O.K. brace yourself my widescreen bretheren, check this sight out!!!! (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

I still maintain that he was a "troll". As a troll, the guy was...uh...brilliant. If he was serious, well, he couldn't have been serious. I think he was just someone with too much time on his hands, for one thing.

Well, you go ahead thinking that.

I thought he was just a really, really, REALLY stubborn troll, too - or at least a troll who enjoyed what he did. But when I saw his attempts to use the ADA to get rid of widescreen, he convinced me that he was serious. If he was a troll, he would have said something in the DVD/letterbox newsgroups just to incite; but he didn't. He posted them in newsgroups dedicated to the handicapped, where I'm sure he thought that he would get the most receptive audience (particularly since political correctness was just about at its pinnacle at that time) and where he probably thought that widescreen advocates wouldn't dare to tread.

I've seen his messages; I've seen been the recipient of some of his e-mails. You can continue to think that he was a troll if you want, but I'm convinced that he's genuine.

 

[Matt_Marlow]

I'd be interested to know what his emails were like. I suppose he might have seemed more genuine if he was communicating his "ideals" on a one-to-one basis. It's just that when he would take on virtually every newsgroup "regular", with virutally no supporters, to me he came across as someone just having a good laugh at the expense of overly serious home theater enthusiasts. I guess I was wrong, but I hate to admit it because I actually kind of admired the guy's "sense of humor". So he wasn't actually a troll...I feel so naive! :b

 

[Patrick McCart]

That "vision problems" bullshit is fluff.

If you're blind, you're obviously not going to watch a movie. If you're near/far-sighted, GET SOME GLASSES OR CONTACT LENSES!

Without my contact lenses that give me 20/15 vision, I'm legally blind. Of course, why would I watch a movie without my lenses?

Still..Mr. Farber is funny. I bet he had a heart attack after seeing the widescreen image on the Ben-Hur DVD! (Which would explain his absence...)

 

[John_Berger]

I'd be interested to know what his emails were like. I suppose he might have seemed more genuine if he was communicating his "ideals" on a one-to-one basis. It's just that when he would take on virtually every newsgroup "regular", with virutally no supporters, to me he came across as someone just having a good laugh at the expense of overly serious home theater enthusiasts.

Can't deny it. Sometimes we do take our hobby a bit too seriously.
His e-mails were varied. (I'm guessing that this is dependent on whether he won a court case or not. ) Sometimes, particularly in the beginning, he would come across with a very matter-of-fact, let's-discuss-this-rationally attitude, which is vastly different from the majority of his newsgroup posts. Sometimes he came barrelling in with a massive smart-ass chip on his shoulder, particularly when the pro-pan-and-scan DIVX came out. He had his moments, but sometimes I really did get e-mails from him where he was a cool, content character trying to engage in a rational discussion. He was wrong anyway, but we knew that. At one point we even agreed to disagree. That's just about the time that his arrogant newsgroup trolling started.
Maybe he really was a troll. But if so, he got a trolling doctorate degree from the best trolling professor in the world. However, from the e-mails that I got, particularly in the beginning, I firmly believe that he was serious about his anti-widescreen stance. The whole ADA notion seemed to be more of a "last resort" -- but what a last resort! Trying to ban widescreen under federal law????

 

[John_Berger]

If you're blind, you're obviously not going to watch a movie. If you're near/far-sighted, GET SOME GLASSES OR CONTACT LENSES!

And that was exactly the argument and I and a few others threw at him when he tried this.

(A) Get glasses or contacts.

(B) Buy VHS.

(C) Get a bigger TV.

It was at this point that he seemed to fade (thankfully) into oblivion. As I've said, I think that this was a last resort - one last desperate measure in an expectedly sleazy lawyer style. :p)

 

[RicP]

Blast from the Past!!

This was 1997 at its finest!!

Check the Google archives for all the info you want. This guy was an attorney from Chicago -- not a very good one apparently as his debating skills were worthless -- and this was his "crusade".

He had a sister that died in WWII so perhaps old Bernie Farber has kicked off as well.

 

[Matt_Marlow]

The whole ADA notion seemed to be more of a "last resort" -- but what a last resort! Trying to ban widescreen under federal law????

I laughed for about five minutes when I read that! It's just so absurd that if it was a joke (but, like you said, it probably wasn't), it was nothing short of brilliant!

 

[Brian Lawrence]

It's a joke and nothing more. kinda like the DIVX Lover web site.

 

[Tom-G]

(A) Get glasses or contacts.
(B) Buy VHS.
(C) Get a bigger TV.

You should add (D) Sit closer to the television

 

[Phil A]

For a better laugh - just look at his AOL Profile (below). Myabe someone should E-Mail him and tell him it is time to give up the fight for DIVX and concentrate on lettershlocking. You can also tell him that we Colonies won their freedom from England in the 18th century so he does not have to fight that battle either.
Member Name:http://members.aol.com/save tele
Location:Whereever people organize for freedom and against lettershlocking (sometimes mistakenly called "letterboxing" or "widescreen"; this prevents you from watching or enjoying movies on television by blocking the top and bottom of the screen with black bars)
Marital Status:None
Hobbies:Opposing lettershlocking (movie censorship). FULLSCREEN FOR ME!
Computers:Supporting DIVx format and opposing DVD (which has lettershlocking)
Occupation:Opposing HDTV
Personal Quote:http://members.aol.com/save tele -- No More Movie Censorship! No More Lettershlocking! Outlaw Lettershlocking NOW!

 

[Tom-G]

This guy has to be doing this in jest. It's best not to give any attention to someone like that.

 

[Bill Balcziak]

I still wonder if he's really a proponent of butchery or rather someone who gets a kick provoking knee-jerk reactions.

Yeah, surre.

 

[Sean Oneil]

Maybe he is just SERIOUSLY geometrically challenged, and can't grasp the concept of widescreen?
You don't HAVE to understand that kind of stuff to Lawyer

 

[Jon_B]

I didn't find his webpage funny at all. It's hard enough to educate people on oar/widescreen without having someone like him spreading conspiracy theories.

Jon

 

[Barry S]

This guy was hilarious. He was opposed to HDTV and told people to write their congressmen telling them that we don't want HDTV with its wide non-square image and high resolution. He hated HDTV because it wasn't 1.33:1. You have to wonder if he was opposed to movie theaters because their screens aren't 1.33:1 either. Of course, the moron probably didn't realize that.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And how do lawyers become rich and famous?

They pick some cause and make a big fuss about it, hoping for publicity. The more controversy the better.

Think about that Miami lawyer that went after 2 Live Crew.

My guess would be that this guy was just looking for something to stake his legal claim to. If he stirs up the pot and gets a client or some class action suit going, then he becomes famous (for 15 minutes) and could create a real business for himself.

 

[AndyDL]

Pretty funny stuff.
I agree with the others in that he is just trying to get attention.
This guy doesn't even deserve a thread this big.
Quick, somebody kill this thread.
Andy

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I don't think this can be taken seriously. It's got to be a joke. And a pretty lame one too.