Sweeney, how old are you? You're picked on (especially in the Politics thread) for your constant fallacies, so now you hurl that out now when you disagree with somebody. I'm not sure you really understand logic or fallacies, and it makes you come off either (a) a troll (b) young and inexperienced (c) woefully misinformed or (d) carrying a chip on your shoulder. Or maybe a combination of more than one of those. I see that all over this board. Unfortunately it weakens your own arguments and drags down those who would otherwise sympathize with you. Guilt by association (a fallacy in its own right). Have you had a course in philosophy, debate, or argumentative writing? Because your posts suggest "no" to all three. I heartily suggest studying all three. It is one thing to have an opinion on matters, another entirely to effectively debate those opinions.

The appropriate answer to Arnie.d's comment "Why pay more for another analog format if it's more of the same?" would be to state that Laserdisc was NOT more of the same. Laserdisc (a) delivered and analog picture that was superior to VHS. (b) It was in a relatively non-degrading format. (c) On titles that bothered to implement it, it offered AC3 encoding to consumers with AC3 playback capabilities. And (d) it regularly offered supplemental features that VHS didn't. Things like documentaries and deleted scenes.

Laserdisc was the precursor to DVD, and DVD wouldn't be what it is (or perhaps not even exist at all) without Laserdisc paving the way for it. DVD built on what was successful about LD while correcting most of its flaws. It was the first home entertainment format to offer bells and whistles.