Trevor Wilson schrieb:

**Because, my scientifically ignorant 'friend', the CO2 used for the
production of soft drinks is extracted from the air. IOW, the CO2 in soft
drinks is actually assisting with the REMOVAL of CO2 from the atmosphere.
That is a good thing. OTOH, a case could be made for banning soft drinks on
the basis that they use energy for their manufacture and are, generally, an
appalling way for humans to obtain kilojoules.

Hello,

the CO2 in soft drinks is released to the atmosphere again when these
drinks are consumed. This CO2 is exhaled after some time.

Bye

Uwe Hercksen wrote:
Trevor Wilson schrieb:

**Because, my scientifically ignorant 'friend', the CO2 used for the
production of soft drinks is extracted from the air. IOW, the CO2 in
soft drinks is actually assisting with the REMOVAL of CO2 from the
atmosphere. That is a good thing. OTOH, a case could be made for
banning soft drinks on the basis that they use energy for their
manufacture and are, generally, an appalling way for humans to
obtain kilojoules.

Hello,

the CO2 in soft drinks is released to the atmosphere again when these
drinks are consumed. This CO2 is exhaled after some time.

**Duh.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.


Typical response from you.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.


Typical response from you.

**Nope. Just a succinct one. Here, OTOH, is a typical response from me
(after an idiotic post from you):

**I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:

http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_i...at_glance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact..._lamp#Lifespan

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

http://www.gelighting.com/eu/resourc...dule04/08.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamp_rerating

This is an interesting primer on the topic:

http://donklipstein.com/bulb1.html


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.


Typical response from you.

**Nope. Just a succinct one. Here, OTOH, is a typical response from me
(after an idiotic post from you):

**I don't need to prove it. It has been well documented:


You can find websites that say whatever you want, 'Chicken Little'.
None of their so called science is proven, just like your claims.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Oct 6, 6:29*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

* *Typical response from you.


You can't expect much more from it.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

kreed wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.


You can't expect much more from it.

**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor have you
commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your idea of a cogent
argument is to refuse to respond to questions and points of logic and resort
to pitiful sniping.

You are a failure.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.


You can't expect much more from it.


I don't expect anything from people who refuse to look at the sources
of the material they quote.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

On Oct 6, 11:32*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.

You can't expect much more from it.

**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor have you
commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your idea of a cogent
argument is to refuse to respond to questions and points of logic and resort
to pitiful sniping.


Nothing that could be said to you would break you out of your cult.

You are a failure.


In what way ?

I would say that my life has been pretty good to me regarding my
career, marriage family, friends, health etc. I worked hard for
everything I have and have not had to accept handouts, or "sheltered"
jobs, "jobs for the boys" etc.

To me that is not failure and if it is failure in your opinion, so be
it.



--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


As long as you keep quoting, paid off/vested interest "sources" as
fact, I'm not going to..

kreed wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:32 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Oct 6, 6:29 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Duh.

Typical response from you.

You can't expect much more from it.

**I note you have STILL failed to answer any of my questions, nor
have you commented on anythng I said in any substantive way. Your
idea of a cogent argument is to refuse to respond to questions and
points of logic and resort to pitiful sniping.


Nothing that could be said to you would break you out of your cult.


**Nothing YOU can say will suggest that the science is wrong. You are far
too stupid to be able to mount a credible argument. You have failed, thus
far, to do so.



You are a failure.


In what way ?

**You're not very bright. You continue to snipe, rather than presenting a
rational, reasonable argument. Look at how Mr Liebermann conducts himself.
You're nothing like that. You are a failure.


I would say that my life has been pretty good to me regarding my
career, marriage family, friends, health etc. I worked hard for
everything I have and have not had to accept handouts, or "sheltered"
jobs, "jobs for the boys" etc.

To me that is not failure and if it is failure in your opinion, so be
it.

**A failure in the sense that you think you are smarter than you really are.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au