 1080p displays. So unless the 4:3 OLED TV has a high quality on board upscaling processor-like the one in Sony’s A9G OLED-the 1080p BD or 480i DVD content displayed on 4K OLED panels may likely fill only a small part of the screen. Alternately, it’s worth considering that while these processors generally do a good job, since most users would only be watching 4:3 content on a this 4:3 display, if it was instead a 1080 rather 4K OLED, BDs would be shown in their native 1080p scale; only DVDs would need to be upscaled. Of course, there currently are no consumer OLED brands making 4:3 OLEDs, nor are there any 1080 widescreen OLEDs.
Ultimately, only each TV brand would know how the economics of OLED panels with 1080 vs. 4K pixel counts would impact their own production of 4:3 OLED TVs. But if they stay with 4K pixels, Pioneer or those brands below should aim to design the 40” to 50” 4K 4:3 TV’s OLED TV around the best upscaling processor within the niche market price point, perhaps ~$2200. or so. The high quality upscaling of 1080p BDs and DVDs (source formats still probably most common among collectors of vintage movies and TV shows) will allow viewers to sit at a comfortable distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone owning or planning to own an OLED TV surely appreciates their uniquely stunning black level performance, a must for noir genre movie fans. On a related topic, perhaps 55% or more of your favorites were probably shot in 1.85:1 aspect, so the horizontal bars you see shouldn’t be too thick on your standard 16:9 OLED. Some recent movies and some old classics like “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Sound of Music”, “Three Women”, “Ben Hur” and “Hud” were shot in 2.35: 1. Consequently, they will all have thicker horizontal bars.
A 4:3 set makes NO sense whatsoever. 21:9 4K sets make eminent sense, and it's a terrible shame that they are not available in the U.S. market.
No matter how big, black bars on the sides of the screen are IRRELEVANT: even on a 21:9 set they do NOT affect the image's horizontal resolution, but bars on top and bottom of the frame DO because the film image does not utilize the entire horizontal resolution of which the screen is capable. A 2.35 CinemaScope film takes up the entire 21:1 frame. It's a joy, and as sharp as it ever can be on video at the set's resolution.
4:3. Wacky, pointless and nothing less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 23, 2020 - 12:27 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
[quote] A 4:3 set makes NO sense whatsoever. 21:9 4K sets make eminent sense, and it's a terrible shame that they are not available in the U.S. market.
No matter how big, black bars on the sides of the screen are IRRELEVANT: even on a 21:9 set they do NOT affect the image's horizontal resolution, but bars on top and bottom of the frame DO because the film image does not utilize the entire horizontal resolution of which the screen is capable. A 2.35 CinemaScope film takes up the entire 21:1 frame. It's a joy, and as sharp as it ever can be on video at the set's resolution.
4:3. Wacky, pointless and nothing less. !?!? OMG, how much clearer could I make it?
At least for me, viewing pleasure is not only a matter of attaining high resolution but also a matter of not being ANNOYED by other kinds of screen artifacts, namely, vertical bars-which are already thicker than horizontal ones on 16:9 TVs but would be humongous on 21:9 TVs. Maybe that’s IRRELEVANT to you-as you probably don’t watch much 4:3 stuff-but it certainly matters to me. Why do you think I’m seeking to persuade OLED TV brands to market 4:3 OLEDs? Duh!
Sure, a 21:9 TV is likely a joy if MOST of what you watch is wide aspect content-and very wide content at that, since about as many movies through past decades were shot in 1.85:1 as were those shot in 2.35:1, very close to that TV’s like ratio. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050771/technical?ref_=ttfc_sa_5
Thus, 1.85:1 content will produce even wider horizontal bars than they would on 16:9 TVs. And verticals bars from 4:3 content displayed on 21:9 TVs will absolutely HUGE.
And if that’s not bad enough, as 21:9 TVs are bound to remain more expensive for some time the thicker the bars the more damage will likely occur to OLED TVs in the form of a higher pixel aging differential. I forgot to point this out last time but owners manuals from Sony, LG and all OLED TV brands literally warn you not to watch 4:3 content at all. And in case of your 21:9 TV that would probably also included 1.85:1 stuff too. Because the thicker the bars the more pixels inside them will be turned off, versus those turned on between the bars. Thus, over time the pixels between the bars will age and grow dimmer faster then those within the vertical bars-which may become more evident when watching widescreen content. And among all aspect ratios that will have the thicker bars, 4:3 content is the most common.
Thus, the best solution is for users to purchase a 4:3 OLED. Viewing full length 4:3 and 16:9 movies and TV shows on their 4:3 and widescreen OLED TVs, respectively, will minimize differential pixel aging. also minimize overall burn in risks and-last but hardly least-minimize or eliminate horizontal and vertical bars to boot!
Typical Installation
Most enthusiasts would have no issues installing the 4:3 OLED in a room apart from their widescreen OLEDs; analogous to how audiophiles have more than one sound system in their homes-aware that certain playlists tend to sound better through different speakers. And as most 4:3 content has no multichannel audio, users would likely just add a simple space saving two channel system. The OLED wouldn’t even need to be a Smart TV; users can connect a laptop via HDMI for web surfing.
So while I have lots of Cinemascope stuff in my DVD and BD collection I have just about if not as much beloved 60s TV shows and movies, circa mid 40s to mid 50s-as I’m sure many other collectors do and who share all of these concerns. Having a ~ 48” 4:3 OLED TV in a room apart from your widescreen OLED solves all of the above problems in a snap-exactly how a 32” 4:3 CRT TV would, except at least 14” bigger screen. flat panel footprint and tons better picture quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I consider this Don Quixote territory.
What display manufacturer is going to set up their own production line, along with the associated distribution, retail and support, for something that will probably sell less that a thousand units worldwide?
Do you know why so many of the re-issue soundtracks sell in limited runs of a few thousand pressed units? It's because the specialty labels know that the market (that is, us) is damn small.
Similarly, the number of people who love old 4:3 format material so much that black bars on the side of the screen bother them (and I make no comment on those people seemingly unable to concentrate enough to ignore the bars - oh, sorry, I just did) is so small that no manufacturer could justify making such units. If you think there's many people like you, you're deluding yourself.
Do not confuse high-end TVs with turntables and other hi-fi equipment. The actual screens are expensive to make, and have a relatively high rate of failure, and hence wastage. In addition, manufacturers are required to constantly update product ranges to encompass new features and standards. TVs are not the domain of the small manufacturer.
Lastly, this is not a discussion about film music, and should not be on this forum. There's a Non-Film Score Discussion forum on this site for that purpose. Please move this discussion there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 23, 2020 - 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
What display manufacturer is going to set up their own production line, along with the associated distribution, retail and support, for something that will probably sell less that a thousand units worldwide? Niche markets today drive both the audio AND video hardware industry, as many members of AVS, Tomshardware, Anandtech and numerous other HT forums have long known. By definition, niche markets imply small production runs, similar to those supplying the medical display industry. And from the links I posted from those forums one could reasonably extrapolate demands well beyond one thousand units; at least 10,000 or more globally.
OLED technology is very mature to where failures rates are considerably lower than what you assert, as are the cost of manufacture for small runs. Furthermore, as I explained in my last post, owning both a widescreen and a 4:3 OLED TV will not only minimize and even eliminate bars on all content but will greatly extend pixel life and the rest of the electronics in both TVs. All it takes is setting up each TV in a separate room, or in one large room.
As for brands being “required” to update TV models, again we are talking about a niche product being pitched to niche manufacturers and/or those who actually welcome new product ideas. That certainly leaves HIGH VOLUME OLED brands like Sony, LG, Philips, Samsung, and all of whom no longer accept consumer feedback at their websites. But Pioneer does and so do these Chinese OLED brands, all of whom may have more flexible production and distribution chains than the majors. Hauwei, for example as numerous sales offices throughout North America.
https://www.sharptvusa.com/contact/ http://www.konka.com.hk/Contact/
https://skyworthusa.com/contact/ https://e.huawei.com/us/how-to-buy/contact-us
https://www.hisense-usa.com/contact/
https://support.tclusa.com/contactus?contact_query=Please enter your question
Niche brands and customers would regard a 4:3 OLED as a display delivering picture averaged among all competing OLED brands-which should be very good to excellent. The aim is to make a 4:3 OLED happen; the latest whistle, bells and other Smart TV like gingerbread are not “required”. Conventional TV connectivity and remote features will keep production costs low and prices, perhaps not low, but certainly affordable for niche market customers. As for product awareness, videophile/vintage movie collators (like me)-just as soundtrack collectors (like us) will have no trouble searching for and finding available 4:3 OLED TVs, so niche brands would have little fear that 4:3 OLED stock won’t move. Indeed, running low cost banner ads at HT forums periodically over a few months or less will quickly initiate sales.
Likewise, while gaming’s not my thing, many gamers who still prefer CRT TVs would likely jump on a 4:3 OLED.
Lastly, as a long time member (and soundtrack collector) who has also chatted here about movies other than about their scores, I thought it reasonable that a fair number might be interested in owning a TV like this, and so I sought their help in making it happen. To that end I was sure that I had posted in the non-soundtrack part of this forum. I guess I had misclicked. For that alone I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a chance I'd touch either a 4:3 or a 21:9 set. Either picture format would look rubbish on the other size screen; 16:9 is the happy medium. I've watched a lot of films in all three ratios (pretty much every movie before 1952 and a lot afterwards is 4:3, pretty much all old TV shows are 4:3) and can honestly say 4:3 only bothers me when it's a pan-and-scan crop job.
A 2.35 film is going to look terrible on a 4:3 set, and in order to maintain the width the screen going to have to be much taller than a conventional 16:9 set. (Similarly, in order to maintain the height when watching a 4:3 film, a 21:9 screen is going to be have to be much wider than a 16:9.) Maybe we just don't have room for such monstrosities, especially given that on either 4:3 or 21:9 a substantial part of that screen is blank and unused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2020 - 1:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ajant
(Member)
|
I had an old 4:3 TV until last year. Never had a day of trouble with it in 13 years till i recycled it. I forget the brand. It was good for watching my episodes of Columbo, okay for PS3 playing, and okay to not so good for anything viewing anything in widescreen. Not a chance I'd touch either a 4:3 or a 21:9 set. Either picture format would look rubbish on the other size screen; 16:9 is the happy medium. I've watched a lot of films in all three ratios (pretty much every movie before 1952 and a lot afterwards is 4:3, pretty much all old TV shows are 4:3) and can honestly say 4:3 only bothers me when it's a pan-and-scan crop job.
A 2.35 film is going to look terrible on a 4:3 set, and in order to maintain the width the screen going to have to be much taller than a conventional 16:9 set. (Similarly, in order to maintain the height when watching a 4:3 film, a 21:9 screen is going to be have to be much wider than a 16:9.) Maybe we just don't have room for such monstrosities, especially given that on either 4:3 or 21:9 a substantial part of that screen is blank and unused.
Exactly my take on the practicality of 21:9 TVs; and they think me daft calling for a 4:3 OLED. While there’s a good amount of 2.35:1 content, there's presently way more in 1.85:1, so horizontal bars on the former will be at least as thick as 4:3 vertical ones are on 16:9 TVs. And you’d have to be positively masochistic to watch any 4:3 stuff on a 21:9 TV. https://www.the-home-cinema-guide.com/dvd-aspect-ratio.html But then as I’ve strived to point out all along, as many collections contain aspect ratios ranging between the extremes of 4:3 and 2.75 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) ), switching between two TVs, each with native aspects within those extremes, would certainly display most content in the most pleasing way.
In fact, though war movies aren't my thing I read that one of Spike Lee's newest was shot in both 2.4:1 and 4:3. And while it will never (nor should it) rule again like it 75 years ago, 4:3 is actually making a strong comeback, and will likely remain in the mix of popular aspect ratios at least among the current generation of movie makers and photographers. https://noamkroll.com/why-the-old-school-43-aspect-ratio-is-coming-back-with-a-vengeance-right-now/
Thus, as discussed in this and other home theater forums, if your enough favorites on your playlists are spread among extreme aspect ratios-even if you don't mind horizontal and/or vertical bars- either 2.35:1 or 4:3 content will still rob you of substantial screen space, if you limit yourself to one TV or screen format. So I really don’t get why all the flack I get here and at other forums about wanting a 4:3 OLED. Surely, Xebec and I are not the only ones who hate seeing Columbo behind thick vertical bars (ha!) on a 16:9 LCD or LED, neither of which can match a CRT or OLED’s inky contrast ratio and wide black levels. I bet if a survey were done here and at leading HT forums a high percentage of members have lots of 4:3 TV and vintage film content in their collections, and which they view often.
But as many say that vertical bars really don’t bother than, I should have added that while vertical bars seriously bother me the horizontal bars with 1.85:1 stuff do also, but no where near as much. And as I pointed out in my first post I am not alone in this.
So if one does have lots of 4:3 how could a ~ 50” 4:3 OLED not be the perfect answer; no black vertical bars and CRT-like contrast for us film noir fans? Most of us have spare rooms where we could install it with a stereo sound system of whatever quality we choose and which would hardly break the bank, nor would the likely cost of the TV. Then if one night that I wanted really enjoy watching an “Gilda” (1946), “Where Danger Lives” (1950) or one or two episodes of Outer Limits TOS-the way the DPs intended them to be seen-why wouldn’t I head for the 4:3 room instead of the 16:9 room?
One More Point:
As you may have surmised, long before I thought of pitching this ~ 50” 4:3 OLED TV idea to Pioneer and those Chinese OLED Brands, I had hoped a front view projector would be the best solution.
Not surprisingly, at audiocircle.com and thoughtful member gave an overall account of his long enjoyable experience with the InFocus X1 600 x 800 4:3 projector. Using a 65” portable screen he said it produced film like quality, though I questioned his claim about it equaling any modern OLED’s contrast ratio. https://www.projectorcentral.com/infocus_x1.htm But it’s from 2002 and at $999. somewhat in the budget range, yet it gave excellent performance for the money, especially if used with a relatively small 65” screen.
Sadly, though my room is nearly empty it’s a ridiculously small 11.5 x 10.5, and I’d have to place the projector either on a desk inside of an open closet or suspended from a metal grille shelf across the interior length of the closet. But if I can find the right kind of bracket, the latter placement idea should best minimize heat and fan noise-which are likely the biggest problems.
Save for a 25 watt red transparent bulb in a gooseneck lamp aimed away from the screen and projector beam, and which I may only use occasionally, the room should quite be dark, so the projector’s eco-mode will always left on (https://www.projectorcentral.com/nec_ht1000_2.htm ). That should reduce brightness with no sacrifice of contrast ratio and reduce heat thereby less fan noise and longer bulb life, even with prolonged use.
https://entertainmentden.com/do-projector-screens-actually-matter-spoiler-yes-they-do/
However, with the ~ 65” 4:3 screen in a corner 10 ft from the lens and with me sitting just outside and to the right of the closet, the issues will still be tolerable fan noise levels (due to multiple causes https://entertainmentden.com/how-to-stop-a-projector-from-overheating-a-practical-guide/ https://entertainmentden.com/why-is-my-projector-so-loud/ ) and how much visible distortion from however much needed keystoning.
I will post my situation at projector at https://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/ and http://www.bigscreenforums.com/forum_browse.cfm?which=5 and then maybe consult a local CEDIA contractor. https://cedia.net/homeowners/why-use-a-cedia-member
The noise and heat may be tough nuts to crack in my tiny room, but with my low brightness, modest screen size and 1080p rather than 4K requirements I’m hoping these experts can suggest projector and screen models with noise levels ~ 19db or less within my price range.
Ultimately, however, since we film noir fans live for high contrast ratio and black levels, despite all the above considerations, is there a projector and screen for my situation that will truly deliver OLED/CRT like performance?
Also, rather than use a Sony OLED TV for web surfing and word processing sessions, I had hoped to use the projector for these tasks. But unless the projector’s eco-mode and my room’s very low ambient light can keep brightness down to a bare minimum, I suspect the experts will advise against this practice.
All I can do is to ask the experts and hope for the best.
So that’s my Plan B if I strike out with my pitch to Pioneer and those Chinese OLED TV brands. On the other hand, maybe the 4:3 OLED may be my Plan B instead, if I find a projector and screen that will truly give me killer CRT-like black levels, low fan noise and low keystoning in that 11 x12 room.
More useful information on projectors:
https://thehometheaterdiy.com/why-are-projectors-loud/
https://soundproofnation.com/quietest-projector/
https://www.techconsumerguide.com/best-quiet-projectors/
https://entertainmentden.com/how-to-stop-a-projector-from-overheating-a-practical-guide/
https://entertainmentden.com/do-projector-screens-actually-matter-spoiler-yes-they-do/
https://entertainmentden.com/why-is-my-projector-so-loud/
https://www.projectorreviews.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a joke -- but you can make screens that block the black bars if they really have a negative psychological impact on you. I had a friend who reported that the black bars drove him crazy -- so he made screens from cardboard that he could hang on his TV on the sides and top as needed -- or affix to the bottom of the screen. It seemed to work for him as he reported he was then able to focus on the image and not on the letterboxing. I told him he could also make cute red velvet draw curtains for framing on the sides -- but he was not amused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thor asked:
Is this a spam thread?
Given that
1) the OP engaged in discussion after their first post (despite not actually talking any sense), and
2) there's no apparent attempt to get money from us,
I'd say it doesn't qualify as spam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
