On Sep 3, 2:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 2, 11:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...

What exactly do you think is the mercury that gets spewed into the
atmoshere?? Non-raw mercury??
Non-sequitur. Fact is, it takes more energy to manufacture the CFB,
so that releases more mercury into the atmosphere. Couple that with
the fact that the standard bulb contains no mercury, and the CFB
contains mercury, and you're just wrong.

You said "RAW" mercury. As opposed to...
Non-sequitur again. *As opposed to mercury that the device in question
doesn't contain. *Derived mercury. *Drive-by mercury. *Collateral
mercury. *In the end, the CFB contains mercury directly, and the old
tech bulb does not.

Hate to break it to you, but mercury is an element. So, it seems you're the
one who's doing a little bitty jig.

So is Plutonium and Europium, but it's highly unlikely that either
type of bulb contain anything but trace amounts of them, and why does
it matter? You still won't, or can't, come to grips with the real
issue here.


It's obvious you don't have the engineering chops to grasp all of
this. *It's apparent in your initial incorrect presentation of the
mercury issue, and your dancing around it since you were called on
your mistake. *That's OK, some are not cut out for the mental heavy
lifting. *You shouldn't be too ashamed. *That's why the pundits put
this bumper-sticker stuff out there... for the sheeple to have
something to hang on to. *It worked for you. *And it got BO elected.
It's highly successful stuff.

So personal attacks are all you're left with.. not a convincing argument.


Hey, you're the one that heard or read a ditty about CFBs, then
totally got the gist of it wrong. I've presented clearly stated
arguments that you don't address, instead you simply dance around.
Either what I wrote about you above is accurate, or you're choosing
not to address that which proves your statements wrong. In either
case you get what you deserve.

see ya