Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , The Daring Dufas wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Josepi wrote:
Get some real lights on that boat and a decent news browser so you can
understand what you are reading.


LOL

wrote in message
...
PLONK for unremitting idiocy
Oh, and if you *insist* on using Outhouse Express, at least configure it
properly. And it's a "mail client" acting as a "newsreader" not a
"browser," you ****wit.

http://mailformat.dan.info/config/oex.html
I see the guy recommends "QuoteFix" which is what I used years ago
when I had Outlook Express as my newsreader. I don't understand
why so many people are resistant to bottom posting and following
Usenet conventions. Some folks are just contrary.

TDD

What - Outlook fails to follow quoting convention, while the email/news
software in the Netscape 4.7 package does? (Not that I post much with
that either...)

I did not know that since I never use Outlook for anything. For one
thing, I have heard half a bazillion complaints over most of the past
several years how it is more vulnerable to e-mail viruses than what I use
for e-mail, including the mail/news software in Netscape 4.7 and webmail
services and the mail software in my Unix shell account, or even Eudora.

If Outlook also fails to add quotation symbols in material being
responded to, then I agree with calling it Outhouse!

- Don Klipstein )

I've been using Thunderbird as a newsreader for a while now and it
does everything I want it to do. I don't use it for Email because
all my Email accounts are web based, like G-mail, Hotmail, etc.

TDD

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Josepi wrote:

Exactly. That is why it is so important to go with the top posting
standard your browser was designed to provide.

Except most people on Usenet use news or email/news software.

I have yet to find any, not even that included in Netscape 4.7, designed
to favor top or bottom posting one way or another. This means go with the
flow - post bottom or interleaved!

If people really wanted clarity they wouldn't spam every group with a long
advertising signature that confuses all the threading techniques, no matter
which one is used.

Most Usenet posts I read are done by those with signature line count 5
or less, maybe majority have signature line count of 1. Usenet ettiquette
sources advise to limit signature line count to 5 or 4.

Meanwhile, top-posting gets more complaints than long signatures.
Top-posting often gets the new material not appearing adjacent to the
material that it is in response to. Combine this with lack of a quotation
symbol ("greater than symbol") added at the beginning of each line
being quoted, and it makes reading your posts even more of a chore.

Now I gotta add below the ones you don't like to in order to make faster
reading easier!

- Don Klipstein )


There is an infamous bellicose bore who posts to some of the other
groups I peruse and this particular fellow has an obnoxious signature
that takes up a page or more. He accuses anyone who disapproves of his
sig or the contents of his posts of obsessing about him. It makes him
so much fun to tease but he also occupies many kill files and kill
filters.

TDD

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:34:16 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]


I've been using Thunderbird as a newsreader for a while now and it
does everything I want it to do. I don't use it for Email because
all my Email accounts are web based, like G-mail, Hotmail, etc.

TDD

A lot of those (web-based email systems) add spam to every message you
send, making you look bad. That's one thing I WILL NOT tolerate for my
email.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 04:41:10 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

[snip]

Now I gotta add below the ones you don't like to in order to make faster
reading easier!


Also, some newsreaders will recognize quoted material (requiring the
'') and show it in a different color, so it's easier to find the
original stuff. To make that easier, it helps to put blank lines
before and after original material.

- Don Klipstein )

[snip]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:22:34 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

"How could you ask me to believe in God when
there's absolutely no evidence that I can see?"
-- Jodie Foster

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen." -- Apostle Paul


Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to
"magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to
grow up.

I like Jodie Foster. She's an incredibly talented actress.
But for instruction in matters as important as the existence
(or not) of God I'm not sure she's your best bet.

Strange that you would assume I was using quotations for instruction.

Here's another that's not at all for that purpose:

god is real - unless declared integer

As to God, consider the difference between it and Santa Claus, The
Tooth Fairy, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Last Thursday's Cat,
The Great Pumpkin, and millions of other mythical beings.

Merry Christmas, Mark.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

Gary H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:34:16 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]

I've been using Thunderbird as a newsreader for a while now and it
does everything I want it to do. I don't use it for Email because
all my Email accounts are web based, like G-mail, Hotmail, etc.

TDD

A lot of those (web-based email systems) add spam to every message you
send, making you look bad. That's one thing I WILL NOT tolerate for my
email.

I don't seem to have a problem with it, none of the recipients of
any Email from me have ever complained about Gmail or Hotmail. I
use Gmail the most and I like the Gmail Spam filter, it catches 99%
or more of the crap. I know, I'll send myself some Email and I'll
discover whether or not I'm despicable!

TDD

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:10:10 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]

I don't seem to have a problem with it, none of the recipients of
any Email from me have ever complained about Gmail or Hotmail. I
use Gmail the most and I like the Gmail Spam filter, it catches 99%
or more of the crap. I know, I'll send myself some Email and I'll
discover whether or not I'm despicable!

TDD

I don't know about Gmail. I have gotten email from Hotmail, and they
added THEIR OWN crap (falsely identified as from the sender of the
email).

Also, the fact that nobody complained doesn't mean that much. People
get the idea they have to accept things, no matter how crappy.
Consider the frozen "beef" enchiladas filled with what looks and
tastes like runny dog food.

Thanx for the information. I have never experiemented with light much. This
would make interesting studies with all the lighting spectrum hype and
lighting technologies being launched.

We'll see what the compalints about ESL lighting are once it becomes more
common.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
The principle is different.

A prism refracts (bends) different wavelengths of light unequally.

A diffraction grating works with diffraction - light hitting or grazing
small objects is bent or even reflected into random directions or a range
of random directions.
The grating has a large number of equally-spaced grooves. That causes
the light to go only where the various paths (one for each groove) have
distance from light source to destination differ from each other in length
by only whole numbers of wavelengths, so that constructive interference
occurs.

The effect remains similar to that of a prism. The biggest
functional differences between a prism and a diffraction grating a

1. It can be tricky or necessary to use additional optics to get a
well-spread-out spectrum of good quality. A diffraction grating all by
itself easily produces a nice spectrum.

2. With a prism, the violet end of the spectrum tends to get stretched
outand the red end tends to get squished. Variation of refractive index
of transparent materials with change in wavelength tends to be greater at
shorter wavelengths than at longer wavelengths.

3. Some gratings are of reflective type. A CD or DVD is an example of a
reflective grating.

Some "spindle packs" of recordable CDs or DVDs have a clear one at the
top and sometimes the clear one has the grooves - and that makes that
thing an example of a transmissive diffraction grating.

- Don Klipstein )

Sometimes just leaving things alone is much more economical than making
complex solutions to resolve perceived economic problems.

I remember the new Energy Star usage ratings the US announced a few years
ago. Some people were getting randy about the huge losses in a freezer and
how we were stupid for not throwing out all our old appliances. Turns out
the $10 dollars per year, wasted, would never be paid for, in most of our
lifetimes, by throwing out my 30 year old freezer with no insulation in the
lid. OTOH Canada has had Energy Star usage tags and programmes for more than
30 years now.

The whole package has to be considered and determined.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
How about when the heating is other than resistive electric heat or
unneeded year-round, and therefore CFLs are more economical than
incandescents year-round?

- Don Klipstein )



In article , JimH wrote:
Simply install two lighting systems, and use the appropriate switches in
summer or winter. Even better, automate the system so that the same
switches will power the correct set of fixtures based on the outside
temperature. (That makes it on topic for an automation news group.)


Josepi wrote:
LOL. Yup, economic OCD is difficult.


"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Nothing like having to go around and change to the other set
of light bulbs, twice a year. How would you know when to
perform such change?

Gary H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:10:10 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]

I don't seem to have a problem with it, none of the recipients of
any Email from me have ever complained about Gmail or Hotmail. I
use Gmail the most and I like the Gmail Spam filter, it catches 99%
or more of the crap. I know, I'll send myself some Email and I'll
discover whether or not I'm despicable!

TDD

I don't know about Gmail. I have gotten email from Hotmail, and they
added THEIR OWN crap (falsely identified as from the sender of the
email).

Also, the fact that nobody complained doesn't mean that much. People
get the idea they have to accept things, no matter how crappy.
Consider the frozen "beef" enchiladas filled with what looks and
tastes like runny dog food.

How do you know what runny dog food tastes like? Hummmm?

TDD

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:27:32 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Gary H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:10:10 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]

I don't seem to have a problem with it, none of the recipients of
any Email from me have ever complained about Gmail or Hotmail. I
use Gmail the most and I like the Gmail Spam filter, it catches 99%
or more of the crap. I know, I'll send myself some Email and I'll
discover whether or not I'm despicable!

TDD

I don't know about Gmail. I have gotten email from Hotmail, and they
added THEIR OWN crap (falsely identified as from the sender of the
email).

Also, the fact that nobody complained doesn't mean that much. People
get the idea they have to accept things, no matter how crappy.
Consider the frozen "beef" enchiladas filled with what looks and
tastes like runny dog food.

How do you know what runny dog food tastes like? Hummmm?

TDD

Actually it LOOKS like runny dog food and tastes almost, but not quite
entirely unlike beef.

On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining
of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the
environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in
the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution.

You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.

Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination)
contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead
of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns
"cleaner", with less mercury emitted.

If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same
mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it
than if you use an incandescent bulb.

Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting
power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's
start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one
could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that
hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of
coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:33:47 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining
of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the
environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in
the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution.

You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.

Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination)
contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead
of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns
"cleaner", with less mercury emitted.

If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same
mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it
than if you use an incandescent bulb.

Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting
power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's
start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one
could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that
hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of
coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.

Oh, I think you can count on the fact that there will be fewer new
coal burning power plants built. CFL's will certainly be able to take
credit for some of that. And, in fact, existing power plants in some
areas may be able to take part of their capacity offline resulting in
fewer mercury emissions as well.

None of this really addresses either energy consumtion or pollution,
though. The underlying problem for both is TOO MANY PEOPLE.

We don't need more generating capacity, or new sources of energy. We
need to reverse population growth, and stop spending so much money and
effort on making people live longer.

Gary H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:27:32 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Gary H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:10:10 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]

I don't seem to have a problem with it, none of the recipients of
any Email from me have ever complained about Gmail or Hotmail. I
use Gmail the most and I like the Gmail Spam filter, it catches 99%
or more of the crap. I know, I'll send myself some Email and I'll
discover whether or not I'm despicable!

TDD
I don't know about Gmail. I have gotten email from Hotmail, and they
added THEIR OWN crap (falsely identified as from the sender of the
email).

Also, the fact that nobody complained doesn't mean that much. People
get the idea they have to accept things, no matter how crappy.
Consider the frozen "beef" enchiladas filled with what looks and
tastes like runny dog food.
How do you know what runny dog food tastes like? Hummmm?

TDD

Actually it LOOKS like runny dog food and tastes almost, but not quite
entirely unlike beef.

Oh, you had me worried there for a minute. The stuff is probably soy
protein. *snicker*

TDD

In article , Josepi wrote:
Sometimes just leaving things alone is much more economical than making
complex solutions to resolve perceived economic problems.

I remember the new Energy Star usage ratings the US announced a few years
ago. Some people were getting randy about the huge losses in a freezer and
how we were stupid for not throwing out all our old appliances. Turns out
the $10 dollars per year, wasted, would never be paid for, in most of our
lifetimes, by throwing out my 30 year old freezer with no insulation in the
lid. OTOH Canada has had Energy Star usage tags and programmes for more than
30 years now.

All too often, 30 yearold fridges consume more like $6-$10 per month
more than new ones.

- Don Klipstein )

The whole package has to be considered and determined.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...

and *again*, you left the following lines short a quotation symbol each.

How about when the heating is other than resistive electric heat or
unneeded year-round, and therefore CFLs are more economical than
incandescents year-round?

In article , JimH wrote:
Simply install two lighting systems, and use the appropriate switches in
summer or winter. Even better, automate the system so that the same
switches will power the correct set of fixtures based on the outside
temperature. (That makes it on topic for an automation news group.)

SNIP from here to edit for space

- Don Klipstein )

In article m, David
Nebenzahl wrote:
On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining
of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the
environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in
the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution.

You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.

Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination)
contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead
of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns
"cleaner", with less mercury emitted.

Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity.

If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same
mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it
than if you use an incandescent bulb.

That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and
hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related
operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to
load.)

Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting
power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's
start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one
could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that
hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of
coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.

CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents
that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the
population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were
replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be
even worse.

SNIP from here

- Don Klipstein )

Feel free to rename all the character sets, if desired. Some may even
understand part of your messages.

I have never seen anybody use a quotation symbol for marking lines.
Quotation marks usually mean a quotation from a previous piece of text. I
think that would be why they are called that.


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
| and *again*, you left the following lines short a quotation symbol each.
|
|
| - Don Klipstein )

Many CFLs are a third harmonic problem for the electrical distribution grid.
Some claim this may have been resolved in later designs but many don't know
the difference between power factor and third harmonics, either.

Transformers must use different designs to help eliminate third harmonics
from these nasty bulbs (including HID lamps) and it still depends on
balanced three phase harmonic distribution at about 6-10 million dollars per
transformer. These nasty little glitches will make love to your furnace and
fridge motor. Now who's saving money?...LOL

(**** your bottom confusion. It's not worth educating some)


"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
| In article m, David
| Nebenzahl wrote:
| On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:
|
| Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce
mining
| of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the
| environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in
| the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury
pollution.
|
| You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.
|
| Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination)
| contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL instead
| of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow, magically turns
| "cleaner", with less mercury emitted.
|
| Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity.
|
| If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same
| mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of it
| than if you use an incandescent bulb.
|
| That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and
| hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related
| operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to
| load.)
|
| Now, it's true that if *enough* people used CFLs, *and* if the resulting
| power savings were enough for the power companies to say, "Hey, let's
| start shutting down our dirty old coal-fired power plants", then one
| could truly say that the use of CFLs reduces mercury emissions. But that
| hasn't happened yet. Nowhere near it. They're still burning lots of
| coal, and planning on building even *more* coal-fired plants.
|
| CFLs are merely slowing demand growth. Most of the incandescents
| that can be replaced with CFLs are not yet replaced with CFLs, the
| population is growing, along with use of larger TV sets. If all CFLs were
| replaced with incandescents of same light output, the situation would be
| even worse.
|
| SNIP from here
|
| - Don Klipstein )

On 12/26/2009 6:47 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article m, David
Nebenzahl wrote:

On 11/21/2009 9:28 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

Compared to incandescents, in USA on average CFLs actually reduce mining
of mercury-containing materials and transfering mercury to the
environment. This is because about half of all electricity produced in
the USA is obtained by burning coal, a major source of mercury pollution.

You know, we've only heard you say this here about, oh, 117,000 times.

Your assertion (about CFLs resulting in less mercury contamination)
contains a *major* fallacy. It implies that when one use a CFL
instead of an incandescent light bulb, the electricity somehow,
magically turns "cleaner", with less mercury emitted.

Yes, less mercury is emitted, because you use 70-75% less electricity.

If you run a CFL, your electricity *still* comes from the same
mercury-spewing coal-fired power plant. You're just using less of
it than if you use an incandescent bulb.

That does get power companies to crank down their plants. The nukes and
hydropower will be the last ones to crank down, because their load-related
operating costs are low. (Most of the cost of nukes is unrelated to
load.)

Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to.

In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it.

Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the
electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So
far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use
your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total*
usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an
electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I
get from CFLs. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that
I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage.

That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in
electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there
are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company
can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They
can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. So even
though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't
mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front
end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well).


--
I am a Canadian who was born and raised in The Netherlands. I live on
Planet Earth on a spot of land called Canada. We have noisy neighbours.

- harvested from Usenet

"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to
"magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to
grow up.

It's an interesting quandary. Jodie says that there is no evidence that she can
see and therefore she does not believe. Christianity teaches that faith *is*
the evidence of things unseen. :^)

Your choice of words is excellent. According to Christian beliefs, we're
supposed to have "faith like a little child."

Strange that you would assume I was using quotations for instruction.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking her comments as instruction.

Here's another that's not at all for that purpose:

god is real - unless declared integer

That one's over my head. :^)

As to God, consider the difference between it and Santa Claus, The
Tooth Fairy, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Last Thursday's Cat,
The Great Pumpkin, and millions of other mythical beings.

I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths no
matter how many children believe in them.
2. God is real if you believe.
3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the
making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is
unseen -- that one proves God's existence.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe.
I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your own
choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would
be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's
something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect
your right not to believe.

--

Regards,
Robert

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to
"magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to
grow up.

It's an interesting quandary. Jodie says that there is no evidence that she can
see and therefore she does not believe. Christianity teaches that faith *is*
the evidence of things unseen. :^)

Your choice of words is excellent. According to Christian beliefs, we're
supposed to have "faith like a little child."

Strange that you would assume I was using quotations for instruction.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking her comments as instruction.

Here's another that's not at all for that purpose:

god is real - unless declared integer

That one's over my head. :^)

As to God, consider the difference between it and Santa Claus, The
Tooth Fairy, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Last Thursday's Cat,
The Great Pumpkin, and millions of other mythical beings.

I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths no
matter how many children believe in them.
2. God is real if you believe.
3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the
making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is
unseen -- that one proves God's existence.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe.
I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your own
choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would
be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's
something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect
your right not to believe.

Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:07:16 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]


Actually it LOOKS like runny dog food and tastes almost, but not quite
entirely unlike beef.

Oh, you had me worried there for a minute. The stuff is probably soy
protein. *snicker*

TDD

That sounds right. Very different from beef. I have made enchiladas
with beef and those are good.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to
"magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to
grow up.

It's an interesting quandary. Jodie says that there is no evidence that she can
see and therefore she does not believe. Christianity teaches that faith *is*
the evidence of things unseen. :^)

Your choice of words is excellent. According to Christian beliefs, we're
supposed to have "faith like a little child."


And never grow up. Growing up would be inconsistent with Christian
teaching.

Strange that you would assume I was using quotations for instruction.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking her comments as instruction.

OK, although I do wonder why people make that assumption.

Here's another that's not at all for that purpose:

god is real - unless declared integer

That one's over my head. :^)


Actually it depends on some specialized knowledge, about computer
programming. If you understand it, it's funny. If you don't understand
it, don't worry about it. I know what it means, and found it an
interesting thing to include in my list of quotations.

As to God, consider the difference between it and Santa Claus, The
Tooth Fairy, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Last Thursday's Cat,
The Great Pumpkin, and millions of other mythical beings.

I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths no
matter how many children believe in them.

And God will always be a myth no matter hop many people believe in
him. Where's the evidence of any difference here?

2. God is real if you believe.

Of course, it's real. A very real part of your imagination (The same
way Santa and the others are real if you believe). What would be wrong
would be the idea that somehow YOU control the external reality that
all people depend on.

Also, I can see my cat right here. There's no need for (the
non-serious form of) belief, as there is for God.

3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.


Most likely true, considering what and where God is.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in the
making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is
unseen -- that one proves God's existence.


Do you really think there's evidence in there? You said "that which is
unseen". Of course, unseen things can be real. Where is the evidence
to suggest this one is? Where is the evidence that even a little bit
useful to anyone who could use it?

That "evidence" no more points to God than to Last Thursday's Cat*.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to believe.
I can't prove it to you, only to me.

Notice the only people this "proof" works on is those who don't need
it. That's one of the characteristics of a scam.

To know for sure you have to make your own
choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I would
be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's
something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect
your right not to believe.

To me belief is something serious, "wanting" has nothing to do with
it. That would be fantasy, not belief. That's a good thing, a personal
one. I hope it stays personal.

=========

* in case you haven't heard, someone said, "My cat created the
universe last Thursday, along with everyone's false memories. There's
no way you can prove she didn't.".

BTW, I am not questioning Gods existence, but human behaviors such as
belief with no evidence.

BTW2, I have, for a long time, suspected there was something to this
"God" thing. I have never found anything, and have never given up.

BTW3, The other reason I get involved in this sort of thing is that I
have respect for people, and don't like to see them entangled in these
mind-destroying delusions. It's quite stressful so I can't do it very
often.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

Certainly puts things into perspective and formulates opinions, quickly.
OK, your LEDs are great, now. LOL

wrote in message
...
Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.


On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:
I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths
no
matter how many children believe in them.
2. God is real if you believe.
3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in
the
making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is
unseen -- that one proves God's existence.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to
believe.
I can't prove it to you, only to me. To know for sure you have to make your
own
choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I
would
be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's
something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to respect
your right not to believe.


"Mark Lloyd" wrote:
Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to
"magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to
grow up.

Your Easy-Bake Oven will never work again, either.

The lighting load is argued about 5% of the overal system load and redcuing
that by 50-75% doesn't make that much difference. But it's a start.

Where are everybody's solar PV and thermal panels? I have mine.


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
Here's what I meant to write in my earlier message but forgot to.

In *theory*, everything you say is true. In practice, I doubt it.

Think about it. Let's say I, and my neighbors, and a good chunk of the
electric customers hereabouts reduce their usage by installing CFLs. So
far as our *lighting* usage goes, we're using 70-75% less juice (to use
your figure). But that doesn't mean that we're reducing our *total*
usage by that much: me, I've got an electric water heater and an
electric dryer, so what they suck up pretty much swamps any savings I
get from CFLs. But no matter; let's say for the sake of discussion that
I (we) have significantly reduced our electricity usage.

That doesn't *necessarily* translate to the same amount of reduction in
electric power plant generation. Think about it: it's not as if there
are giant rheostats on coal-fired generators that the electric company
can use to calibrate their generating capacity to meet the load. They
can basically take a generating unit off-line or put it on-line. So even
though we use CFLs like the good citizens we are, that still doesn't
mean that we're reducing the amount of coal being shoveled in the front
end by the same amount (and reducing mercury emissions as well).
--

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

(messed up interlaced posting left a mess)

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote:

Faith is a good thing. The above doesn't refer to faith, but to
"magical thinking", a quality of small children and those who fail to
grow up.

It's an interesting quandary. Jodie says that there is no evidence that
she can
see and therefore she does not believe. Christianity teaches that faith
*is*
the evidence of things unseen. :^)

Your choice of words is excellent. According to Christian beliefs, we're
supposed to have "faith like a little child."


And never grow up. Growing up would be inconsistent with Christian
teaching.

Strange that you would assume I was using quotations for instruction.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were taking her comments as
instruction.

OK, although I do wonder why people make that assumption.

Here's another that's not at all for that purpose:

god is real - unless declared integer

That one's over my head. :^)


Actually it depends on some specialized knowledge, about computer
programming. If you understand it, it's funny. If you don't understand
it, don't worry about it. I know what it means, and found it an
interesting thing to include in my list of quotations.

As to God, consider the difference between it and Santa Claus, The
Tooth Fairy, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Zeus, Last Thursday's Cat,
The Great Pumpkin, and millions of other mythical beings.

I have considered the difference. Here's my take on it:
1. Santa and friends are indeed mythical beings. They will always be myths
no
matter how many children believe in them.

And God will always be a myth no matter hop many people believe in
him. Where's the evidence of any difference here?

2. God is real if you believe.

Of course, it's real. A very real part of your imagination (The same
way Santa and the others are real if you believe). What would be wrong
would be the idea that somehow YOU control the external reality that
all people depend on.

Also, I can see my cat right here. There's no need for (the
non-serious form of) belief, as there is for God.

3. If you don't believe in God, you will never know God.


Most likely true, considering what and where God is.

I'm no Biblical scholar but I've found this much evidence of God. It is in
the
making choice to believe -- the decision to accept on faith that which is
unseen -- that one proves God's existence.


Do you really think there's evidence in there? You said "that which is
unseen". Of course, unseen things can be real. Where is the evidence
to suggest this one is? Where is the evidence that even a little bit
useful to anyone who could use it?

That "evidence" no more points to God than to Last Thursday's Cat*.

One tough part of that is it only proves it to the one who chooses to
believe.
I can't prove it to you, only to me.

Notice the only people this "proof" works on is those who don't need
it. That's one of the characteristics of a scam.

To know for sure you have to make your own
choice. As much as it works for me, I can't insist that you believe. I
would
be foolish to try to "convince" you or anyone else for that matter. It's
something you decide for yourself. Besides, it's important to me to
respect
your right not to believe.

To me belief is something serious, "wanting" has nothing to do with
it. That would be fantasy, not belief. That's a good thing, a personal
one. I hope it stays personal.

=========

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:58:31 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:53:54 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:

"Mark Lloyd" wrote:
[snip]


Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Santa is OK.

Although if this happened:

"There's a worldwide organization of Santa believers with at least one
chapter in every town, where they sing songs about how awful they are
and how all good things come from Santa. The "True Santaists" are
always going around, disturbing people, and pushing the "One True
Santa" on people 365 (500?) days a year. They're insinuating
themselves into the national government, making them spend billions of
dollars of tax money on "Santa indoctrination centers" (with
nicer-sounding names, but really just as bad), insisting on putting
"We Love Santa" on legal documents we're all required to have,
spreading anti-intellectual Santaist ideas and telling lies about our
country and its history (like "This is a Santaist Nation"). They're
insisting we all worship Santa at the beginning of all meetings and
public events."

THAT would be bad.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:53:22 -0500, wrote:

[snip]

None of this really addresses either energy consumtion or pollution,
though. The underlying problem for both is TOO MANY PEOPLE.

We don't need more generating capacity, or new sources of energy. We
need to reverse population growth, and stop spending so much money and
effort on making people live longer.

True, there are TOO MANY PEOPLE. No energy-efficient light is going to
solve that problem.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"How could you ask me to believe in God when there's
absolutely no evidence that I can see?" -- Jodie Foster

Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same
letters?

"Gary H" wrote in message
...
Santa is OK.

Although if this happened:

"There's a worldwide organization of Santa believers with at least one
chapter in every town, where they sing songs about how awful they are
and how all good things come from Santa. The "True Santaists" are
always going around, disturbing people, and pushing the "One True
Santa" on people 365 (500?) days a year. They're insinuating
themselves into the national government, making them spend billions of
dollars of tax money on "Santa indoctrination centers" (with
nicer-sounding names, but really just as bad), insisting on putting
"We Love Santa" on legal documents we're all required to have,
spreading anti-intellectual Santaist ideas and telling lies about our
country and its history (like "This is a Santaist Nation"). They're
insisting we all worship Santa at the beginning of all meetings and
public events."

THAT would be bad.

wrote:

Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.

--

Regards,
Robert

hahahaa...good one!

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
...

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.


wrote:

Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:30:15 -0500, "Robert L Bass"
wrote:

wrote:

Same exact thing applies to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

They switched to LED lighting? Well, that's good news.

They had to. The heat from the incandescent lights was melting the
illusion :-)

BTW, Heaven has been lit with LEDs since March 13, 1777.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:14:02 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

[snip]

I was feeling depressed until I saw that. All the laughter really
helped!

Gary H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:07:16 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

[snip]

Actually it LOOKS like runny dog food and tastes almost, but not quite
entirely unlike beef.
Oh, you had me worried there for a minute. The stuff is probably soy
protein. *snicker*

TDD

That sounds right. Very different from beef. I have made enchiladas
with beef and those are good.

Some of the meat substitutes are fairly good especially if the
developers get the texture close enough. I have Hippie friends
who are into tofu and they can use it to prepare tasty dishes.

TDD

Josepi wrote:
Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same
letters?


Just like dog and God. Since God can do anything, I wonder if he can
lick his........ never mind, My first grade teacher, Sister Godzilla
would come back from the grave and bop me on the head if I finished
that question.

TDD

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:05:55 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Josepi wrote:
Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same
letters?


Just like dog and God. Since God can do anything, I wonder if he can
lick his........ never mind, My first grade teacher, Sister Godzilla
would come back from the grave and bop me on the head if I finished
that question.

TDD

Then you've learned to associate God with head pain. Sounds like
negative reinforcement.

I remember a story about some out-of-the-way place with ignorant, but
imitative people. A priest comes and tells them about sin, and that
they should do anything they can to stop it. The natives kill the
priest.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

What about the dyslexic, atheist with insomnia, lays awake at nights
contemplating whether there really is a Dog or not.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

Just like dog and God. Since God can do anything, I wonder if he can
lick his........ never mind, My first grade teacher, Sister Godzilla
would come back from the grave and bop me on the head if I finished
that question.

TDD


Josepi wrote:
Ever notice "Satan" and "Santa" have very similar spellings using the same
letters?

Did you read the comments? Atheists are ****ed about it. Good advert fr
religious addicts.



"Sam E" wrote in message
news I was feeling depressed until I saw that. All the laughter really
helped!


On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:14:02 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:19:56 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Did you read the comments? Atheists are ****ed about it. Good advert fr
religious addict.

Some say it's a comedian not a Christian. It IS funny.



"Sam E" wrote in message
news I was feeling depressed until I saw that. All the laughter really
helped!


On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:14:02 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Athiests are losing constantly to real logic. Here is some proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

He **is** a comedian and does this frequently. Research "Edward Current"

"real1" wrote in message
...
Some say it's a comedian not a Christian. It IS funny.


On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:19:56 -0500, "Josepi" wrote:

Did you read the comments? Atheists are ****ed about it. Good advert fr
religious addict.