What is the point of buying expensive watches,phones,TV's etc..?

Exactly where did I agree that new TVs are better? I agree that you think they are but I said that I don't think the newer one I have in the living room is better than the 28 year old one I have in the back room, just that the pictures look different. Some people may prefer one of the pictures to another and may even be able to measure something to "prove" one is better than the other but when you're dealing with people's preferences those things don't matter. I think that lots of people pay a pile of money for a "better" product and once they've done that they need to believe the product really is better in order to justify the money they spent on it.

Thorstein Veblen - Theory of the Leisure Class.

Done.

even if I am missing a thing or two that's small and blurry I'd rather do that than drop four figures on a TV

Yes you can measure the resolution, colour accuracy, refresh rate of the panel, contrast levels, accuracy of white levels and more.

These are real things. Just because you don't mind watching a blurry old washed out TV doesn't mean that the new TV doesn't do the job of showing high quality content with great colours, no blurring or ghosting, better. Higher resolution is better than a lower resolution. A million pixels is better than 1.

You might like an old slow car compared to one that is fast, but that doesn't mean the newer car isn't faster.

One car being faster than another does not mean it's better. I know that you can measure stuff about TVs in numbers and one can score better than the other but that doesn't mean the TV itself is better or worse. If your criteria for a good TV is number of pixels then yes, the one with the higher number is better. If my criteria is being able to see what I'm watching clearly for the least amount of money then it's hard to beat that 28 year old TV in our back room. And to me, any color TV with good reception and the same screen size allows me to see what I'm watching clearly even if the pictures look a bit different.

Try watching porn with a new TV. It's a different world. With the best ones you can see absolutely everything all the way up to the uterus.

HRE wrote:

One car being faster than another does not mean it's better. I know that you can measure stuff about TVs in numbers and one can score better than the other but that doesn't mean the TV itself is better or worse. If your criteria for a good TV is number of pixels then yes, the one with the higher number is better. If my criteria is being able to see what I'm watching clearly for the least amount of money then it's hard to beat that 28 year old TV in our back room. And to me, any color TV with good reception and the same screen size allows me to see what I'm watching clearly even if the pictures look a bit different.

Has anyone noticed that 30 years ago you would turn on the TV and it would take ages before the picture would come up. Then about 15ish years ago you would turn on your TV and straight away pictures were available (which is good for a breaking news story or a live sports event). But now with these flat screen, HD, LCD etc you rush into your lounge, turn it on but you have to wait +30s before the picture arrives. Just ridiculous.

Duh. Turn on your TV with the phone before you get home.

well,. wrote:

CheechNChong wrote:

In a Freudian sense, its trying to make up for a small Weiner.

^This. The size of your dick is inversely proportional to the size of your car.

I bike...

The inverse of 0 is undefined so.....

girls guy wrote:

Chicks' dig it.

http://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/styles/si_gallery_slide/public/swimsuit/web/ashley-graham/2016/ashley-graham-2016-photo-sports-illustrated-x160011_tk6_0110-rawwmfinal1920.jpg?itok=B7hdedMf

So I guess all you communist aren't in the market for a Patek Philippe?

When you earn $400k, you want to spend your money on the finer things in life.

PS, Ashley Graham is NOT one of those finer things.