"Jack" wrote in message
...
My, you have a short little attention span. It does *not* take more
mercury, since both the incandescent and CFB have similar glass,
metal, and plastic content. In fact, it's a near certainty that the
CFB takes *more* energy, and therefore mercury, to produce, since it
is more complex, with more plastic and metal content than the old tech
bulb. Oh, and IT CONTAINS RAW MERCURY!

What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the
atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury??

Now, snap to attention... I never stated that the old bulbs were
"better", I just correctly stated that the mercury argument is false,
and that you obviously didn't understand it when you tried to bring it
up.

No. You just are supporting the argument.

Renewable energy? Another thread.

Assuming you don't relate the two items, which are closely interrelated.

Now you can go back to sleep, bumper sticker slogan boy.

Only when I'm tired, and don't call me a boy. Clearly, you know nothing
about me.

--
Nom=de=Plume