Vic Smith writes:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:19:34 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Frank Warner wrote:

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being
25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse
as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will
produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug
is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime
rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should
my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of
"efficiency?"


You got most of it all wrong.
It's not about "you."
It's not about personal "efficiency."
It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation.
That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe.
No question about it.
....
I often want to **** when I take my dogs out.
If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine
tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, ...

And here your post turned to art. Something all us men
can understand.

Bravo.

--
Dan Espen