<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How much more would you pay for a lighter, thinner flat panel HDTV?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digitalhdpro.com/how-much-more-would-you-pay-for-a-lighter-thinner-flat-panel-hdtv-3/512/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digitalhdpro.com/how-much-more-would-you-pay-for-a-lighter-thinner-flat-panel-hdtv-3/512/</link>
	<description>Your Digital HDTV Resource</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 01:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Laissez-Faire Guy</title>
		<link>http://digitalhdpro.com/how-much-more-would-you-pay-for-a-lighter-thinner-flat-panel-hdtv-3/512/comment-page-1/#comment-652</link>
		<dc:creator>Laissez-Faire Guy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitalhdpro.com/how-much-more-would-you-pay-for-a-lighter-thinner-flat-panel-hdtv-3/512/#comment-652</guid>
		<description>Nothing really.  At least not for the improvements they are talking about.

Cut it thickness from 2 feet to 6", yes.  Cut the weight from 200 lbs to 80 lbs, yes.  But cut from 3" to 1" or 80" to 40"?  Couldn't care less.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nothing really.  At least not for the improvements they are talking about.</p>
<p>Cut it thickness from 2 feet to 6&#8243;, yes.  Cut the weight from 200 lbs to 80 lbs, yes.  But cut from 3&#8243; to 1&#8243; or 80&#8243; to 40&#8243;?  Couldn&#8217;t care less.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

