On Sep 2, 8:08*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. *You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." *Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.

It does take more mercury, since it's a byproduct of the process. Sorry if
that destroys an argument that original bulbs are better. Since we're
replacing old bulbs with new, we should also move toward renewable energy,
since that's clearly a problem.

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!

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.

Renewable energy? Another thread.

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

"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

On Sep 2, 9:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"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??

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.


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.

No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup.

"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...


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.

No. Your grey matter is failing you. Horse, water, drink. Giddyup.

Rein yourself in... The water might not be potable.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

But can you address the issue at hand? The fact that it takes more
energy to manufacture the CFB, so that process 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?

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.

"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.

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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