Clearing up bad info on Plasma Display's.

This post is in response to a reply posted earlier on this forum.
It has been suggested that one of the limiting issues with plasma display technology is "the need to recharge them every few years, at $300-$500 a pop." This is absolutely, unequivocally, patently, UNTRUE! While shopping at a national brick and mortar store I was told the same thing by a poorly informed sales person. He went on to tell me that the company, as part of an extended warratnry, could "re-fill" my display for $99.99.
Thank the god's that I had done my research. He seemed a bit confused when I asked him if it ran best on 87, 89, or 91 octane!

As an owner of a a plasma, I will freely admit that they are not perfect. However, no technology, available today, meets the standard of perfection. All have pro's and con's. I hope that we can, when offering advice to those soliciting it, base it on fact, experience, and research.

Oh, did I mention, that if you soak your feet in mayonaise you can cure seasonal allergies? Honest, a rep at a store told me so.

The biggest problem with plasma's becomes evident if you live in high altitude.

here in denver a plasma might sound fine for a month or two but eventually they beging to BUZZ. Sounds kinda like a bug-zapper.

There are some plasma displays that have supposedly conquered this problem with high altitude buzzing but they all buzz too. :)

If yer this high up, gotta go with LCD
I agree with Rabmen. Every thing has its flaw. Nothing is perfect. However, when doing comparison and contrast or doing the risk-benefit analysis, I end up going w/ a Panasonic plasma. My definition of good pictures include clarity, brightness, contrast, blackness level, luminance and quick response to high demanding DVD movies, i.e. no slow-mo artifacts. My old model has a constrast of 3000:1, and watching it is amazing, especially when all the lights are turned off. It has much clearer, brighter, richer, more colorful, and sharper images than those in theater. The current model has 4000:1 contrast ratio, and I suspect it to be a more-WOW factor. My brother-in-law has a 37" Sony XBR LCD panel. Video connection was via DVI. My experience of watching DVD via DVI connection on LCD panel was not the same as watching DVD via component video on plasma. It seemed that the sharpness, brightness, and contrast were not as good as those on plasma. Then I realized that I was witnessing the statement regarding how LCD using lightbulb could not achieve brightness as high as plasma. However, he is a Sony fan, and XBR has a beautiful design -- I must admit.

This is just a personal, bias, and subjective intepretation based on my plasma ownership. The bottom line, do your own research. Depending on your budget, spend money on what you will be happy with. If CRT works for you, I say go for it by all means.
If yer that high, doesn't matter what yer watchin' ;~)