On 6/10/2014 6:20 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 1:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:19:21 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/9/2014 8:08 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 8:04 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:


I believe it's called 'attention seeking'.

You are referring, of course, to all your non-boating hobby posts here,
right?


The biggest attention seeking move you ever made was posting pictures of
your post holes. Sad, isn't it?

or responding to every post I make, hoping to get some attention.


You're delusional.

Those weren't post holes you posted pictures of?

On 6/10/2014 7:41 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 22:59:06 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:15:14 -0700, Bill McKee
wrote:

On 6/9/14, 2:09 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:08:09 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 6/9/14, 8:02 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:20:03 -0700, jps wrote:

You missed these:


Herring thinks these posts of his justify the thousands and thousands of
gun murders in this country each year. Moron.

The conservative brain. When asked if they'd trade $1 of tax
increases for $10 of budget cuts, the Republican candidates said "NO!"

The last time they agreed to that scenario, they got the tax increase as
well as a spending increase.


It was a hypothetical question, not based on what happened last time.

These are the same blithering idiots who were screaming about our
mounting debt.

I'd be in favor of pragmatic cuts where we can afford them but I don't
think it should be in education or feeding kids that are starving.

How about we stop building tanks and start building solar panels?

Your guy has been keeping us at war for how long now?

Since 2009.

On 6/10/2014 9:11 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 6/10/2014 6:20 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 1:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:19:21 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/9/2014 8:08 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 8:04 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:


I believe it's called 'attention seeking'.

You are referring, of course, to all your non-boating hobby posts
here,
right?


The biggest attention seeking move you ever made was posting
pictures of
your post holes. Sad, isn't it?

or responding to every post I make, hoping to get some attention.


You're delusional.

Those weren't post holes you posted pictures of?

I think they were. In fact he wrote a great web review to the company
that did the work to, it's out there

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:11:31 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

On 6/10/2014 6:20 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 1:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:19:21 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/9/2014 8:08 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 8:04 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:


I believe it's called 'attention seeking'.

You are referring, of course, to all your non-boating hobby posts here,
right?


The biggest attention seeking move you ever made was posting pictures of
your post holes. Sad, isn't it?

or responding to every post I make, hoping to get some attention.


You're delusional.

Those weren't post holes you posted pictures of?

You're on a roll today!

When's your next camping trip. How's that Class A working out? My last trip cost me another TV
antenna. My rig came with this:

http://www.campingworld.com/shopping...em-white/56484

Just a small branch hanging down can catch it and snap the plastic at the base. When I say small,
I'm talking 1/2" or so. I'm thinking of going with one of these:

http://www.campingworld.com/shopping...-antenna/50011

These look like they'd function pretty well on a trawler or houseboat also. (Boating content)

On 6/10/2014 9:27 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:11:31 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

On 6/10/2014 6:20 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 1:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:19:21 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/9/2014 8:08 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 8:04 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:


I believe it's called 'attention seeking'.

You are referring, of course, to all your non-boating hobby posts here,
right?


The biggest attention seeking move you ever made was posting pictures of
your post holes. Sad, isn't it?

or responding to every post I make, hoping to get some attention.


You're delusional.

Those weren't post holes you posted pictures of?

You're on a roll today!

When's your next camping trip. How's that Class A working out? My last trip cost me another TV
antenna. My rig came with this:

http://www.campingworld.com/shopping...em-white/56484

Just a small branch hanging down can catch it and snap the plastic at the base. When I say small,
I'm talking 1/2" or so. I'm thinking of going with one of these:

http://www.campingworld.com/shopping...-antenna/50011

These look like they'd function pretty well on a trawler or houseboat also. (Boating content)

I have a Jack. You're right. They are fragile. I wonder why you haven't
been taking out AC units? I'll email you later.

On 6/10/2014 7:12 PM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 6/10/2014 9:27 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:11:31 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/10/2014 6:20 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 1:10 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:19:21 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/9/2014 8:08 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/9/14, 8:04 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:


I believe it's called 'attention seeking'.

You are referring, of course, to all your non-boating hobby posts
here,
right?


The biggest attention seeking move you ever made was posting
pictures of
your post holes. Sad, isn't it?

or responding to every post I make, hoping to get some attention.


You're delusional.

Those weren't post holes you posted pictures of?

You're on a roll today!

When's your next camping trip. How's that Class A working out? My last
trip cost me another TV
antenna. My rig came with this:

http://www.campingworld.com/shopping...em-white/56484


Just a small branch hanging down can catch it and snap the plastic at
the base. When I say small,
I'm talking 1/2" or so. I'm thinking of going with one of these:

http://www.campingworld.com/shopping...-antenna/50011


These look like they'd function pretty well on a trawler or houseboat
also. (Boating content)

I have a Jack. You're right. They are fragile. I wonder why you haven't
been taking out AC units? I'll email you later.


If you are withing 20-25 miles of the transmitting tower, this super
duper antenna works splendidly for capturing HD broadcasts:

http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ill12.png

On 6/10/2014 8:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



If you are withing 20-25 miles of the transmitting tower, this super
duper antenna works splendidly for capturing HD broadcasts:

http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ill12.png


I just tried an experiment for kicks.

I have a small, single pole antenna that I use on my receiver for FM
reception. It's half of an old rabbit ear antenna.

I hooked it up to my TV and did an autoscan. My house is probably
35-40 miles from the nearest transmitting antenna in Boston and the
single pole antenna is just sitting beside the TV. Autoscan found 7
digital channels.

Here's the antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/antenna.jpg


Here's channel 7 in Boston using the single pole antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel7.jpg

Here's channel 2 (PBS) in Boston (blur is due to slow camera shutter
speed. HD picture on TV is perfect):

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel2-2.jpg

Only goes to show that there's nothing magic about the revised and
modernized rabbit ears that are being marketed as "HD Antennas".

On 6/10/2014 9:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/10/2014 8:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



If you are withing 20-25 miles of the transmitting tower, this super
duper antenna works splendidly for capturing HD broadcasts:

http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ill12.png


I just tried an experiment for kicks.

I have a small, single pole antenna that I use on my receiver for FM
reception. It's half of an old rabbit ear antenna.

I hooked it up to my TV and did an autoscan. My house is probably
35-40 miles from the nearest transmitting antenna in Boston and the
single pole antenna is just sitting beside the TV. Autoscan found 7
digital channels.

Here's the antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/antenna.jpg


Here's channel 7 in Boston using the single pole antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel7.jpg

Here's channel 2 (PBS) in Boston (blur is due to slow camera shutter
speed. HD picture on TV is perfect):

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel2-2.jpg

Only goes to show that there's nothing magic about the revised and
modernized rabbit ears that are being marketed as "HD Antennas".



As an afterthought I just did another experiment.

We have Comcast cable TV and I have a HD cable box also hooked up to
this TV. I put the box on channel 7 HD and then compared it's picture
to the same HD programming being broadcast and picked up by the little
single pole antenna. (Switched "input source" on TV back and forth
between the two).

The broadcast HD picture using the antenna is noticeably superior to the
Comcast cable HD picture. Much clearer, much more "HD" looking.

Comcast compresses HD signals in order to get all their "stuff" on a
cable. The broadcast signal is the way it's supposed to look.

On 6/10/2014 10:23 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 6/10/2014 9:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/10/2014 8:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



If you are withing 20-25 miles of the transmitting tower, this super
duper antenna works splendidly for capturing HD broadcasts:

http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ill12.png


I just tried an experiment for kicks.

I have a small, single pole antenna that I use on my receiver for FM
reception. It's half of an old rabbit ear antenna.

I hooked it up to my TV and did an autoscan. My house is probably
35-40 miles from the nearest transmitting antenna in Boston and the
single pole antenna is just sitting beside the TV. Autoscan found 7
digital channels.

Here's the antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/antenna.jpg


Here's channel 7 in Boston using the single pole antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel7.jpg

Here's channel 2 (PBS) in Boston (blur is due to slow camera shutter
speed. HD picture on TV is perfect):

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel2-2.jpg

Only goes to show that there's nothing magic about the revised and
modernized rabbit ears that are being marketed as "HD Antennas".



As an afterthought I just did another experiment.

We have Comcast cable TV and I have a HD cable box also hooked up to
this TV. I put the box on channel 7 HD and then compared it's picture
to the same HD programming being broadcast and picked up by the little
single pole antenna. (Switched "input source" on TV back and forth
between the two).

The broadcast HD picture using the antenna is noticeably superior to the
Comcast cable HD picture. Much clearer, much more "HD" looking.

Comcast compresses HD signals in order to get all their "stuff" on a
cable. The broadcast signal is the way it's supposed to look.

During a cable outage we connected a 30 foot piece of cable to the HD -
In and scanned for channels. We picked up about 20 or so. When I hooked
the old rabbit ears up we got about 25 and when I bought the "HD"
antenna we started to get about 60 or more channels. This included the -
1, -2, -3 and -4 channels for each old timey channel.

The OTA quality puts cable to shame.

I don't believe there is any difference between uhf/vhf antenna and a HD
antenna. They all use the same frequencies.

On 6/11/2014 7:59 AM, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:
On 6/10/2014 10:23 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 6/10/2014 9:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/10/2014 8:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



If you are withing 20-25 miles of the transmitting tower, this super
duper antenna works splendidly for capturing HD broadcasts:

http://flowtv.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ill12.png


I just tried an experiment for kicks.

I have a small, single pole antenna that I use on my receiver for FM
reception. It's half of an old rabbit ear antenna.

I hooked it up to my TV and did an autoscan. My house is probably
35-40 miles from the nearest transmitting antenna in Boston and the
single pole antenna is just sitting beside the TV. Autoscan found 7
digital channels.

Here's the antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/antenna.jpg


Here's channel 7 in Boston using the single pole antenna:

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel7.jpg

Here's channel 2 (PBS) in Boston (blur is due to slow camera shutter
speed. HD picture on TV is perfect):

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/Eisboch/Channel2-2.jpg

Only goes to show that there's nothing magic about the revised and
modernized rabbit ears that are being marketed as "HD Antennas".



As an afterthought I just did another experiment.

We have Comcast cable TV and I have a HD cable box also hooked up to
this TV. I put the box on channel 7 HD and then compared it's picture
to the same HD programming being broadcast and picked up by the little
single pole antenna. (Switched "input source" on TV back and forth
between the two).

The broadcast HD picture using the antenna is noticeably superior to the
Comcast cable HD picture. Much clearer, much more "HD" looking.

Comcast compresses HD signals in order to get all their "stuff" on a
cable. The broadcast signal is the way it's supposed to look.

During a cable outage we connected a 30 foot piece of cable to the HD -
In and scanned for channels. We picked up about 20 or so. When I hooked
the old rabbit ears up we got about 25 and when I bought the "HD"
antenna we started to get about 60 or more channels. This included the -
1, -2, -3 and -4 channels for each old timey channel.

The OTA quality puts cable to shame.

I don't believe there is any difference between uhf/vhf antenna and a HD
antenna. They all use the same frequencies.


There isn't any difference other printing "High Definition" on the
packaging and upping the price.