On Mar 17, 3:53*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:26:26 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

From the Wall Street Journal:

"In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and
they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13
were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was
excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the
death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders
as 'often mediocre or worse.' "

Demise of top-loaders blamed on government regulations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57620221271767...

It's for the children.

Wall Street Journal "Opinion." *
Blame the gov because they can't get their clothes clean.
They need a nanny who washes clothes too.
I bought a new GE top loader about 3 years ago when the 30 year old
Kenmore stopped working.
Just asked my wife if it got the clothes clean as well as the Kenmore.
The answer was "Yes."
She added, "You do have to know how to wash clothes. *You know, how
much detergent to use, when to use bleach. *You know."

--Vic


It would be the "opinion" of the WSJ if that was all there is to it.
However, it's backed up by testing done by Consumer Reports, which
clearly found new top loaders to be inferior. They are the testing
agency that says the machines don't clean, not the WSJ.

I suppose you think the govt can just throw out a new regulation
saying
you now have to clean clothes using just a fraction of the water and
energy that was used previously and it has no effect on the washers
you can design, how they actually clean clothes and how much they
cost. Here's a clue, those regulations have real impact and this is
one more good example.

On Mar 17, 6:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:53*pm, Vic Smith wrote:





On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:26:26 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

From the Wall Street Journal:

"In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and
they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13
were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was
excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the
death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders
as 'often mediocre or worse.' "

Demise of top-loaders blamed on government regulations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57620221271767....

It's for the children.

Wall Street Journal "Opinion." *
Blame the gov because they can't get their clothes clean.
They need a nanny who washes clothes too.
I bought a new GE top loader about 3 years ago when the 30 year old
Kenmore stopped working.
Just asked my wife if it got the clothes clean as well as the Kenmore.
The answer was "Yes."
She added, "You do have to know how to wash clothes. *You know, how
much detergent to use, when to use bleach. *You know."

--Vic

It would be the "opinion" of the WSJ if that was all there is to it.
However, it's backed up by testing done by Consumer Reports, which
clearly found new top loaders to be inferior. *They are the testing
agency that says the machines don't clean, not the WSJ.

I suppose you think the govt can just throw out a new regulation
saying
you now have to clean clothes using just a fraction of the water and
energy that was used previously and it has no effect on the washers
you can design, how they actually clean clothes and how much they
cost. * Here's a clue, those regulations have real impact and this is
one more good example.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Was the "inferior" compared to front loaders, or were they comparing
them to similar top loaders of an earlier era?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 17, 3:53Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:26:26 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

From the Wall Street Journal:

"In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and
they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13
were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was
excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the
death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders
as 'often mediocre or worse.' "

Demise of top-loaders blamed on government regulations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57620221271767...

It's for the children.

Wall Street Journal "Opinion." Â*
Blame the gov because they can't get their clothes clean.
They need a nanny who washes clothes too.
I bought a new GE top loader about 3 years ago when the 30 year old
Kenmore stopped working.
Just asked my wife if it got the clothes clean as well as the Kenmore.
The answer was "Yes."
She added, "You do have to know how to wash clothes. Â*You know, how
much detergent to use, when to use bleach. Â*You know."

--Vic


It would be the "opinion" of the WSJ if that was all there is to it.
However, it's backed up by testing done by Consumer Reports, which
clearly found new top loaders to be inferior. They are the testing
agency that says the machines don't clean, not the WSJ.


The WSJ grabbed a CR "evaluation" to suit its politics.
I canceled CR years ago and they keep begging me back to their web
site and keep sending me their monthly magazine free.
Don't need nanny CR anymore.
I do scan the free issues when I'm on the toilet.
You can get plenty of buyers' reviews on sellers' websites.
Multiple users and evaluations, not the test of one machine that CR
does.
According to that WSJ article CR "tested" 21 top-loaders.
The Sears website alone offers 63 different model top-loaders.
This entire thread is a great example of how believing a rag that
suits your politics leads to "dumbing down."

I suppose you think the govt can just throw out a new regulation
saying
you now have to clean clothes using just a fraction of the water and
energy that was used previously and it has no effect on the washers
you can design, how they actually clean clothes and how much they
cost. Here's a clue, those regulations have real impact and this is
one more good example.

Bull**** a fraction of the water. My wife can set the water level
where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial.
Same with wash cycle. Same with hot/cold water.
You don't have to buy a GM Volt.
You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf.
You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels.
Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale.
You let CR and the WSJ tell you how to wash clothes.
I'll trust user experience and my wife.
Then we'll see who gets clean clothes (-:

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:

Bull**** a fraction of the water. My wife can set the water level
where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial.
Same with wash cycle. Same with hot/cold water.
You don't have to buy a GM Volt.
You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf.
You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels.
Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale.
You let CR and the WSJ tell you how to wash clothes.
I'll trust user experience and my wife.
Then we'll see who gets clean clothes (-:

proof you are a tard

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:03:01 -0500, wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:

Bull**** a fraction of the water. My wife can set the water level
where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial.
Same with wash cycle. Same with hot/cold water.
You don't have to buy a GM Volt.
You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf.
You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels.
Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale.
You let CR and the WSJ tell you how to wash clothes.
I'll trust user experience and my wife.
Then we'll see who gets clean clothes (-:

proof you are a tard

Not my fault you ain't smart enough to get a wife to do your laundry.
yuck-yuck

Vic Smith wrote:

Not my fault you ain't smart enough to get a wife to do your laundry.
yuck-yuck

ahh a sexist tard!!

does she wipe your ass when you poop your pants too?

snicker

Vic Smith wrote:

Bull**** a fraction of the water. My wife can set the water level
where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial.
Same with wash cycle. Same with hot/cold water.
You don't have to buy a GM Volt.
You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf.
You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels.
Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale.
You let CR and the WSJ tell you how to wash clothes.
I'll trust user experience and my wife.
Then we'll see who gets clean clothes (-:


She probably uses TSP.

Or, knowing your disposition, takes them to the washateria while your back
is turned.

On Mar 18, 4:23*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:45:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

washateria

I haven't heard that word in ages -- to many years to count.

==
Better than "laundrymat" that one of my friends uses...I moan every
time I hear it.
==

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


You can get plenty of buyers' reviews on sellers' websites.
Multiple users and evaluations, not the test of one machine that CR
does.

And then you have to figure out which of the "users" are shills working for
the company that makes the product, which are attack-dogs working for other
companies that want competing products trashed, and which are consumers just
barely smart enough to type a review. If you are lucky maybe one such user
review in ten is worth reading.

This entire thread is a great example of how believing a rag that
suits your politics leads to "dumbing down."

The irony in that sentence is hilarious.

On Mar 18, 8:00*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:53*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:26:26 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

From the Wall Street Journal:

"In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and
they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13
were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was
excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the
death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders
as 'often mediocre or worse.' "

Demise of top-loaders blamed on government regulations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57620221271767....

It's for the children.

Wall Street Journal "Opinion." *
Blame the gov because they can't get their clothes clean.
They need a nanny who washes clothes too.
I bought a new GE top loader about 3 years ago when the 30 year old
Kenmore stopped working.
Just asked my wife if it got the clothes clean as well as the Kenmore.
The answer was "Yes."
She added, "You do have to know how to wash clothes. *You know, how
much detergent to use, when to use bleach. *You know."

--Vic

It would be the "opinion" of the WSJ if that was all there is to it.
However, it's backed up by testing done by Consumer Reports, which
clearly found new top loaders to be inferior. *They are the testing
agency that says the machines don't clean, not the WSJ.

The WSJ grabbed a CR "evaluation" to suit its politics.
I canceled CR years ago and they keep begging me back to their web
site and keep sending me their monthly magazine free.
Don't need nanny CR anymore.
I do scan the free issues when I'm on the toilet.
You can get plenty of buyers' reviews on sellers' websites.
Multiple users and evaluations, not the test of one machine that CR
does. *
According to that WSJ article CR "tested" 21 top-loaders.
The Sears website alone offers 63 different model top-loaders.
This entire thread is a great example of how believing a rag that
suits your politics leads to "dumbing down."

I suppose you think the govt can just throw out a new regulation
saying
you now have to clean clothes using just a fraction of the water and
energy that was used previously and it has no effect on the washers
you can design, how they actually clean clothes and how much they
cost. * Here's a clue, those regulations have real impact and this is
one more good example.

Bull**** a fraction of the water. *My wife can set the water level
where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial.
Same with wash cycle. *Same with hot/cold water.
You don't have to buy a GM Volt.
You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf.
You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels.
Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/20...eswashers.html

"Under state legislation passed in 2002, the Energy Commission
established standards to ensure washing machines sold in California
after 2007 use no more than 8.5 gallons of water per cubic foot of
washing machine capacity, later decreased to six gallons by 2010.

Water efficient washing machines will use on average only 21.1 gallons
per wash, or 8,271 gallons a year - compared to typical models that
used an average of 39.2 gallons per wash or 15,366 gallons a year for
a normal household three years ago. "


Those are for CA, but the federal govt has similar standards. So, it
doesn't
seem at all unreasonable to me that the new regulation would result in
clothes that are not as clean. Who has actually tested them side by
side?
Your wife or Consumer Reports? Also, while your wife may still have
some
control over how much water the machine uses, she doesn't have control
over the amount of energy used by the agitator does she? That has
been
reduced as well, and I've seen reports attributing lack of cleaning to
that.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:28:04 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


You can get plenty of buyers' reviews on sellers' websites.
Multiple users and evaluations, not the test of one machine that CR
does.

And then you have to figure out which of the "users" are shills working for
the company that makes the product, which are attack-dogs working for other
companies that want competing products trashed, and which are consumers just
barely smart enough to type a review. If you are lucky maybe one such user
review in ten is worth reading.


If you can't extract guidance from the buyers' reviews on the sellers'
websites, then you can just buy what CR recommends.
No law against that.
I doubt those reviews are as conspiratorial as you make them out to
be, since I've contributed to some.
Your efforts to make me paranoid have failed.
And I haven't found it difficult to find useful buying advice outside
of CR. The internet has some pluses.
Pretty much like you can find good advice among the jokers here.

This entire thread is a great example of how believing a rag that
suits your politics leads to "dumbing down."

The irony in that sentence is hilarious.

Mr Devin, I served with Knowles Irony, I knew Knowles Irony, Knowles
Irony was a friend of mine. Mr Devin, you're no Knowles Irony.

--Vic

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Those are for CA, but the federal govt has similar standards. So, it
doesn't
seem at all unreasonable to me that the new regulation would result in
clothes that are not as clean. Who has actually tested them side by
side?
Your wife or Consumer Reports? Also, while your wife may still have
some
control over how much water the machine uses, she doesn't have control
over the amount of energy used by the agitator does she? That has
been
reduced as well, and I've seen reports attributing lack of cleaning to
that.


Hey, all I can say is my wife says the new machine cleans just like
the old one. Good. That's "side by side" to me.
There were also plenty of reviews on the Sears website saying the
machine got clothes clean.
You can worry about your own clothes, protest the government, or
whatever you want to do.
If you don't want an automatic water level sensor in your washer, buy
one without one. That's what I did.
And I don't live in California either.

--Vic

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:23Â*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:45:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

washateria

I haven't heard that word in ages -- to many years to count.

==
Better than "laundrymat" that one of my friends uses...I moan every
time I hear it.
==

WTF? When I used laundrymats we said "Let's go the laundrymat."
When I was in the laundrymat I would have people ask me "You know of a
better laundrymat around here?"
Nobody moaned.

--Vic

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:45:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:

Bull**** a fraction of the water. My wife can set the water level
where ever she wants it by turning a damn dial.
Same with wash cycle. Same with hot/cold water.
You don't have to buy a GM Volt.
You don't have to buy a Nissan Leaf.
You don't have to buy a washer with "automatic" water levels.
Plenty of top-loaders without that for sale.
You let CR and the WSJ tell you how to wash clothes.
I'll trust user experience and my wife.
Then we'll see who gets clean clothes (-:


She probably uses TSP.


Just normal Gain powdered detergent.

Or, knowing your disposition, takes them to the washateria while your back
is turned.

My disposition towards her is good. She might be stronger than me
now.

--Vic

On Mar 19, 10:05*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:23*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:45:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

washateria

I haven't heard that word in ages -- to many years to count.

==
Better than "laundrymat" that one of my friends uses...I moan every
time I hear it.
==

WTF? *When I used laundrymats we said "Let's go the laundrymat."
When I was in the laundrymat I would have people ask me "You know of a
better laundrymat around here?"
Nobody moaned.

--Vic

==
"Laundromat" is the usual term in these here parts stranger.
==

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Mar 19, 10:05Â*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:23Â*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:45:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

washateria

I haven't heard that word in ages -- to many years to count.

==
Better than "laundrymat" that one of my friends uses...I moan every
time I hear it.
==

WTF? Â*When I used laundrymats we said "Let's go the laundrymat."
When I was in the laundrymat I would have people ask me "You know of a
better laundrymat around here?"
Nobody moaned.

--Vic

==
"Laundromat" is the usual term in these here parts stranger.
==

Well den, I can't disagree with dat.

--Vic

On 3/19/2011 12:05 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:27:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:23Â pm, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:45:38 -0500,
wrote:

washateria

I haven't heard that word in ages -- to many years to count.

==
Better than "laundrymat" that one of my friends uses...I moan every
time I hear it.
==

WTF? When I used laundrymats we said "Let's go the laundrymat."
When I was in the laundrymat I would have people ask me "You know of a
better laundrymat around here?"
Nobody moaned.

--Vic

Must be a regional thing. In Indiana, we always called them laundromats.
Don't thing I have ever heard or seen it as laundrymat until this thread.

But all in all, 'shrug'. As long as y'all knew what each other meant,
that is all that really matters. I found it confusing when I moved to SW
MI, and noticed that a lot of people still called hamburgers 'hamburgs'.
Silly me, I thought that was just an abbreviation busy waitresses used
on the old green-and-white order tickets.


--
aem sends...