{ "numMessagesInTopic": 16, "nextInTime": 378, "senderId": "Z6CjNbpDKgytSx82984kLHjhRHSNglPWAuOwSP2HOiZxV9VghUKPlq61bt5hyyULjERXuNiPuegBrcZV_o_0D66T01TZ66ny1zIzgsOYFA", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: Fluppeteer: Pixel response time", "from": ""fluppeteer" <yahoo@...>", "authorName": "fluppeteer", "msgSnippet": "... response ... up ... or ... Thanks, Yeang. Found it in the thread starting at message 140 (I m not having much luck with the Yahoo automated search, so I m", "msgId": 377, "profile": "fluppeteer", "topicId": 351, "spamInfo": { "reason": "0", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 192443393, "messageBody": "
> Hey Fluppeteer,response
\n>
\n> Just a quick note regarding the image formation time/pixel
\n
> time for the T221. I noticed the same spec and brought this issueup
\n
> several months ago. As usual Steve chimed in with some useful infoor
\n> that indicated that the spec that is quoted does not accurately
\n> reflect the speed at which the pixels change.
\n> Again, my brain's retention span for anything nowadays is about 3
\n> weeks, so I've forgotten everything he said. Do a search for it,
\n
> it should be on the last couple of pages in the archive.Thanks, Yeang. Found it in the thread starting at message 140 (I'm
\n> Bottom line from my confused brain: it's not as bad as you would
\n> think from the 62ms or whatever image formation time quoted.
\n
\n