Philips 50" Plasma HDTV 50PFP5332D


or

Sony 50" Widescreen Rear Projection HDTV Grand Wega KDF-50E2000

Plasma's color fades over time, gives off lots of radiation, uses up lots more energy and has a glossy screen which picks up much reflection.

Rear Projection TV's look like crap.

the only way RPTV looks worse is if you're considerably off-axis

but you make a good case of "Better Living thru Chemistry"

Such as "Plasma colors fade over time" - yes, after 60,000 hours or so. And, technically. the SXRD's colors fade over time too (until you replace the bulb).

You can argue on price, which is not a real issue in the 50" range, and PQ, where you possibly have a point but it depends on usage. If he could actually benefit from 1080P, go with the SXRD. If he needs off axis viewing, get the plasma. Otherwise, pick the one that looks best to his eyes.

there are pros and cons to BOTH technologies.

To give you a real answer, we need to know more about what you want. What do you watch, do you want the on-the-wall factor, lighting conditions, etc.

just like some people prefer very bright speakers as opposed to the natural-sounding ones.

It's a personal preference I guess.

Most of the plasmas I see in stores look brighter and more contrasty than RPTVs that stand next to them. I am sure you can properly calibrate those plasmas to tone them down to more appropriate levels, but some people don't care about "appropriate". The plasmas are more vibrant and flashy and that's what gets the sale. At least that's what I think.

that read like MSFT/Toshiba marketing campaigns.

Might not help him, but it's the truth. I get tired of reading the SXRD posts. Yes it's good, but it's not like RPTV's don't have drawbacks. Some of us just can't stand those drawbacks. And I won't get up on a high horse and say plasma is the end all be all (Pioneer >> Phillips!) either.

It's a simple case of understanding the pros and cons of each technology, and marrying those up against your needs. Frankly, it's a relatively easy decision, and in most cases, there is little room for debate about which technology works best for a given situation.

Does that level the playing field? :-P

I guess I just need it to watch TV and movies. little to no video playing. shows like discovery HD and sports and regular DVD's. I'm leaning towards the sony but they both look good. thanks.

do you care about wall mounting?

does the idea of replacing a couple hundred dollar lamps every few years bother you?

No offense to anyone here, but I've looked (and looked again and again) and would never consider an RPTV.

I love my current tv (which is a Sony btw--XBR960), and am ready for a larger, more theater-like experience to complement this tv. I couldn't care less what the tech is, I just want the best picture and, to me anyway, it is most definitely not an RPTV. It most probably is/will be the Pioneer 5080 (768) or the upcoming 6010 (1080p).

Here's a link to one of the few early reviews of the european version of the 5080, which is virtually identical to the U.S. 5080.<ul><li><a href="http://blog.homecinemachoice.com/page/homecinemachoice?entry=pioneer_pdp_508xd_web_exclu sive">http://blog.homecinemachoice.com/page/homecinemachoice?entry=pioneer_pdp_508xd_web_exclu sive</a</li></ul>

RPTV's have a horrible viewing angle are not as bright, worse contrast, horrible case design, over weight and over sized. I mean the list runs long....

Personally, (IMHO) I think some of you couldnt manage a better technology and settled, sorry, my eyes are happy seeing the image..... from all angles, clearly, and brightly since I'm not in a dark theatre room and actually watch TV when the sun is out. (Imagine that)....

Are you gong to dip and dive around the room trying to find the right angle so your RPTV doesnt look like a metallic pipe?

Please, stop with the "radiation" nonsense and just admit, its more affordable to settle for a TV that has the one of the worst viewing angles in the industry.

I mean, complaining that it uses more energy just makes you sound like the guy who didnt get the right TV and is justifying his purchase. (My electric bill has never been more the $29.00 a month for 16 months thus far while watching a minimum of 5 hours of TV a day, so lets get real).

Aside of you who already bought them, no one is going to agree a Sammy, Panny or Pio plasma looks worse then a RPTV, really.

Mostly because I dont' realistically have the money to upgrade from the display I have (2 year old Grand Wega), so I don't spend as much time researching it.

I spend a lot of time tracking the format war, as it directly informs my next A/V purchase.

And I'm not nearly as biased as you seem to think. Yes, I'd like Blu-Ray to win, as its a technically better product, but I'm really just waiting to see the results (and for prices to drop a bit more).

Perhaps you feel compelled to justify the extra money you spent. For your situation (bright light, viewing off angle, wall mounting) plasma was obviously the best choice.

However, not everyone is in your situation. Dedicated home theater displays aren't viewed in bright light or off angle, so those aren't concerns.

It has been shown in technical mags that projection is capable of truer colors, and the power usage is non debatable. As is price.

No one display type is ideal for everyone. If it was, there wouldn't be so many choices.

It was the right choice for me, because it is not just a movie theatre, its a <b>television</b> (I do watch the news sometimes and dont need a theatre for that). <i>but</i> when the sun go's down and the HD-DVD gets fired up, its movie time! and I'm all set (so is my friend who wants to see the TV while he is at the bar table making our drinks).

Just sayin, I realize there are pro's and con's in life, but from my eyes perspective no RPTV is going to get my hard earned when there are images seemingly better to my eyes, and overall taste.

and viewing angles are pretty much straight on. wall mounting isnt a big deal but would rather not. and the seating is about 8 feet from the TV.

Who's at the door?

Its Mr. Technology, and he's stirring up the pot again!

Philips quality isn't the greatest, but its native resolution is higher...which usually means better results than the 1280x720 crowd....however, its scaler might be junk and nullify that small benefit.

The Sony would be fine, but it's not 1080p...at 8' it will make a difference, so I would consider those higher end sets if I were you. assuming your budget allows, of course ;)

are these film transfer quality-related or audio capability reasons, or more functionality and features of the players that you're referring to?

Surely, it's not price ;-)

BD has the capability to read more data (higher capacity) faster (higher bitrate), than HD-DVD. This is made possible by using a more focused laser reading through less material.

I'm looking at this as a movie format, yes, but even more so as a storage medium. These discs will be our storage medium for CPUs over the next 10 years as well. There is no way you can say that less capacity and a lower bitrate are an improvement.

Price is not a concern for me, as the price of ANY technology will eventually drop as a result of economies of scale. Honestly, if I have to wait another 3-6 months to see a $199 player, is that really worth having half the storage capacity?

To me, it's not.

every one of our power users (designers) utilizes portable HDDs for their large storage needs, they have had no need for HD-DVD or BD so far. They don't even use DVD anymore, an ipod will work better and faster.

I just don't see it.

Also, based on the codecs utilized, I don't think we get more movie with one over the other format. As a matter of fact, IIRC Blu-Ray didn't even support TrueHD/DD+ for quite some time...

Eh maybe, we'll see I guess.

Thanks for your thoughts.

they use the same audio/video codecs.

Now consider that we'll never see a movie use the entire disc, who the hell cares?

Yeah, it's better, but that doesn't really matter.

Your "power users" are not indicative of the overall market. My parents, for instance, would have no idea how to use an Ipod to transport data between computers. Sticking an optical disk into a drive, however, they can understand. A portable harddrive is much more cumbersome than a disc, and flash memory is slow and expensive at high capacity.

The way I see it, an optical disc has 2 functions: stora date, and transmit data when called upon. BD does both better than HD-DVD.
Other than the fact that you already own it, why would you PREFER the inferior product?

As far as movies, both formats use all of the same codecs, etc... BD simply has more space to store them on and the ability to read them faster. The more info that can be read, the less compression is necessary. Less compression=better quality, no matter how advanced the codec.

Seriously, if both formats were priced identically, why would you prefer HD-DVD?

Now consider that the MSRP of a comparable player is already within $100, and that Toshiba is subsidizing their players to sell them as a loss leader. Movie price is identical.

Why do you prefer HD-DVD?

The codecs can be used to compress at different rates to hit different sizes. The less you have to compress, the better its going to look.

The higher the capacity and transfer rate, the less you have to compress.

Also, who says that a movie will never fill up a disc?

You can't reasonably argue that less capacity and slower transfer is superior.

I've said plenty of times before, I don't care which survives, but I doubt either will for very long anyway.

here's what I mean:

Neither format gives you a better picture than the other TODAY or anytime soon.

Neither format gives you better audio TODAY or anytime soon. Again, IIRC BD even had to 'catch-up' on the trueHD and DD+ codes...could be wrong though.

As a movie medium, they are equal TODAY and for the announced foreseeable future. imo.

That said, I don't care which wins, but you haven't made your point yet.

I'd bet a lot fewer than 20-60 year old teachers, lawyers, architects, doctors, etc. . .

Your designers are far more computer savvy than the general market.

I meant that I worked in IT.

Currently,studios are doing the same transfer and codec on both formats because it is cheaper for them. If they were only encoding in bluray, they could use the increased capacity and higher bitrate to either include more data OR use less compression.

This is why BD has more 5* PQ releases (which are almost all BD exclusives).

Why would you want the product with more potential to die, when prices are already stabilizing?

for DVDs.

didn't catch on much, though they were potentially far superior.

If I never hear the words "Potentially" &amp; "Blu-Ray" mixed again it will be a fine day indeed.

Im not potentially here now. Im here, <b>now</b>.

and at that rate, the movie would need to be more than a few hours long to fill the disc

You're right, why advance technology any further? What we have right now is good enough.

The price difference right now between BD and HD-DVD is far less than a Superbit DVD.

Because the compression is throwing away less information, the chance of it throwing away something you'll notice is reduced.

You can stop digging now.

The peak compression rate is the rate that the codec can take out the most information while obtaining acceptable results.

Using a lesser rate results is less compression, which means less information is thrown out from the original video.

And, for the record, I have not bought into either format yet. I've never felt the need to be on the bleeding edge, and I'll wait until the war is mostly over. We're not there yet.

I would much prefer to see the more capable format survive, however. Clearly, in terms of both capacity and transfer rate, that format is BD.

If I have to wait 3-6 additional months to get a player in my price range to gain twice the storage space, so be it.

Those are just different codecs. VC-1 can and has been used on BD as well. MPEG-2 was used early on BD, as it was cheaper to encode in it and it was plenty efficient enough to get a standard movie to fit on a 25 GB disc.

Since, BD has mostly gone to MPEG-4 (also called AVC), which is rate scalable, and can take better advantage of BDs high transfer rate. It is also the codec which has resulted in most of the 5* PQ ratings.

I think it was probably last year.

Still, the Mpeg-4 codec is rate scalable, and thus can take advantage of BDs higher bitrates.

Blood Diamond, Happy Feet, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of our Fathers. . .

The list goes on.

There are some (Dreamgirls, Payback) that were encoded in MPEG-2 for BD, but the majority were VC-1.

AVC is resulting in the best picture quality, but it is not being used on titles released on both formats. That is my point.

There is only one major studio doing releases on both formats.

You have been making a lot of claims about PQ, just curious what equipment you have used to base your findings.

Its SONY that is being a pain in the ass here, as usual.

I own a Xbox 360 and a 1080i capable plasma so the choice was obvious.

Also, for the record, my friends say this about me:

"He used to the the poster boy for SONY in the 90's. I bet the CEO had a picture of him on his desk"

I was very into SONY, but time and time again, SONY has let me down, be it the Betamax my Dad bought in 1986, the MD player I bought in 1998 or things like SONY making Plasma, then dumping it 2 years later for LCD, the SRX whatever......

I'm tired of the 2 year support, and the mismanagement of their companies initiatives and decided to get with the program and purchase from multiple manufacturers with a more proven track record.

Thats my real reason, in a nutshell.

Glad I didnt hang n to that PSP and all those stupid UMD's either.

I've seen them in the stores looking unusually off-color (so to speak). I've seen flood lights pointing straight at the sets (not a good idea unless you want the flat panels to look brighter) and I've seen the settings 'adjusted' in favor (so it seemed) of the flat panels. There is a lot of profit in installation of course, but it's not certain if the lights and settings are actually deliberate.

I've installed many, many TVs of all technologies and the better brand RPJ fixed pixel TVs win out every time when the picture is bigger than a 46" from the point of view of overall picture performance.

That's not to say the flat panels don't havea good picture - most of the decent brand name sets genuinely do, it's just that under normal viewing conditions in the home, the non-generic brand RPJ sets; LCD, DLP and in particular LCoS (otherwise known as SXRD or HD-ILA) have the edge and even cost less for the same screen size. And they don't fade in their brilliance over time.

No, I don't.

Paramount and Warner are both releasing movies on both formats. I just listed 4 VC-1 BDs after 30 seconds of searching.

This stuff is not hard to find if you're inclined to do the research.

Also, the BDA existed before HD-DVD. But don't let the facts get in your way.

As far as your Sony rant, the only decision Sony made that was the decision to ditch plasma. I don't really see how that screwed you.

The BetaMax and Minidisc decisions were made by your fellow consumers. They chose against you. And now you blame Sony for your choice to be an early adopter.

The anti-Sony sentiment on this board is absurd.

Although they do make great TVs - their XBR LCDs and SXRDs are unbeatable and BluRay is a fine product. People are going ga-ga over PS3 already.

Not many people here use Sony receivers (something Sonyheads often do) and their universal remotes are all but ignored.

They make quality front projectors and superb camcorders. Even their PC are useful. You can't argue with quality.

The Sony products I use are in place because there's nothing better for the money. Sony make more of those than just about any other quality brand. But there's loads of other great products from brands other than Sony getting the thumbs-up here.

You are correct about the studio support I forgot Warner started doing dual releases.

That said, I personally don't think you have much experience with lossy encoding. In fact you just seem to be quoting reviews and such, do you actually own a HD-DVD player and Blu-Ray player? I have done encodings with Inlet's Fathom /w Semaphore so I think I have had some hands on experience with both CODECs.

First you are rambling on about the capacity of the disk and how the peak throughput is higher on Blu-Ray and how H.264 is better than VC-1. VC-1 is easier to tweak than H.264 and a hell of lot faster to encode/decode. Also I feel the baseline encodes generally lend themselves to look better with VC-1 than H.264. H.264 is a much more complicated CODEC but in the profile used in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is basically the same from a feature perspective as VC-1. Also to correct you on one of your previous posts you said "Since, BD has mostly gone to MPEG-4 (also called AVC)" is technically wrong, MPEG-4 is a superset that contains H.264 which is also called as AVC.

Encoding something at a higher bitrate doesn't mean it's automatically better and the circumstances where Blu-Ray's greater peak throughput isn't really needed except in rare circumstances with either VC-1 or H.264. Blu-Ray was originally designed to use MPEG-2 that's why it needed more space and needed higher throughput. Even with that, VC-1 and H.264 within the confines of the HD-DVD format could produce a better picture than MPEG-2 with Blu-Ray's added throughput.

Blu-Ray has the stronger format based on purely technical specs, but hey it's more expensive, both from a playback and media production standpoint. All that said I think at this point the market is tilting towards Blu-Ray, though the race wasn't nearly as quickly sewn as Sony hoped with the dismal performance of the PS3.

It sounds like all you have done is searched the Internet for talking points and whether your intention was to or not, sound like a fanboi.

Am I supposed to apologize for doing research to inform my next A/V purchase? No, I don't own a player yet, which is why I read this forum (among others), and research how these things work. No, I'm not a video coder, but I have a rudimentary understanding of how they work.

If VC-1 was so far superior, as you say, then why is AVC getting 5* PQ reviews just as often? It might be easier to work with (I'll have to take your word on that), but the finished product is what I'm interested in. BD can use VC-1 anyway. That's just a cost/licensing issue.

I realize that MPEG-4 covers a lot more than just video codecs, but technically AVC IS the same thing as MPEG-4, given that its a part of the standard. If you're coding in AVC, you're using the MPEG-4 standard.

I also realize BD was designed for MPEG-2, but it is capable of using the same codecs as HD-DVD, and it can hold more information and transfer it faster. Please explain how that is a bad thing. Even if the circumstances have been rare where the higher bitrate is necessary, it's nice that its there, isn't it?

As far as price, BD is quickly stabilizing. MSRP is now even for a comparable player (BDP-S300 vs. Toshiba HD-A20). Sure the Toshiba is being sold at a huge discount, but the Sony eventually will be, as well.

I'm not sure where you're getting the media being more expensive. That's certainly not the case for the consumer, where movies are pretty much identically priced across the board.

My point this entire time is what you said, BD has stronger technical specs. They are not being taken advantage of right now, but that doesn't mean they won't be in 5 years. That's why I'd prefer it, as I think this generation of optical disc will be around the next 7-10 years. If I have to wait 3-6 months for prices to equalize, that's worth it to me to get a better format.

I also see it as a computer storage medium, and that is where the higher capacity and faster bitrate are really handy.

No one can, with a straight face, say that HD-DVD is a technically superior product. All they can say is that its "good enough for movies." Well, personally, I'd rather see the better product win. If that makes me a fanboi, then you got me.

Do BDs cost twice as much as HD-DVDs? No. They are pretty much equal.

Do BD players cost twice as much? Yes, if you compare a discounted entry level Toshiba to Sony's 2nd generation full-featured player. However, if you compare MSRPs of comparable players (Tosh HD-A20 vs. Sony BDP-S300) they are equal. The Sony will go on sale eventually too.

Superbits also have a limited feature set to allow for the better encode.

Does BD have a limited feature set compared to HD-DVD? Somewhat, because BD-Java was not finalized as quickly as HD-DVDs IME. However, that will be rectified by fall and current players will receive a firmware upgrade. At that point, the answer will be no.

For someone who doesn't care who wins, you do an awful lot of lobbying for HD-DVD.

I would buy a PS3, but the BT-only remote is assinine.

I don't understand why one of the BDA manufacturers didn't produce a feature limited (1080i/720p, DD 5.1, DTS) player that would play the discs on the TVs that the majority of HDTV owners have and price it lower, similar to Toshiba's entry level player. I guess they didn't want to "dilute" the brand.

Really, though, MSRPs are already equal, the Sony is just brand new and so has not been sold on sale or at a discount yet. That will happen shortly. Also, Funai is reported to be producing a BD player, which, one would think, will sell for cheaper than the Sony.

The reality is that the prices on these things have come down far quicker than CD or DVD prices did. That was the positive effect of the format war. The negatives are the delay of mass adoption and one camp getting screwed and feeling betrayed by the losing format.

and ill informed :)

People don't buy things based off of MSRP. The BPS-300 has an MSRP of $499 and is pretty much that price everywhere the HDA-2 has a MSRP of $399 but pretty much $299 everywhere. HD-DVD is cheaper full circle, player, media production and licensing.

The A2 is Toshibas "entry level" player, which I JUST talked about in the last post. It is not full featured, only doing 1080i and not including HDMI 1.3

The A20 is Toshibas 2nd generation player, list price of $499, selling for $399 online and at discount stores. It is the equivalent of the S300.

The MSRP is important, because, as I said, eventually the Sony will go on sale too. You do realize that they just released it this week and it sold out at most places, right?

The difference is that Sony (or another BD manufacturer) never released an entry level, feature limited player.

HD-DVD is currently cheaper for an entry level player, yes. For a full featured player, the difference is negligible.

What the hell do I care about licensing? That's the studios problem, not mine.

As far as media, please show me a diffinitive price difference between movies. I have yet to see it.

Do you have any information about the source material before encoding, what equipment the production house is using? This all make a HUGE difference in the output in encoding quality. If one production house is doing all the movies you say have the best output quality maybe they are just taking more time in the encoding process. VC-1's lack of adoption is mainly political in my view.

MPEG-4 Part 2 is MPEG-4 but it won't play on in a Blu-Ray player. MPEG-4 is a superset, H.264 or MPEG-4 AVC is the CODEC Blu-Ray/HD-DVD can use. The MPEG-4 ISO is huge and encompasses as lot of different individual CODECs.

The pressing cost is MUCH higher on Blu-Ray than HD-DVD, HD-DVD can use DVD production lines without modification as with Blu-Ray existing equipment will have to be modified to do with the layer changes. This isn't being passed on to the consumer right now but what's to say it wouldn't be.

You are making such a big deal out of Blu-Ray's extra storage capacity and throughput, but they improvement they possibly offer in some cases is nonexistent and at best minor. To the average consumer they are the same.

The MPEG-4 vs. AVC thing is a technicality. AVC is routinely referred to as MPEG-4, as they are part of the same standard, as I said.
I trust highdefdigest as much as anyone else. It's not like I'm reading some random post on a random internet forum.

The INITIAL COST of pressing BDs was higher, as they had to produce new equipment. Now that the equipment is there and a couple of million discs have been pressed, the material cost is essentially the same. Its called an economy of scale, and we're past it already. If it was going to be passed on to the consumer, it would have shown up in the movie prices.

I don't disagree that they are essentially equal right now, but that doesn't mean that the extra storage capacity and higher bitrate of BD won't be used in the next 5 years.

It's pretty small. You are making MOUNTAINS out of MINOR market points. Why does it need HDMI 1.3? How is the player feature limited?

Both formats sell rates are so minor compared to DVD the fact that it's sold out according to you means nothing. I personally feel that comment is inaccurate; I'm willing to bet I could buy one from a local box retailer today if I felt like it.

Hah, your comment about licensing costs really shows your lack of knowledge of basic economics. If it costs more to produce something you have to charge more to make the same profit, right??? It's in the best interest of the studios to have the format war ended as quickly as possible because that causes confusion in the market space and retards adoption. Pretty simple huh? DVD prices actually increased about two years after the format had been released as it gained market share. Talk to anyone in the pressing industry Blu-Ray discs cost more to press than HD-DVD it's pretty much common knowledge.

Just so you know the real reason why studio support went mainly with Blu-Ray is two reasons: HD-DVD requires mandatory managed copy and BD+, both had nothing to do with superior picture quality and everything to do with copy protection.

What percentage of the population has HDTV? It's also pretty small. From here on out, most HDTVs are capable of 1080p. In 5 years, 1080p will be the majority. HDMI 1.3 is important because it is now the standard. There are no guarantees that 1.2 will be supported by my next display.

Note that I said MOST places, and I'm looking at online vendors. I'm sure you could find one if you were so inclined.

Yes, initially, BDs cost more, but the gap narrows every time a disc is pressed. What about economies of scale don't you understand? The cost difference after the war will be negligible. That has been the way of every new disc format since the 1980s.

Once again, if the cost are so much higher, why are the movies the same price in stores? Answer that simple question.

I couldn't care less about copy protection. I don't pirate movies anyway. I'm fine buying my disc and playing it. That's what an optical disc is supposed to do.

We will never agree.

Read the new Widescreen review - the new Pioneer plasmas offer some new performance gains - will have to wait a few months for the first reviews though the people who saw them were impressed. But then the new SXRDs will be out soon too with 120hz refresh rate and a few other improvements.

I was citing superbit as something with similar promise...'if only' the studios used the 'whole' disc and the full capacities of the medium...then we'd really have something!

they couldn't be bothered. only a small niche of consumers bought them.

kinda like SACD, minidisc, memory stick, umd, etc...

are you sensing a trend yet?

technical superiority over the 'other format' will not contribute one iota to its market dominance, it's just not significant enough to the people who'd take advantage of it...the content creators.

Neither of which is going to applicable to BD when the mass market starts to buy in.

If the consumer makes the choice of the technically superior format, the content providers will eventually take advantage of it, in the process of trying to one-up each other and sell more discs.

The content distributors have pretty much sided with BD anyway, with the exception of Universal. Of course, this is the same Universal that backed DivX over DVD.

Other subthreads have already discussed the issues with SACD, MD, Memory Stick, and UMD. None of those situations are applicable to HD-DVD vs. BD.

Look, we can go back and forth on this forever, but it's not going to get us anywhere. You clearly prefer HD-DVD (despite your best objections), and that is fine. You asked me why I prefer BD, and I gave you the reasons. You're not going to convince me that better specs are a bad thing. In the end, if HD-DVD has some kind of miraculous turnaround, and BD fails, I'll buy HD-DVD. If current trends continue, I'll buy BD. If digital distribution catches up technology wise and catches on as fast as you think it will, I won't need either.

No hard feelings either way.

The fujitsu 50" plasma was the best thing going according to my eyes and my wallet. Only a fool trusts another person to review a speaker or TV for picture quality because we all hear and see different things in every situation.

Magazines are fueled by advertising dollars and electronics retailers are fueled by profit per unit sold.

the disc transport makes no different in picture quality

The general consumer believes it pretty much looks perfect already, and none of them care or read your precious magazine reviews.

Hell, I'm quite satified as it is and I dont subscribe to any review from whatever company was paid to say what it does.

You hold too much value on others <i>opinions</i>. I let my eyes and wallet do the thinking for me.

Be more "independent" and not the sheep of this months review from some person you dont know.

At the very least, I appreciate the opinions from a single person on AW who I can trust to have personal experience, rather then some guy who gets paid to say what he does in a publication.

Granted we dont always see eye to eye, but I would hold more value with this forum then any magazine because we all seem to have certain things in common, which is why we post here, and not on the Peoples Sheep Magazine forum.

see!