hmtb:strapped for cash:
I presume you have both spent several years studying micro-brain function, cognitive perception and the intricacies of cellular optic processess? I don't normally involve myself in some of the sillier debates on this forum, but this might just be the most ludicrous yet...
For the record, 3D is likely to blow, big time -- though this is just an opinion based on the fact that I don't want to sit in my living room wearing odd looking glasses (and clearly not the outcome of the kind of rigorous scientific research you have both conducted)!
Whilst I certainly do detect the sarcasm you used in your post, I will concede that I have never studied any of the subjects you mentioned, but then I was not purporting to act, inform or argue as though I had done so, hence the lack of any technical or scientific terms in any of my responses.
Whilst you
have posted on this thread, you haven't involved yourself in the debate (if you can call it that) given that you haven't expressed an opinion on the matter and are merely providing running commentary.
As to whether or not 3D is "likely to blow, big time," I hope you're right, though quite how you can reach that assumption on the basis of your own lack of enthusiasm is beyond me. It seems quite arrogant that you should assume the failure of a technology based on your own dislike for it. Again, whilst acknowledging your use of sarcasm, I have not conducted any scientific research, rigorous or otherwise, nor have I, at any time, stated anything to the contrary.
Hi HTMB.
No personal offence intended. I'm not a bad fella... honest. I just wanted to point out how abstract the discussion on this thread had become. I also have no scientific training, nor can I claim that any of the terms I used have any bearing, whatsoever, in scientific circles.
As for my perceived 'arrogance', I was merely expressing an opinion... after all, the whf form was designed to facilitate the expression of opinions!