CatBus said:

Oh goody. Well, the majority of the TV's still in service worldwide are 4:3 CRT SDTV's, so we can stop even talking about all this crazy newfangled HDTV crap, then. I can minimize huge shifts in markets and consumer demand with irrelevant statistics, too!

"Too"? No. In order for "too" to apply, I also would have had to have done it. I originally replied to someone who said that 2006 was "well after everyone already adopted 16:9 TVs", which is obviously false, and not only that, but not even close to being correct. I also said, in that same post, that it was beside the point.

Then you came along with some novel, nonstandard interpretation of my standard English-language text, along with a misunderstanding of the word "current", and this bizarre combination resulted in you calling for people to challenge an idea that hadn't been put forth by me or anyone else. In the process you attempted to downplay the number of 4:3 SDTVs in U.S. households in 2006 with the word "some" (when "the vast majority" or simply "most" is far more appropriate), so I clarified the word "some" for you.

What I didn't do is draw any conclusions from any of it (no need for conclusions when the point is correction or clarification of facts, rather than an essay or editorial). The conclusions that you think I have drawn exist only in your imagination, not in my text.

Yeah, because non-anamorphic disks failing to scale decently on the new TV's people were buying in droves isn't objective. At least you didn't ask if I was on the rag. Buh bye, Mr. Objective.

It isn't the DVD's fault if people display it on the wrong type of TV. 4:3 DVDs are designed for 4:3 TVs, obviously. Pixel aspect ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with video quality, just as much of what you've typed has nothing to do with any of my posts.