In article ,
"S. Barker" wrote:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

We all are, whether it is atop a house, in an attic or at a CATV provider's
head-in, whether the signal emanates from atop a 1,000-ft broadcast tower or
from a blob of electronics orbiting 17,500 miles above.

There are still thousands of over-the-air broadcasters that would quickly
retire that aspect (a HUGE aspect) of their business were there not
sufficient, operating receivers.

Operating and maintaining a powerful transmitter from atop a very high mast is
a costly thing, indeed. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't making them money.
--

JR

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable
light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers.
I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please
doesn't
work in this country.
You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but
because
in the long run, I save money.


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who
have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of
SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to.
"The
market" made some pretty lousy decisions.

In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.
Here's a quote to ponder from Walter Williams:

"I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with
hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of
government to impose their preferences on others."

OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before finding
out
that market-driven forces are not going to solve a problem? A year? 20
years? Two generations?

How long?

The governments purpose is to do our bidding and maintain our security
and infrastructure, not to preach to us what we should be doing or to
force the views of a minority on us. If the free market doesn't adopt
whatever is being preached it is a clear indication that the majority
simply doesn't want it.


News flash: If the government hadn't forced pollution standards, you'd
still be breathing a lot more crap from automobiles than you do now. Car
makers had absolutely NO incentive to tackle the problem, and consumers had
no buying choices that would've helped.

You will see more examples like this, and you will agree with the solutions.

Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
"S. Barker" wrote:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

We all are, whether it is atop a house, in an attic or at a CATV provider's
head-in, whether the signal emanates from atop a 1,000-ft broadcast tower or
from a blob of electronics orbiting 17,500 miles above.

There are still thousands of over-the-air broadcasters that would quickly
retire that aspect (a HUGE aspect) of their business were there not
sufficient, operating receivers.

Operating and maintaining a powerful transmitter from atop a very high mast is
a costly thing, indeed. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't making them money.

The OTA folks are making less and less money these days and are
desperately trying to find a new business model that will keep them
afloat. If they were not in such dire straights they would not have made
such a stink over silly must-carry rules to force their signals to be
carried on cable systems.

on 12/23/2007 2:13 PM Pete C. said the following:
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:


wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:


wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:


Frank wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:


Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you may well
find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing LCD with
Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not that
different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger CRTs and
LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably different
when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are including LCD
projectors, which are not part of this discussion at all.


I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and record
the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the new LCD.
Report back on the difference.


I have neither a plasma nor LCD TV. I do notice that the plasma TVs on
display at the local stores put out a lot of heat through the vents at
the back. The LCDs put out heat too, but not as much as the plasmas. I
did compare both TVs with the same screen size.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

wrote:

If you were really some sort of
technically proficient person, you would know that it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics.

It's easy to look up the specifications and misinterpret them.

Yes, but that's you, not me!

No, it's you.


Simply
looking up the nameplate Amp or Watt rating doesn't tell the whole story
as it is only the peak draw and more often than not is quite different
than the normal operating draw. That CRT TV may well draw the nameplate
1.2 Amps for a few milliseconds on startup, but operating is more like
.4 Amps. Perform the real world measurements on your old and new TV and
then see if you feel the difference is huge.

I still don't know what you meant when you said you were "in the video world for
15 years". Are you a sales associate at Best Buy? Or did you just mean that you
don't live in the real world?

15+ years of video production engineering, another 10+ of audio
production engineering, and a lot of other technical experience in other
areas.


Me? My electronics education, which encompasses formal education, aprenticeship,
and self study, started when televisions didn't have any transistors, and the
wiring was all point to point. When Sony came out with Beta, people were coming
from NYC to my store in South Norwalk Connecticut, because I had in house
service. Could find that in NYC. I did the same thing when Cellular phones came
on the scene. I was set up to service cellphones a year before the system went
online in Connecticut. The phone company techs were bringing various phones to
ME for evaluation to see how well they would work with their as yet, untested
system.

So you're either retired now and haven't worked on anything in a decade
or two, or you're working at the local grocery store after your TV and
VCR business went under because everything is disposable these days (not
that that's a good thing).

Either way, if you have that experience then you should have enough
sense to realize that the nameplate Amp or Watt rating is not a
meaningful measure of the actual operating draw.


I think I can figure out which TV uses more energy, thank you. :')

Only if you make actual measurements.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:31:54 -0500, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

an_Musicant wrote:
: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
: Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
: maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
: minutes at a time only.
:
: I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
: wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
: halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
: shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.
:
: Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
: work in this country.
:
:You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
:Let the market decide.

Did I say they are doing a good job? See, that's what psychologists call
"projection." If I thought they were doing a good job I wouldn't have
said I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes a year in their
company. Sheesh.

:I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
:in the long run, I save money.

I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and worse,
you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than selfish
reasons.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

:Frank wrote:
: Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
: Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
: maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
: minutes at a time only.
:
: I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
: wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
: halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
: shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.
:
: Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
: work in this country.
:
:
: You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
: Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
: in the long run, I save money.
:
:I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
:correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.
:
:If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
:truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
:replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
:environment.
:
:nate
:
cheap *******)

Cool, Nate. I'm 100% with you there, being the same way myself. I could
tell some tales, oh yeah.

It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt *or 150 megawatts.

NOT TRUE wherever did you get that idea?

Mark

"willshak" wrote in message


I have neither a plasma nor LCD TV. I do notice that the plasma TVs on
display at the local stores put out a lot of heat through the vents at the
back. The LCDs put out heat too, but not as much as the plasmas. I did
compare both TVs with the same screen size.

Not a 100% perfect comparison, but the 19" CRT TV in our bedroom is rated a
1.2 amps while my 19" computer monitor is 55W.

Jim Redelfs wrote:
The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry,
kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric
lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on
the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF
lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world
cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. Conservation alone is
NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. We have adequate stores of
fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or
warm and productive. Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby,
do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our
land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact
YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do it because of
some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're
wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Nonsense- to the assertion that extracting fossil fuels faster will
solve our problems. It'll just bring forward the day of reckoning what
to do when it becomes unaffordable.

There's so much we can do to reduce demand and make much better use of
what's in the "pipeline" and what's yet to be invented.

Consensus among many seems to be that there's no single solution. Maybe
opening our minds to reasonable means to cure our coal/oil/gas addiction
will help, AND provide marketable solutions for the rest of the planet.

John

Consumer Reports and Popular Mechanics magazine recently revieved
CFLs with color rendition and start up times, I think Popular
mechanics rated HDs brand very well, at the top , every year here
ComEd subsides CFLs in Nov so you only pay 1$ a bulb I got quit a few.
In can lights there are some special retrofits that work well but
Halogens I agree are best.

I'd love to find some recessed lighting that works with CFLs. I was at the
BORG today, and all the recessed lighting used incandescents. I've almost
switched to CFLs, and won't go back.

If the idiot suits in Detroit can't design and market a decent car, then
they should be fired.

Buck Turgidson wrote:

Consumer Reports and Popular Mechanics magazine recently revieved
CFLs with color rendition and start up times, I think Popular
mechanics rated HDs brand very well, at the top , every year here
ComEd subsides CFLs in Nov so you only pay 1$ a bulb I got quit a few.
In can lights there are some special retrofits that work well but
Halogens I agree are best.

I'd love to find some recessed lighting that works with CFLs. I was at the
BORG today, and all the recessed lighting used incandescents. I've almost
switched to CFLs, and won't go back.

Most of those "incandescent" recessed fixtures will accept CFLs, they
have adjustable socket position to accommodate the longer CFL base. I've
also seen the true CFL recessed fixtures that take the pin based CFLs
and have the ballast in the fixture at Depot.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message


I have neither a plasma nor LCD TV. I do notice that the plasma TVs on
display at the local stores put out a lot of heat through the vents at the
back. The LCDs put out heat too, but not as much as the plasmas. I did
compare both TVs with the same screen size.

Not a 100% perfect comparison, but the 19" CRT TV in our bedroom is rated a
1.2 amps while my 19" computer monitor is 55W.

Put a Kill-a-Watt or other meter on those and see how far off the real
operating draw is from the peak draw that the label lists. My comment of
the .4 Amp operating draw vs. 1.2 Amp nameplate rating is based on
actual measurements on a 17" CRT monitor.

Dan_Musicant wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

:Frank wrote:
: Dan_Musicant wrote:
:
: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
: Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
: maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
: minutes at a time only.
:
: I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
: wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
: halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
: shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.
:
: Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
: work in this country.
:
:
: You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
: Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
: in the long run, I save money.
:
:I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
:correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.
:
:If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
:truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
:replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
:environment.
:
:nate
:
cheap *******)

Cool, Nate. I'm 100% with you there, being the same way myself. I could
tell some tales, oh yeah.

Absolutely. I repair most everything myself and get far more useful
service life from most items than I expect the average person does.

Dan_Musicant wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:31:54 -0500, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

an_Musicant wrote:
: Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
: Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
: maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
: minutes at a time only.
:
: I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
: wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
: halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
: shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.
:
: Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
: work in this country.
:
:You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
:Let the market decide.

Did I say they are doing a good job? See, that's what psychologists call
"projection." If I thought they were doing a good job I wouldn't have
said I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes a year in their
company. Sheesh.

:I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
:in the long run, I save money.

I get it, like a lot of people you believe in being selfish, and worse,
you ridicule people who do things for reasons other than selfish
reasons.

There is nothing selfish about being practical and frugal. Those who
suggest there is are typically trying to justify their ego stroking
activities.

Mark wrote:

It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt or 150 megawatts.

NOT TRUE wherever did you get that idea?

Mark

I think he was trying to say that the water flowing through a
hydroelectric generating facility has the same available energy whether
you utilize it or not, so you may as well utilize all that is available.

Phisherman wrote in
news
On 23 Dec 2007 17:47:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"S. Barker" wrote in news:Z8-
:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

people who can't afford cable or dish TV.

I have an antenna--that's all I need to watch PBS which is the only
programs I watch anyway. And, I get high definition (from the
antenna) on my 50" plasma screen. Not a question of cost, just don't
need cable nor an ugly dish.


IIRC,I recall reading that 15% of the TV viewership in the US does not have
cable(or dish TV).

I could be wrong,though.

But that crap about "who's on an antenna anyways?" is elitist.
Cable/dishTV is not free.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Pete C." wrote in
:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get
usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament
lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to
change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of
every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a
madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint
them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well
please doesn't work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good
job. Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the
planet but because in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being
ecologically correct are two subsets of the population with
significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is
well and truly no longer usable and no longer repairable
before purchasing a replacement is one of the best things you
can possibly do for the environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I
bought my primary home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in
the basement. I paid someone $75 to haul it away. When it was
operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple
of months, and replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm
Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you
may well find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing
LCD with Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not
that different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger
CRTs and LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to
overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably
different when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are
including LCD projectors, which are not part of this discussion at
all.

I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and
record the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the
new LCD. Report back on the difference.


my 12" Quasar CRT TV says max 55 watts on it's back.
IIRC,my 15" PC CRT monitor had similar consumption.
My old 19" JVC CRT TV's manual says 123W.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Red wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:28 am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.


I agree, especially in areas where electricity is produced by
hydroelectric plants. It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt or 150 megawatts.


No, generator output is roughly proportional to the volume of water used
so it would require substantially more water flow to raise the generator
output 150x.


Politicians want us, the ones who care, to assume all the guilt and do
something. Yet to you think for a minute that Las Vegas will ever
change out their lights for more efficient ones? Or any government
limit each family to only one car? Or the airlines cut back on the
number of flights? No, instead they'll all keep on doing business as
usual and ask us to change out a light bulb or two.

Red

On Dec 23, 4:40*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Mark wrote:

*It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt *or 150 megawatts.

NOT TRUE *wherever did you get that idea?

Mark

I think he was trying to say that the water flowing through a
hydroelectric generating facility has the same available energy whether
you utilize it or not, so you may as well utilize all that is available.

I specified hydroelectric and that is indeed what I meant.

Red

Jim Yanik wrote:

Phisherman wrote in
news
On 23 Dec 2007 17:47:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"S. Barker" wrote in news:Z8-
:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

people who can't afford cable or dish TV.

I have an antenna--that's all I need to watch PBS which is the only
programs I watch anyway. And, I get high definition (from the
antenna) on my 50" plasma screen. Not a question of cost, just don't
need cable nor an ugly dish.


IIRC,I recall reading that 15% of the TV viewership in the US does not have
cable(or dish TV).

That number is probably correct, but like many other statistics for such
a large and diverse country as the US, it is somewhat deceptive. In many
urban areas the OTA market is probably less than 1% while in rural areas
OTA may be 75%. Either way, OTA as a whole is struggling to adapt to
their rapidly shrinking market.


I could be wrong,though.

But that crap about "who's on an antenna anyways?" is elitist.
Cable/dishTV is not free.

No, it isn't and down the road OTA may not be free either.

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from
coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp.


Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

If anything,we should be converting our coal to auto fuels,and drilling in
ANWR for more US oil.And buying from Canada.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get
usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament
lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to
change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of
every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a
madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint
them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well
please doesn't work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good
job. Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the
planet but because in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being
ecologically correct are two subsets of the population with
significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is
well and truly no longer usable and no longer repairable
before purchasing a replacement is one of the best things you
can possibly do for the environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I
bought my primary home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in
the basement. I paid someone $75 to haul it away. When it was
operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple
of months, and replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm
Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you
may well find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing
LCD with Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not
that different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger
CRTs and LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to
overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably
different when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are
including LCD projectors, which are not part of this discussion at
all.

I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and
record the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the
new LCD. Report back on the difference.


my 12" Quasar CRT TV says max 55 watts on it's back.
IIRC,my 15" PC CRT monitor had similar consumption.
My old 19" JVC CRT TV's manual says 123W.

If you put an actual meter on them you'll find their operating draw is a
fair amount less. That max is based on cold startup which includes short
duration loads such as the degaussing coil around the CRT.

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
"S. Barker" wrote:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

We all are, whether it is atop a house, in an attic or at a CATV
provider's head-in, whether the signal emanates from atop a 1,000-ft
broadcast tower or from a blob of electronics orbiting 17,500 miles
above.

There are still thousands of over-the-air broadcasters that would
quickly retire that aspect (a HUGE aspect) of their business were
there not sufficient, operating receivers.

Operating and maintaining a powerful transmitter from atop a very
high mast is a costly thing, indeed. They wouldn't do it if it
wasn't making them money.

The OTA folks are making less and less money these days and are
desperately trying to find a new business model that will keep them
afloat. If they were not in such dire straights they would not have
made such a stink over silly must-carry rules to force their signals
to be carried on cable systems.

the "must-carry" "stink" was mostly by religious broadcasters who would get
left out or stuck in the least desirable channels if left to market
conditions.Even home shopping is more popular than religious
broadcasting.(which is mostly profitable for the preacher's lifestyles.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Pete C." wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get
usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament
lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to
change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of
every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a
madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint
them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well
please doesn't work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good
job. Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the
planet but because in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being
ecologically correct are two subsets of the population with
significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is
well and truly no longer usable and no longer repairable
before purchasing a replacement is one of the best things you
can possibly do for the environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I
bought my primary home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in
the basement. I paid someone $75 to haul it away. When it was
operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple
of months, and replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm
Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you
may well find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing
LCD with Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not
that different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger
CRTs and LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to
overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably
different when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are
including LCD projectors, which are not part of this discussion at
all.

I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and
record the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the
new LCD. Report back on the difference.


my 12" Quasar CRT TV says max 55 watts on it's back.
IIRC,my 15" PC CRT monitor had similar consumption.
My old 19" JVC CRT TV's manual says 123W.

If you put an actual meter on them you'll find their operating draw is a
fair amount less. That max is based on cold startup which includes short
duration loads such as the degaussing coil around the CRT.


I know,I work in electronics. I was just citing some actual TV examples.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from
coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp.


Then they want us to convert to electric autos...
Using nuclear power plants will eliminate even more mercury emissions.

If anything,we should be converting our coal to auto fuels,and drilling in
ANWR for more US oil.And buying from Canada.

What we really should do is:

- Quickly build a number of new nuclear plants (which have a long safe
emissions free track record)

- Shut down all of the emissions belching coal and NG plants

- Provide separately metered very low cost electricity for charging
electric vehicles / plug in hybrids

- Provide low cost NG for commercial vehicles, providing an incentive to
convert some of the critical trucking from diesel.

- Drill ANWR using the proven clean, safe directional drilling
technology from a limited number of locations located at the edges of
ANWR and having near zero environmental impact.

- Provide support for development of practical renewable resources as
appropriate for a given area, without preferences that lead to
impractical development that leads to construction of facilities for the
initial subsidies and then subsequent write off of operating losses.

- Provide protection from baseless NIMBY lawsuits, baseless
environmentalist lawsuits, HOA restrictions, etc. for development and
installation of renewable facilities, both commercial and private.

Plenty more that should be done, but those are starters. Of course
something like this starts to become a comprehensive energy policy,
something our useless government (both left and right wings) can't
manage to put together.

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get
usable light. Some are nearly instant on. The only filament
lamps I use at all are maybe a couple I haven't bothered to
change that I leave on for 5-10 minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal
lawmakers. I wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of
every year sitting in the halls of congress. I know it's a
madhouse, but walk a mile in their shoes before you paint
them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well
please doesn't work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good
job. Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the
planet but because in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being
ecologically correct are two subsets of the population with
significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is
well and truly no longer usable and no longer repairable
before purchasing a replacement is one of the best things you
can possibly do for the environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I
bought my primary home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in
the basement. I paid someone $75 to haul it away. When it was
operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple
of months, and replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm
Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you
may well find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing
LCD with Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not
that different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger
CRTs and LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to
overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably
different when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are
including LCD projectors, which are not part of this discussion at
all.

I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and
record the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the
new LCD. Report back on the difference.


my 12" Quasar CRT TV says max 55 watts on it's back.
IIRC,my 15" PC CRT monitor had similar consumption.
My old 19" JVC CRT TV's manual says 123W.

If you put an actual meter on them you'll find their operating draw is a
fair amount less. That max is based on cold startup which includes short
duration loads such as the degaussing coil around the CRT.


I know,I work in electronics. I was just citing some actual TV examples.

The 1.2A nameplate vs. .4A operating I cited was based on an actual 17"
CRT monitor.

Red writes:

On Dec 23, 4:40*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Mark wrote:

*It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt *or 150 megawatts.

NOT TRUE *wherever did you get that idea?

Mark

I think he was trying to say that the water flowing through a
hydroelectric generating facility has the same available energy whether
you utilize it or not, so you may as well utilize all that is available.

I specified hydroelectric and that is indeed what I meant.

But that isn't what you said.
The volume and head (height) of the water determine how much
energy can be produced at the turbine.

It takes a lot more water or much greater height
to turn a 150 megawatt turbine than
it takes to turn a 1 megawatt turbine.

I am not a hydraulic engineer, it just makes sense.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:08:10 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Plenty more that should be done, but those are starters. Of course
something like this starts to become a comprehensive energy policy,
something our useless government (both left and right wings) can't
manage to put together.

They passed a light bulb bill, I can't remember the other bill.

One Senator here is called "Pinkey" or something like that. The other
one is a Veterinarian. Don't tell me I'm in luck!

Pete C. wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:


The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.
However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps
won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our
ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our
ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly
UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the
world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs.
Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem.
We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's
grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we
can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think
they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off
limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental
impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do
it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact.
That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when
vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska
Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the
environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened.
They were WRONG. They're wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if
there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Hmmm,
I am waiting for LED bulbs.

Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner.
LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down.
I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb.


I'd have to see those to believe them, unless they are the purely
cosmetic kind. I've yet to see any LED source that can compare to a 400W
HID source.
Hi,
The high tech commercial version with solar charger is a reality which
at present beyond common consumer market. Banff main street just
underwent a total facelift and that's what they chose. It's real thing!
60W light bulb comparable LED one is ~80.00 at present. Think it's
matter o time the swill drop. My sauna interior and exterior light
is LED packs with multi-color option for mood. I can set it to single
color or dancing random color. No heat, no burning for LONG time.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:


The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.
However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps
won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our
ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our
ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly
UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the
world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs.
Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem.
We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's
grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we
can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think
they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off
limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental
impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do
it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact.
That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when
vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska
Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the
environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened.
They were WRONG. They're wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if
there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Hmmm,
I am waiting for LED bulbs.

Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner.
LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down.
I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb.


I'd have to see those to believe them, unless they are the purely
cosmetic kind. I've yet to see any LED source that can compare to a 400W
HID source.
Hi,
The high tech commercial version with solar charger is a reality which
at present beyond common consumer market. Banff main street just
underwent a total facelift and that's what they chose. It's real thing!
60W light bulb comparable LED one is ~80.00 at present. Think it's
matter o time the swill drop. My sauna interior and exterior light
is LED packs with multi-color option for mood. I can set it to single
color or dancing random color. No heat, no burning for LONG time.

I have no doubt LEDs will get where they need to be fairly quickly.
Certainly the LED traffic signals and LED warning light bars are now
quite good. The 60W equiv. LED light for $80 is competing with CFLs at
$1.50 and with a color temperature and light distribution that just
isn't acceptable yet. Fix the color temp, light distribution and get the
cost down to $20 and they'll probably start selling in reasonable
quantity.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry,
kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric
lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on
the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF
lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world
cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. Conservation alone is
NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. We have adequate stores of
fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or
warm and productive. Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby,
do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our
land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact
YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do it because of
some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're
wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Looks like I'll be going back to kerosene lamps and candles for
lighting. I wont allow those compact florescents anywhere near my
home. I almost lost my home last year because of one of these things.
The damn thing caught on fire. Luckily I was able to put it out, but
not without significant damage to my ceiling and destroying the light
fixture.

Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.
Next he's mandate we are only allowed to use one square of toilet
paper per day and will require we all spend our own money to buy the
toilet paper sheet counter. What makes this any different from taking
away our tv signal and forcing everyone on the country to buy a
converter. Of course the gov't dont tell us the whole reason for
this. That's because the cellphone companies paid the gov't to steal
our airwaves so they can make big profits from them.

Of course after they take away our guns, they'll start sending people
to prison for possessing incandescent lightbulbs shipped by ebay
sellers from the UK, while taxpayers pay the prison expenses and pay
to have lightbulb detectors installed at every post office.

To say it exactly the way I feel. Bush and his whole corrupt political
party can go straight to hell. If he wants to send his goon squad to
my home to inspect my lightbulbs, this old man still knows how to
kill, courtesy of the Republican party's very own Nixon sending me to
Nam, to fight another useless Republican inspired war.

The best way to fight the goons in Washington is to disconnect
yourself from their system. Produce your own wind powered
electricity, heat with firewood, make your own auto fuel, and barter
for everything to avoid paying taxes to these crooks. I'd really like
them to come and tell me to disconnect the incandescent bulbs from my
own wind generator. I'd really like to see them try !!!

Daryl

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

In article , wrote:

Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.

Idiot. That bill came from the Democrat-controlled *Congress*, not from the
President.

[snip]
To say it exactly the way I feel. Bush and his whole corrupt political
party can go straight to hell. If he wants to send his goon squad to
my home to inspect my lightbulbs, this old man still knows how to
kill, courtesy of the Republican party's very own Nixon sending me to
Nam, to fight another useless Republican inspired war.

Idiot. Nixon the Republican *ended* that war, which Kennedy the Democrat
started, and Johnson the Democrat escalated far out of control.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:44:09 -0600, wrote:

Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.

Explain it to me Lucy; hurry up, I have Bongo lessons.!

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:06:28 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

kill, courtesy of the Republican party's very own Nixon sending me to
Nam, to fight another useless Republican inspired war.

A Conflict! And not a War.

Idiot. Nixon the Republican *ended* that war, which Kennedy the Democrat
started, and Johnson the Democrat escalated far out of control.

Think, Gulf of Tonkin; regarding LBJ.

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Once again, Bush is taking away our freedoms as American citizens.

Idiot. That bill came from the Democrat-controlled *Congress*, not from the
President.

The Democrat-controlled Congress that doesn't have enough votes to
override a veto, thereby meaning NOTHING that comes out of that Congress
becomes law without the President's agreement and signature? Is that
the one you are talking about?

--
--Tim Smith

Buck Turgidson wrote:
If the idiot suits in Detroit can't design and market a decent car, then
they should be fired.


They _can_ make a decent car (I like my Saturn, for instance), but as
long as there's more money in the behemoth vehicles, that's what they'll
build.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:21:12 -0800, Dan_Musicant
wrote:


Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


Do us all a favor and leave the United States of America. This
country will be a much better place after you leave. You don't belong
here. You'd do much better in a country such as Iraq. Don't let the
door slam you in the ass as you leave.

Daryl

Huh? You think anarchy is preferable to reasonable regulation?

I might prefer to just dump my garbage on your lawn. Would that
work for you?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .