"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther
down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-bulbs/?page=1

HeyBub wrote:
"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther
down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-bulbs/?page=1


They SHOULD be banned. Short circuit lighting is 18th century.

--
LSMFT

Simple job, assist the assistant of the physicist.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and
reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light
bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the
relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no
conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one
morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit
farther down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-a-switch-on-
cfl-bulbs/?page=1





You mean we may once again be able to buy incandescents for a quarter
apiece?


--
Tegger

On 12/7/2010 7:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

Unless you don't count halogen or less than 40W or more than 150W.

And how could George W Bush have signed such legislation, he must have
been thinking.

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther
down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-bulbs/?page=1

This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

Jeff

On Dec 7, 8:47*am, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 12/7/2010 7:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

Unless you don't count halogen or less than 40W or more than 150W.

* And how could George W Bush have signed such legislation, he must have
been thinking.

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther
down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ips-a-switch-o...

* *This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

* *Jeff



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yep lets drop all rules and laws personal responsiblity is enough....

policies like that helped to crash our economy.

just look at the housing market

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther
down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tch-on-cfl-bul
bs/?page=1

This post is off topic. Not an insult. Just an observation.

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and
reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent
light bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the
relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no
conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one
morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit
farther down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ps-a-switch-on
-cfl-bul bs/?page=1

This post is off topic. Not an insult. Just an observation.


you're "a bit" LATE in making that observation.
CFLs have been discussed here for quite awhile now.

It's also a bit late to reverse the law,as the last US
incandescent lightbulb maker has moved production (and it's jobs)out of the
country. They will not be returning regardless of what the lawmakers do.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Dec 7, 9:54*am, " wrote:
yep lets drop all rules and laws personal responsiblity is enough....

It is, if the playing field is level.

Problem is, the same people who repeal the ban on incandescent light
bulbs are the same people who pass laws to limit electricity prices.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and
reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent
light bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the
relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no
conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one
morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit
farther down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...tch-on-cfl-bul
bs/?page=1

This post is off topic. Not an insult. Just an observation.

Are you as certain about that as you are that I post many, many off-topic
posts?

I counted those for you, let me count the ones involving CFLs.

There have been ((at least) 76 messages involving CFLs on this newsgroup
since Sept 1st.

You've been busted again.

On 12/7/2010 5:25 AM LSMFT spake thus:

HeyBub wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and
reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent
light bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens -
are convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the
relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no
conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one
morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit
farther down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-bulbs/?page=1

Surprise, surprise: the complainant (Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan) is a
Repugnican. Who woulda guessed?

Now, I was going to further guess that he was a Tea Party type, but it
gets even funnier: the Tea Party has apparently accused Rep. Upton of
being--get this--"pro-Big Government when it comes to Energy policy"
(ooooh, notice them Scary Caps!):
http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/11/25/...-energy-policy

Meaning, I guess, that he merely wants to ban them Communist/Socialist
twirly bulbs, not string up the vendors of same by their toenails.

Sheesh. This is the kind of stuff only Tom Tomorrow seems to be able to
come up with. (www.thismodernworld.com)


--
How To Access Wikileaks

These sites are still up as of 12/3/10:

http://wikileaks.de
http://wikileaks.fi
http://wikileaks.nl
http://wikileaks.eu
http://wikileaks.pl

And these IP addresses can be used:

http://213.251.145.96/
http://88.80.13.160/

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:28:34 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and
reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light
bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the
relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no
conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one
morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit
farther down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-a-switch-on-
cfl-bulbs/?page=1





You mean we may once again be able to buy incandescents for a quarter
apiece?

Crap. I was planning on retiring on my stash of incandescent bulbs.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:26:13 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and
reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent
light bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the
relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no
conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one
morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit
farther down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ps-a-switch-on
-cfl-bul bs/?page=1

This post is off topic. Not an insult. Just an observation.


you're "a bit" LATE in making that observation.
CFLs have been discussed here for quite awhile now.

It's also a bit late to reverse the law,as the last US
incandescent lightbulb maker has moved production (and it's jobs)out of the
country. They will not be returning regardless of what the lawmakers do.

The law has fulfilled its purpose so they can allow incandescents again.

"Jeff Thies" wrote in message ...


This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

If only this were a joke. Sadly, a lot of Americans figure it's their right
and/or duty to consume all they possibly can, shortages and pollution other
people will have to deal with later just are not their problem.

What happened to convince so many people that their worth as human beings
depends on how big and wasteful their possessions are?

I saw a guy parking a Hummer awhile back, took him several tries to get it
sort of into the parking space. Then down climbed this little pot-bellied,
balding guy, looked like he couldn't twist the top off a ketchup bottle by
himself--it was such a perfect cliché that I had trouble not laughing. I
doubt he had ever taken that thing off the pavement, and it probably
replaced a Corvette when his wife told him to get something more practical.

DGDevin wrote:

If only this were a joke. Sadly, a lot of Americans figure it's
their right and/or duty to consume all they possibly can, shortages
and pollution other people will have to deal with later just are not
their problem.

There was once a Dilbert cartoon in which the secretary (nee Bride of Satan)
told Dilbert there was one pen left in the supply locker but he couldn't
have it because then she'd be all out.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



You've been busted again.

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the
truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations that
were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and feel
insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

2. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

3. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you
started.

4. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note
of it.

5. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and
just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up
dude when it comes to reason and logic.

On 12/7/2010 11:23 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In articleTbGdner9ZvsgAGPRnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@earthlink .com,
wrote:



You've been busted again.

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the
truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations that
were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and feel
insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

2. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

3. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you
started.

4. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note
of it.

5. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and
just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up
dude when it comes to reason and logic.

For some it is more important not to be called wrong than it is to be
right. Note that HeyBub's idol, George W, never admitted to doing
anything wrong. There is a real strong denial effort going on there and
it seems to require blame shifting. It also amazes me how thin skinned
these "tough" guys and gals are. I don't dislike Bub, but the
disconnect, to me, is rather glaring.

Jeff

On Dec 7, 9:54*am, " wrote:
On Dec 7, 8:47*am, Jeff Thies wrote:





On 12/7/2010 7:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

Unless you don't count halogen or less than 40W or more than 150W.

* And how could George W Bush have signed such legislation, he must have
been thinking.

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther
down the road.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ips-a-switch-o....

* *This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

* *Jeff

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yep lets drop all rules and laws personal responsiblity is enough....

policies like that helped to crash our economy.

just look at the housing market- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, just look at FNMA, and Freddie Mac. Both were quasi government
agencies
under the supervision of Congress. Just months before they collapsed
and investors
lost everything, Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee,
who's committee has oversight said that while there were some
problems, they were
going to be just fine. According to Standard and Poors, the final
cost to taxpayers for those
two gems could reach $685Bil. Compare that to TARP, which was
$787Bil and most of
it has already been paid back. In fact, the most it's estimated that
TARP will cost taxpayers
is now down to $80bil, with the possibility it will actually result in
a profit.

Then of course we have the Community Reinvestment Act and the
regulators who aggressively
used it to push lenders to make loans to lots of people that could
never pay it back.

There is greed and stupidity that has always existed and is part of
human nature. The mistake
libs make is that they think govt is immune from it and offers a fix
for anything that goes wrong
in the private sector.

On Dec 7, 9:07*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Jeff Thies" *wrote in ...
* This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

If only this were a joke. *Sadly, a lot of Americans figure it's their right
and/or *duty to consume all they possibly can, shortages and pollution other
people will have to deal with later just are not their problem.

What happened to convince so many people that their worth as human beings
depends on how big and wasteful their possessions are?

I saw a guy parking a Hummer awhile back, took him several tries to get it
sort of into the parking space. *Then down climbed this little pot-bellied,
balding guy, looked like he couldn't twist the top off a ketchup bottle by
himself--it was such a perfect clich that I had trouble not laughing. *I
doubt he had ever taken that thing off the pavement, and it probably
replaced a Corvette when his wife told him to get something more practical.

At least he's honest about what he does. How about Al Gore, who
lives in multiple
mansions and flies around in private jets? He uses more energy in a
year than that
Hummer guy will use in a lifetime.

On 12/8/2010 7:28 AM, wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:07 pm, wrote:
"Jeff Thies" wrote in ...
This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

If only this were a joke. Sadly, a lot of Americans figure it's their right
and/or duty to consume all they possibly can, shortages and pollution other
people will have to deal with later just are not their problem.

What happened to convince so many people that their worth as human beings
depends on how big and wasteful their possessions are?

I saw a guy parking a Hummer awhile back, took him several tries to get it
sort of into the parking space. Then down climbed this little pot-bellied,
balding guy, looked like he couldn't twist the top off a ketchup bottle by
himself--it was such a perfect clich that I had trouble not laughing. I
doubt he had ever taken that thing off the pavement, and it probably
replaced a Corvette when his wife told him to get something more practical.

At least he's honest about what he does. How about Al Gore, who
lives in multiple
mansions and flies around in private jets? He uses more energy in a
year than that
Hummer guy will use in a lifetime.


Al Gore thinks carbon, not energy. I have a problem with that. The
energy consumption of the rich is over the top. I was at a friends
mansion a while back and asked the wife how many rooms they had, she did
not know. I looked around at the fountains running and the mood lights,
their house idling used more energy than mine running full out.

Now it's OK for a few of the wealthy to consume a lot, but there is a
cost to all for that. If we all consumed the same amount we would wind
up like the Mayans who created a dead zone around their cities. When the
zone expanded beyond what could be supported, they collapsed.

Al's message about global warming is correct. Just because the messenger
has issues that doesn't mean the message is wrong.

Jeff

wrote:

At least he's honest about what he does. How about Al Gore, who
lives in multiple
mansions and flies around in private jets? He uses more energy in a
year than that
Hummer guy will use in a lifetime.

Heh! I saw a video where a Hummer T-boned an ARMORED CAR! The armored car
was knocked on its side and, after a few moments, some old fart climed down
from the Hummer - which was still upright - and moseyed over to the Brink's
truck to see if anybody was hurt.

Or maybe he was checking to see if anybody was still alive so he could
administer the coup de grace.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



You've been busted again.

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the
truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations
that were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and
feel insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

2. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

3. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you
started.

4. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note
of it.

5. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and
just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up
dude when it comes to reason and logic.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



You've been busted again.

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the
truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations that
were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and feel
insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

2. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

3. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you
started.

4. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note
of it.

5. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and
just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up
dude when it comes to reason and logic.

---
That's not the way I remembered it.

I said "I NEVER start off-topic threads (well, maybe once or twice, but they
were clearly marked..."

Against which you claimed I started six per day.

I then challenged you to find one, just one.

You were unable, or unwilling, to do so.

You then modified your claim slightly to "It *seems* to me that every thread
you start has nothing to do with home repair... I *can* do the research..."

I challenged you to substantiate that belief; you again demurred, ultimately
claiming it was "a silly waste of time," then going on to rant about
"endless series of posts on HOAs (one) and "firearms posts are another broad
category" (two).

In brief, you claimed:
* I post six OT posts per day, but you declined to provide even one
* Many of my posts have little or nothing to do with DIY, but you declined
to provide one example
* I posted endless comments about HOAs, but there was only one
* A "broad category" of my posts had to do with firearms, but there were
only two

I am offended, outraged, indignant, and almost broken in mind and spirit
over your insenstive and unrepentant aspersions.

Whether you MEANT to offend is irrelevant; as a liberal (or at least a
non-conservative), you should have, as your first priority, conforming your
actions so as not to offend the more sensitive members of society and, when
you fall short in these endeavors, to publicly flog yourself unmercifully
without end or relief.

Contrition. It's the politically correct thing to do.

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:

On 12/8/2010 7:28 AM, wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:07 pm, wrote:
"Jeff Thies" wrote in ...
This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get
some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy
and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just
make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in
the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this
too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

If only this were a joke. Sadly, a lot of Americans figure it's their
right
and/or duty to consume all they possibly can, shortages and pollution
other
people will have to deal with later just are not their problem.

What happened to convince so many people that their worth as human beings
depends on how big and wasteful their possessions are?

I saw a guy parking a Hummer awhile back, took him several tries to get it
sort of into the parking space. Then down climbed this little
pot-bellied,
balding guy, looked like he couldn't twist the top off a ketchup bottle by
himself--it was such a perfect clich that I had trouble not laughing. I
doubt he had ever taken that thing off the pavement, and it probably
replaced a Corvette when his wife told him to get something more
practical.

At least he's honest about what he does. How about Al Gore, who
lives in multiple
mansions and flies around in private jets? He uses more energy in a
year than that
Hummer guy will use in a lifetime.


Al Gore thinks carbon, not energy. I have a problem with that. The
energy consumption of the rich is over the top. I was at a friends
mansion a while back and asked the wife how many rooms they had, she did
not know. I looked around at the fountains running and the mood lights,
their house idling used more energy than mine running full out.

Now it's OK for a few of the wealthy to consume a lot, but there is a
cost to all for that. If we all consumed the same amount we would wind
up like the Mayans who created a dead zone around their cities. When the
zone expanded beyond what could be supported, they collapsed.

Al's message about global warming is correct. Just because the messenger
has issues that doesn't mean the message is wrong.

Jeff

Good book "Collapse" starts with Wyoming and goes back in time.
Just read 150 pages so far but it resonates.

Wyoming
1 a state in the western central U.S.; pop. 493,782; capital, Cheyenne;
statehood, July 10, 1890 (44). Acquired, in part, by the Louisiana
Purchase in 1803, it gave the vote to women in 1869, the first state to
do so.

Seem 20 years ago a prosperous state now # 2 from the bottom.

Good Read.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden

Daniel Moynihan and Dennis Kucinich in 2012 !

In m,
HeyBub typed:
Smitty Two wrote:

....

I am offended, outraged, indignant, and almost broken in
mind and spirit over your insenstive and unrepentant
aspersions.
....

IF that's the case, you don't belong on usenet or any un-monitored group. To
even respond to trollish posts inviting responses is to lower yourself to
the same level. There appears to be 4 trollers and 9 ignorants of newsgroup
ways.
Either get a thicker skin or find another sandbox.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:27:54 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



You've been busted again.

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the
truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations
that were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and
feel insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

2. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

3. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you
started.

4. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note
of it.

5. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and
just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up
dude when it comes to reason and logic.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



You've been busted again.

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the
truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations that
were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and feel
insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

2. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

3. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you
started.

4. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note
of it.

5. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and
just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up
dude when it comes to reason and logic.

---
That's not the way I remembered it.

I said "I NEVER start off-topic threads (well, maybe once or twice, but they
were clearly marked..."

Against which you claimed I started six per day.

I then challenged you to find one, just one.

You were unable, or unwilling, to do so.

You then modified your claim slightly to "It *seems* to me that every thread
you start has nothing to do with home repair... I *can* do the research..."

I challenged you to substantiate that belief; you again demurred, ultimately
claiming it was "a silly waste of time," then going on to rant about
"endless series of posts on HOAs (one) and "firearms posts are another broad
category" (two).

In brief, you claimed:
* I post six OT posts per day, but you declined to provide even one
* Many of my posts have little or nothing to do with DIY, but you declined
to provide one example
* I posted endless comments about HOAs, but there was only one
* A "broad category" of my posts had to do with firearms, but there were
only two

I am offended, outraged, indignant, and almost broken in mind and spirit
over your insenstive and unrepentant aspersions.

Whether you MEANT to offend is irrelevant; as a liberal (or at least a
non-conservative), you should have, as your first priority, conforming your
actions so as not to offend the more sensitive members of society and, when
you fall short in these endeavors, to publicly flog yourself unmercifully
without end or relief.

Contrition. It's the politically correct thing to do.




Hey, you gotta do like I do. Consider the source.
Smitty cannot offend.
All he can do is argue. Not only is he never wrong, he's always right.
You cannot convince him with facts because his mind is already made
up. His experience is the only valid experience - If he has not seen
it (or even recognized it when he has seen it), it cannot be so.

Unlike Smitty I reserve the right to become smarter.
There is an old saying,

The wise man learns from other men's mistakes,
The average man learns from his own mistakes,
The fool never learns, because he never makes mistakes.

and

He who never makes mistakes has never accomplished anything of worth.


I know I'll get feedback from Smitty, but so what.

wrote:

Hey, you gotta do like I do. Consider the source.
Smitty cannot offend.
All he can do is argue. Not only is he never wrong, he's always right.
You cannot convince him with facts because his mind is already made
up. His experience is the only valid experience - If he has not seen
it (or even recognized it when he has seen it), it cannot be so.

Unlike Smitty I reserve the right to become smarter.
There is an old saying,

The wise man learns from other men's mistakes,
The average man learns from his own mistakes,
The fool never learns, because he never makes mistakes.

and

He who never makes mistakes has never accomplished anything of worth.


I know I'll get feedback from Smitty, but so what.

Yeah, you're right. I gave him every chance to mend the error of his ways...
Some folks are just intransigent.

Oh well.

In article , Jeff Thies wrote:
On 12/7/2010 7:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our
energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to
be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are
convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship
between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no
back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy
incandescent light bulbs..."

Unless you don't count halogen or less than 40W or more than 150W.

There are many exemptions, not just ones for light output dimmer than
typical 40W, or same as or brighter than better 150W.

There are also other exemptions, including:

* Design voltage outside the range of 110-130V
* Base other than E26/E27 "medium screw base"
* Tubular, globe, flame-shape or reflectorized bulb
* Most specialty types, including appliance/oven, vibration-resistant, bug
light, plant light, blacklight, and most other colored types
* Ones that meet an energy efficiency standard that a few halogen
replacements for "regular light bulbs" meet

I have a more complete list at:

http://members.misty.com/don/incban.html
--
- Don Klipstein )

What happens with dimmers and other switches that require incandescent?



- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]

In ,

typed:
What happens with dimmers and other switches that require
incandescent?

Nothing. Read Don's post; I just found the same thing myself. Idiots and
trolls are keeping this silliness going for their own delight. They are not
being truthful in any way. Want an incandescent street light bulb or
lighthouse bulb? There you might have a problem.

HTH,

Twayne`

On 12/10/2010 8:44 PM, Twayne wrote:
In ,

typed:
What happens with dimmers and other switches that require
incandescent?

Nothing. Read Don's post; I just found the same thing myself. Idiots and
trolls are keeping this silliness going for their own delight. They are not
being truthful in any way. Want an incandescent street light bulb or
lighthouse bulb? There you might have a problem.

I read Don's post but don't recall it addressing what happens with
dimmers that require incandescent lighting? IF I can buy 75 or 100 watt
incandescent lights for my dimmers, nothing could stop me from using
them everywhere?

--
Jack
I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
http://jbstein.com

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

If only this were a joke. Sadly, a lot of Americans figure it's
their right and/or duty to consume all they possibly can, shortages
and pollution other people will have to deal with later just are not
their problem.

There was once a Dilbert cartoon in which the secretary (nee Bride of
Satan) told Dilbert there was one pen left in the supply locker but he
couldn't have it because then she'd be all out.

I once saw a cartoon (possibly drawn by Gahan Wilson) in which two proud
hunters are thrilled at killing the last surviving members of some
threatened species, happy that their names will go into the record books as
the ones who made the species extinct.

Of course many hunters are actually effective conservationists, consider
Ducks Unlimited. They recognize that if their children and grandchildren
are going to be able to hunt then they need to protect habitat for wildlife
today, or there won't be a tomorrow.

And then there are the self-obsessed assholes who are completely happy to
crank up the thermostat rather than put on a sweater, who think a 4WD V-10
pickup truck is a hell of an idea even if they've never been offroad in
their lives, and who want to be the ones to burn the last gallon of gas
priced at under ten bucks.

wrote in message
...


I saw a guy parking a Hummer awhile back, took him several tries to get
it
sort of into the parking space. Then down climbed this little
pot-bellied,
balding guy, looked like he couldn't twist the top off a ketchup bottle
by
himself--it was such a perfect clich that I had trouble not laughing. I
doubt he had ever taken that thing off the pavement, and it probably
replaced a Corvette when his wife told him to get something more
practical.

At least he's honest about what he does. How about Al Gore, who
lives in multiple
mansions and flies around in private jets? He uses more energy in a
year than that
Hummer guy will use in a lifetime.

So, your response to anyone doing something wasteful and stupid will always
be, "How about Al Gore"?

When your mother told you not to do something foolish, did you invariably
reply that Timmy down the street already did it and still has one good eye?

In article , Jack Stein wrote:
On 12/10/2010 8:44 PM, Twayne wrote:
In ,

typed:
What happens with dimmers and other switches that require
incandescent?

Nothing. Read Don's post; I just found the same thing myself. Idiots and
trolls are keeping this silliness going for their own delight. They are not
being truthful in any way. Want an incandescent street light bulb or
lighthouse bulb? There you might have a problem.

I read Don's post but don't recall it addressing what happens with
dimmers that require incandescent lighting? IF I can buy 75 or 100 watt
incandescent lights for my dimmers, nothing could stop me from using
them everywhere?

CFLs that are made to be compatible with "incandescent-only" dimmers are
increasingly available.
--
- Don Klipstein )

In article om, Lisa
BB. wrote:

The incandescents I have outdoors last 4ever. They are plugged into
automatic on at dusk and off at dawn outlets. I'm not sure how, but
these bulbs last longer than anything I ever had. I don't use CFL
inside, because they cost a lot and always burn out faster than
incandescents.

Can you name the brand, wattage, and style of these CFLs that "always
burn out faster than incandescents"? Can you mention what kind of
fixtures they were in? Were there any complicating factors such as
dimmers or electronic switching devices?
--
- Don Klipstein )

On 12/18/2010 8:00 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , Jack Stein
wrote:

On 12/10/2010 8:44 PM, Twayne wrote:

In ,

typed:

What happens with dimmers and other switches that require
incandescent?

Nothing. Read Don's post; I just found the same thing myself.
Idiots and trolls are keeping this silliness going for their own
delight. They are not being truthful in any way. Want an
incandescent street light bulb or lighthouse bulb? There you
might have a problem.

I read Don's post but don't recall it addressing what happens with
dimmers that require incandescent lighting? IF I can buy 75 or
100 watt incandescent lights for my dimmers, nothing could stop me
from using them everywhere?

CFLs that are made to be compatible with "incandescent-only" dimmers
are increasingly available.

But still very expen$ive by comparison to ordinary CFLs.


--
Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.

In , David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 12/18/2010 8:00 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , Jack Stein
wrote:

On 12/10/2010 8:44 PM, Twayne wrote:

In ,

typed:

What happens with dimmers and other switches that require
incandescent?

Nothing. Read Don's post; I just found the same thing myself.
Idiots and trolls are keeping this silliness going for their own
delight. They are not being truthful in any way. Want an
incandescent street light bulb or lighthouse bulb? There you
might have a problem.

I read Don's post but don't recall it addressing what happens with
dimmers that require incandescent lighting? IF I can buy 75 or
100 watt incandescent lights for my dimmers, nothing could stop me
from using them everywhere?

CFLs that are made to be compatible with "incandescent-only" dimmers
are increasingly available.

But still very expen$ive by comparison to ordinary CFLs.

The dimmer-compatible ones cost more than the other ones, but they
still cost only a fraction as much as the amount of electricity they would
save over their lifetimes at USA national average residential electricity
cost.
--
- Don Klipstein )