No, it's about a bunch of pro-government statists and CNN viewers wanting
to use armed thugs to forcibly impose their values on everyone around
them down to the last toilet, shower head, and light bulb. (For the
record I do not have cable TV and have never watched Fox News.)
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:35:18 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
Nobody is forcing anyone to replace their crapper. As long as it
doesn't split and parts are available there is nothing the governmant
can or will do to force you to do anything.
Same with your incandescent lights. As long as your lights don't burn
out, and/or your supply of incandescent bulbs holds out, nobody is
forcing you to change over to any alternate light style.
No violence is being threatened.
On 12/14/2014 7:58 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
You sure sound naive. try buying 100 watt light
bulbs, driving without a seat belt, driving while
talking on your cell phone, buying a 3.5 GPF
toilet, and driving without license plates. When
the guys with guns show up, tell em to go away
and leave you alone. That you just posted on
Usenet that no violence is threatened, and they
should just go away.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 7:58:37 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
What BS. Of course govt is forcing toilets and light bulbs on people.
The govt has *banned* your right to buy the toilet or light bulb you
want. Saying that you can continue to use the one you have doesn't
mean much. It would be like saying prohibition didn't matter, you could
still drink the alcohol you already had.
I like your quote about "drink the alcohol you
already had". I may use that. In the USA, the
same is being done with guns. Make purchase of
guns or ammo so difficult, the ones available
will be gone in a generation or less.
| Illogical. First, it's more like $5 or even less. Second, the savings is
| not per minute of use, but per year of use (on or off). If the bulb is
| going to last 10-20 years, saving $4-$5 is pennies/year and not worth my
| time to even consider. But then you know what your time is worth.
| But then I don't think this is really about money. I think it's about a
| bunch of anti-government reactionaries digging in their heels where they
| can. Fox news viewers, for sure.
How did a choice of lightbulbs escalate into a
culture war? :) There are pros and cons to all the
options. Incandescent is cheaper but costs more
to run. CFLs cost a bit less to run but are slow to
light up, are not suited to frequent on/off and
It's worth remembering that LED use is fairly
recent. For a number of years CFLs had been
pushed hard as the ecological solution. Yet they're
not well suited to many common uses, the light
is ugly and they contain mercury, for which there's
considered to be no safe level of exposure in
children. The illogic of classifying CFLs as
"environmentally friendly" is breathtaking. Yet
CFL use has been no less than a craze for many
years, with most of the public, including people who
should have known better, jumping on that particular
Now the latest thing is LEDs. They have selling points
but they haven't been around long enough to be time-
tested. Probably they'll improve with time. Maybe they'll
last as long as claimed. Maybe they won't. Isn't there
some logic in both preferences -- incandescent and
LED? Dogmatism is the only clearly illogical position,
because dogma values certainty over fact.
Where I live it's actually illegal to put an incandescent
fixture in a closet due to the fire risk from the heat
generated. It's supposed to be a fluorescent fixture.
I don't know offhand whether CFLs and/or LEDs satisfy
the code. Unfortunately, I don't have any closets so
luxuriously big that they'd benefit from having a light
| > But we're not going to make those changes. The
| > only change that can be enforced is business
| > regulation: forcing toilet companies to make smaller
| > toilets.
| Every act of government is an act of violence. Here you are basically
| stating that you believe the best approach to designing toilets is to
| have a cadre of armed goons force your values ("smaller toilets") on
| others under threat of violence.
You didn't fully read what I wrote. I don't think
most of the small toilets work properly. I'm dubious
of their value. And no one is forcing you to do anything
under threat of violence. What I was trying to point
out is that forcing companies to make low-flow toilets
was one of the few options to deal with water shortage.
It's just about the only approach that *does not* force
people to do anything. You can keep your old toilet.
You can flush your new toilet twice. You can put a
custom tank on your toilet. None of that is illegal. The
only illegal thing is to sell high-flow toilets.
Regulations like low-flow toilets happen because
most people will not or can not voluntarily conserve
water. It's really the same idea as a traffic light.
Traffic lights are not there to force you or me to stop
a lot. Their purpose is to regulate traffic for everyone's
sake. Why? Because in general we're not
mature or considerate enough for society to
survive without rules. Maybe you go to great lengths
to conserve water, taking 4 minute showers and
never watering your lawn, but most people simply
won't be so responsible voluntarily. Likewise, you
might always let the other car go first at an intersection,
but most of us are not that way, so we need traffic
So I guess we need governement because we're
not all as mature and generous as you apparently
are. Perhaps you could try to be patient with the
rest of us. :)
however, you can rest now that the funding
bill is passed as it included langauge to
extend incandescent light bulb availability
with a gradually increasing requirement for
efficiency until around 2020.
I agree with Clare here.
Incandescent bulbs are being phased out only because CFL's and LED's can
provide exactly the same lighting at a fraction of the cost, and more
importantly, at a fraction of the coal that has to be burned to generate
the electricity needed to power the bulbs.
Be aware that only the standard base incandescent bulbs are being
replaced. You will still be able to buy incandescent bulbs for all
other applications, like your car, your appliances (like the microwave
oven, fridge and stove) and for specialty bulbs such as UV bulbs for
But, if you choose to stockpile incandescent bulbs, no one is going to
confiscate your stockpile of incandescent bulbs to force you to use
CFL's or LED's.
I recently purchased 8 candelabra based LED bulbs for the chandelier in
my front lobby and found the light they produce to be particularily
attractive. The chandelier actually looks more elegant with LED bulbs
in it than it did with the 40 watt equivalent CFL's I was using before.
So, if you want to stick to incandescents, go for it. I expect there
were people stocking up on typewriter ribbons when computer word
processing applications first came out, and I hope those people prefer
using a typewriter over a word processor as much as I prefer using a
word processor over a type writer. To each his own.
Are you saying that your constitutional guarantee that every American
citizen may bear arms isn't working? Aren't your guns supposed to
guarantee that the citizenry will never be subject to an oppressive
There is a difference between fighting against excessive government
control and punching one's own self in the face. The reason for
eliminating incandescent bulbs isn't because they cost consumers more to
operate. Your government doesn't care about that. It's because
incandescent lighting is very inefficient and requires that more coal or
natural gas be burned in order to power those inefficient incandescent
bulbs. Your government is not trying to exercise control over you as
much as they are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere. To interpret that as a government exercising control over
it's citizenry for no other reason except to prove that it can is one
step away from lying. It is willfully ignoring their obvious and real
motivation in favour of whatever interpretation suits your position
On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:47:27 -0500, Stormin Mormon
The [LDS] twelfth Article of Faith says:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. . . .
And more quotes:
Are you really preaching what you preach in your sig?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.