<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[Wo, it's thin enough to bite!<br><br>1st. Whatever.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[PenaltyKillah]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 8th 2008 9:25PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[This years TVs seem to be thin but personally under 3-4 inches is thing enough.  I care more about a thin bezel.  That was I could fit a 46" where I would be able to fit a 42".  I'd rather have more screen in the same space.  There are some panels out there, but more selection would be better.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Cycomachead]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 8th 2008 10:42PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[This years TVs seem to be thin but personally under 3-4 inches is thing enough.  I care more about a thin bezel.  That was I could fit a 46" where I would be able to fit a 42".  I'd rather have more screen in the same space.  There are some panels out there, but more selection would be better.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Cycomachead]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 8th 2008 10:43PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[This years TVs seem to be thin but personally under 3-4 inches is thing enough.  I care more about a thin bezel.  That was I could fit a 46" where I would be able to fit a 42".  I'd rather have more screen in the same space.  There are some panels out there, but more selection would be better.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Cycomachead]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 8th 2008 10:43PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[This years TVs seem to be thin but personally under 3-4 inches is thing enough.  I care more about a thin bezel.  That was I could fit a 46" where I would be able to fit a 42".  I'd rather have more screen in the same space.  There are some panels out there, but more selection would be better.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Cycomachead]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 8th 2008 10:43PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[Whats the point of thinner TVs? They all are either wall mounted or on a stand. Either way a a "Phat" and a "Slim" will take up exactly the same space.<br><br>I'd prefer them to concentrate on higher contrast ratio, or somthing else useful]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[James Ollier]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 9th 2008 7:53AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[Whats the point of thinner TVs? They all are either wall mounted or on a stand. Either way a a "Phat" and a "Slim" will take up exactly the same space.<br><br>I'd prefer them to concentrate on higher contrast ratio, or somthing else useful]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[James Ollier]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 9th 2008 7:54AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Hands-on with JVC's "thinnest" LCD]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/hands-on-with-jvcs-thinnest-lcd/</guid><description><![CDATA[Whats the point of thinner TVs? They all are either wall mounted or on a stand. Either way a a "Phat" and a "Slim" will take up exactly the same space.<br><br>I'd prefer them to concentrate on higher contrast ratio, or somthing else useful]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[James Ollier]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 9th 2008 7:54AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
