[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

WASHINGTON - A nonpartisan congressional study projects only modest
household cost increases as a result of a Democratic proposal to limit
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contradicting claims by
many Republican lawmakers that the climate legislation amounts to a
huge energy tax on average Americans.

....

The findings contrast sharply with cost projections — some as high as
$3,100 per household — use by many Republicans including House
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio who repeatedly has blasted the
Democrat's climate legislation as economically devastating to average
Americans.

"This analysis underscores that this legislation is effective and
affordable," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the climate bill's
chief sponsors, said Monday.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., also a leading co-sponsor, compared the
cost to "a postage stamp a day" and not the economic catastrophe
suggested by the bill's opponents.

http://tiny.cc/onkAU

2pid? Is the sky still falling? Are you still really REALLY ****ed off
about this?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 2:07*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
WASHINGTON - A nonpartisan congressional study projects only modest
household cost increases as a result of a Democratic proposal to limit
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, contradicting claims by
many Republican lawmakers that the climate legislation amounts to a
huge energy tax on average Americans.

...

The findings contrast sharply with cost projections — some as high as
$3,100 per household — use by many Republicans including House
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio who repeatedly has blasted the
Democrat's climate legislation as economically devastating to average
Americans.

"This analysis underscores that this legislation is effective and
affordable," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the climate bill's
chief sponsors, said Monday.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., also a leading co-sponsor, compared the
cost to "a postage stamp a day" and not the economic catastrophe
suggested by the bill's opponents.

http://tiny.cc/onkAU

2pid? Is the sky still falling? Are you still really REALLY ****ed off
about this?

*Effective?

*Here's another view.

"But the bill's offset plan has been battered by environmental
activists as too generous. They argue that the offsets would undermine
the new greenhouse gas emissions limits that would be mandated by the
legislation.

The fear, said Emily Figdor of Environment America, is that if carbon
offsets are cheap and readily available, companies may purchase them
instead of cutting their pollution.

As a result, U.S. emissions might not dip for years - and could even
increase in the short term - despite new greenhouse gas limits.

"The fact that 2 billion tons of offsets were included puts in
jeopardy the environmental goals of the bill," Figdor said.

An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank in Oakland,
found that if polluters purchase the "relatively cheap carbon
offsets ... emissions in supposedly capped U.S. sectors (could) rise
by up to 9 percent between 2005 and 2030."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/21/MNCE18AEO....

You might get what you pay for which isn't much.

BTW, did you ever compare our modest reduction goals *to China's
projected growth in CO2 emissions? * I hope you like mosquitoes in
November.

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 23, 7:12*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:12*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

As a result of energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on
utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
legislation.

That¹s right ‹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:

The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit
of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don¹t have to just wish we were there ‹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²

--

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 24, 8:24Â*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:12Â*pm, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
In article
,
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. Â*The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

Â* Â* As a result of energy efficiency measures, Â*consumer spending on Â*
Â* utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
Â* legislation.

That¹s right €¹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:

Â* Â* The overall impact on the average household, Â*including the benefit
Â* of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
Â* be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don¹t have to just wish we were there €¹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²

--
.

What are the costs to implement this?
How much will that raise the cost of consumer's bills?
What about other societal costs?
Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?
You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 7:59Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:24Â*am, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:

Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:12Â*pm, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:

Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. Â*The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

Â* Â* As a result of energy efficiency measures, Â*consumer spending on Â*
Â* utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
Â* legislation.

That¹s right €¹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:

Â* Â* The overall impact on the average household, Â*including the benefit
Â* of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
Â* be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don¹t have to just wish we were there €¹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²

What are the costs to implement this?
How much will that raise the cost of consumer's bills?

Answered in the CBO report, already posted in this thread.

What about other societal costs?

Such as?

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?
You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 24, 1:12Â*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 7:59Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 24, 8:24Â*am, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:12Â*pm, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. Â*The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

Â* Â* As a result of energy efficiency measures, Â*consumer spending on Â*
Â* utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
Â* legislation.

That¹s right €¹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:

Â* Â* The overall impact on the average household, Â*including the benefit
Â* of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
Â* be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don¹t have to just wish we were there €¹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²
What are the costs to implement this?
How much will that raise the cost of consumer's bills?

Answered in the CBO report, already posted in this thread.

What about other societal costs?

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up
They don't work with dimmers.
they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.




Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?
You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.
there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 5:05Â*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:12Â*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 7:59Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:24Â*am, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:12Â*pm, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. Â*The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

Â* Â* As a result of energy efficiency measures, Â*consumer spending on Â*
Â* utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
Â* legislation.

That¹s right €¹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:

Â* Â* The overall impact on the average household, Â*including the benefit
Â* of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
Â* be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don¹t have to just wish we were there €¹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²
What are the costs to implement this?
How much will that raise the cost of consumer's bills?

Answered in the CBO report, already posted in this thread.

What about other societal costs?

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

They don't work with dimmers.

Some do:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Dimmable-Co...FR7yDAod7gl2DQ

they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.

Really? That makes no sense:

An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will
save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months.
It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an
incandescent bulb.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I think you're using bad/outdated information. Did you get it from one
of 2pid's blogs?

Whoever makes them pays for the energy to make them as well as the
components, equipment, marketing, etc. It used to be that you took
your cost and multipiled by five to approximate a retail price. I'm
not sure if that's still current. Whoever makes them is making money
on them.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that all of these people say
something other than what you say and I can find nothing which
supports your claim. If you have something, let's see it.

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?

BZZZT.

You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

No, it's just that the correct answers aren't what you thought they
were, being an ossified old codger who seems to frequently post while
drinking.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.


Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.


They don't work with dimmers.

Some do:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Dimmable-Co...ulbs/?gclid=CN....

they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.

Really? That makes no sense:

An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will
save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months.
It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an
incandescent bulb.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I think you're using bad/outdated information. Did you get it from one
of 2pid's blogs?

Whoever makes them pays for the energy to make them as well as the
components, equipment, marketing, *etc. It used to be that you took
your cost and multipiled by five to approximate a retail price. I'm
not sure if that's still current. Whoever makes them is making money
on them.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that all of these people say
something other than what you say and I can find nothing which
supports your claim. If you have something, let's see it.

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?

BZZZT.

You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

No, it's just that the correct answers aren't what you thought they
were, being an ossified old codger who seems to frequently post while
drinking.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

So you are speculating that property crime will rise dramatically
because of FLs.

Speaking of "Duh!" LOL!

They don't work with dimmers.

Some do:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Dimmable-Co...ulbs/?gclid=CN....

they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.

Really? That makes no sense:

An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will
save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months.
It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an
incandescent bulb.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I think you're using bad/outdated information. Did you get it from one
of 2pid's blogs?

Whoever makes them pays for the energy to make them as well as the
components, equipment, marketing, *etc. It used to be that you took
your cost and multipiled by five to approximate a retail price. I'm
not sure if that's still current. Whoever makes them is making money
on them.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that all of these people say
something other than what you say and I can find nothing which
supports your claim. If you have something, let's see it.

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?

BZZZT.

You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

No, it's just that the correct answers aren't what you thought they
were, being an ossified old codger who seems to frequently post while
drinking.

Here are the answers to the myths and misinformation you propagate
(Um, speaking of "simplistic non-thinker'):

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=587586

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 24, 10:39*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

So you are speculating that property crime will rise dramatically
because of FLs.

Speaking of "Duh!" LOL!



They don't work with dimmers.

Some do:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Dimmable-Co...ulbs/?gclid=CN...

they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.

Really? That makes no sense:

An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will
save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months..
It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an
incandescent bulb.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I think you're using bad/outdated information. Did you get it from one
of 2pid's blogs?

Whoever makes them pays for the energy to make them as well as the
components, equipment, marketing, *etc. It used to be that you took
your cost and multipiled by five to approximate a retail price. I'm
not sure if that's still current. Whoever makes them is making money
on them.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that all of these people say
something other than what you say and I can find nothing which
supports your claim. If you have something, let's see it.

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?

BZZZT.

You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

No, it's just that the correct answers aren't what you thought they
were, being an ossified old codger who seems to frequently post while
drinking.

Here are the answers to the myths and misinformation you propagate
(Um, speaking of "simplistic non-thinker'):

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=587586

which led to this:

" Thanks for remembering me to stock on LED lamps
Have you guys any info on them like if they are dangerous spreading
ELF's
and Magnetically?You're welcome w1nstonsm1th84
__________________
I asked God: “What is the best religion on the planet?
Which one is right?” And Godhead said, with great love: “I don’t
care.”
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...d=1#post359620
One of my blogs: http://www.alternativehealthylife.com
My personal notebook/website/blog thing: http://www.emrealtinok.co.nr
"


there were no answers there.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.
thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 11:47*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:39*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

So you are speculating that property crime will rise dramatically
because of FLs.

Speaking of "Duh!" LOL!

They don't work with dimmers.

Some do:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Dimmable-Co...ulbs/?gclid=CN...

they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.

Really? That makes no sense:

An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will
save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months.
It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an
incandescent bulb.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I think you're using bad/outdated information. Did you get it from one
of 2pid's blogs?

Whoever makes them pays for the energy to make them as well as the
components, equipment, marketing, *etc. It used to be that you took
your cost and multipiled by five to approximate a retail price. I'm
not sure if that's still current. Whoever makes them is making money
on them.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that all of these people say
something other than what you say and I can find nothing which
supports your claim. If you have something, let's see it.

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?

BZZZT.

You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

No, it's just that the correct answers aren't what you thought they
were, being an ossified old codger who seems to frequently post while
drinking.

Here are the answers to the myths and misinformation you propagate
(Um, speaking of "simplistic non-thinker'):

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=587586

which led to this:

there were no answers there.

Scroll up. There were plenty of answers the

Here are some of the most common myths about green lighting.

1. Low energy bulbs produce unpleasant light

Five or so years ago, many low energy bulbs did produce rather weak,
cold and unnatural-looking light. But times have changed and modern
eco bulbs produce bright, yellow light that is just as pleasant – if
very slightly different in character – as regular lighting. American
magazine Popular Mechanics put such claims to the test, asking people
to rate the light from eight different bulbs. The result? The seven
eco bulbs all scored better than the one regular bulb.

2. Eco bulbs flicker and take ages to turn on

Again, this is mainly a thing of the past. Most modern low energy
bulbs turn on within a second, with no flickering. But it’s true that
they can take a few seconds to reach their maximum light levels,
especially in a cold room.

3. Low energy light bulbs are expensive

Prices have plummeted in recent years and, thanks to subsidy schemes,
high quality bulbs are available in the UK for as little as £1 each.
The more obscure eco bulbs are pricier, but still excellent value if
you factor in how long they last and the comparative cost of using
regular bulbs.

4. Low energy bulbs take lots of energy to make, offsetting their
environmental benefits

Energy saving bulbs take around four times more energy to make than
regular incandescent bulbs do. But they last five to ten times longer,
so they can actually help reduce the total energy used in light bulb
manufacture and distribution. Even if this were not true, the energy
used in producing an eco bulb would be outweighed by the 80 per cent
energy savings it can make.

5. Low energy bulbs look ugly

Ok, spiral or U-shaped low energy bulbs aren’t particularly attractive
for exposed light fittings. But there are plenty of regular-looking
eco bulbs, such as the Philips Softone range, available in globe,
candle and other shapes.

6. Halogen bulbs are already super-efficient

Halogen bulbs are more efficient than regular bulbs but still only
half as efficient as low energy compact fluorescents. And halogen
bulbs are often used rather prolifically – many homes have six or more
recessed halogen bulbs in one room.

There are three alternatives to halogen fittings. Philips make a
version of a standard ceiling-recessed halogen bulbs (MR16) that use
30 per cent less energy. Even greener are Megaman’s mini compact
fluorescent bulbs, available for various halogen fittings. Or you
could try LED spotlights, which use as little as 1W per bulb, but
current models produce far less light than regular halogens.

7. Low energy bulbs don’t work with dimmer switches

This was true until recently, but you can now buy fully dimmable low
energy bulbs. They’re more expensive than regular eco bulbs but they
can still save you plenty of money in the long run. Also, the Philips
energy-saving halogen bulbs mentioned above are fully dimmable (as are
some Megaman bulbs, though you may have to change your fittings).

8. Low energy bulbs are bad for us and the environment as they contain
mercury

It’s true that low energy bulbs contain tiny quantities of mercury
(around 100–300 times less than you’d get in a thermometer). However,
this can be safely disposed of by taking old bulbs to your local dump
for recycling. The largest source of mercury in the air is the burning
of fossil fuels – in coal-fired power plants, for example. Provided
they’re properly disposed of, low energy bulbs can help reduce the
amount of mercury energy entering the atmosphere by cutting the demand
for electricity.

9. Regular bulbs don’t waste energy, they just produce heat that helps
warm the home

It is true that the 'wasted' energy of a regular bulb is given off as
heat. but this is only useful on cold days. Gas boilers produce heat
far more efficiently than electric light bulbs. And as hot air rises,
bulbs on the ceiling aren’t exactly the ideal place to produce heat
for your home.

10. The government is banning regular bulbs

In September 2007 a number of leading retailers, in consultation with
the government, agreed to begin phrasing out the least efficient bulbs
this year. But this is a voluntary initiative rather than a ban.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

When what you should say is it *might* go up. But you still based this
claim on "previous legislation" and the "unintended consequences"
thereof.

But then again it *might* not have any consequence at all on property
crime. You're making stuff up.

Either way, it's a weak excuse against more efficient lights. Do you
have stock in an incandescent lighting manufacturer or something? LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 25, 2:08*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

When what you should say is it *might* go up. But you still based this
claim on "previous legislation" and the "unintended consequences"
thereof.

But then again it *might* not have any consequence at all on property
crime. You're making stuff up.

Either way, it's a weak excuse against more efficient lights. Do you
have stock in an incandescent lighting manufacturer or something? LoL.

No, I just don't want the old bulbs banned.
I use the flourescents when parctical, which is
'for about 90% of my uses.
But they are not appropriate for
certain kinds of fixtures, for those I need incandescant.
For instance, for high wattage requirements, flourescents
can be too large for the fixture.
And for those series of lights
\above the bathroom mirror, I need incandescent.
AS long as they are still available, I'll be happy.
I am also concerned about floodlights, will they still be available?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 25, 12:25*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 25, 2:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 25, 2:08*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

When what you should say is it *might* go up. But you still based this
claim on "previous legislation" and the "unintended consequences"
thereof.

But then again it *might* not have any consequence at all on property
crime. You're making stuff up.

Either way, it's a weak excuse against more efficient lights. Do you
have stock in an incandescent lighting manufacturer or something? LoL..

No, I just don't want the old bulbs banned.
I use the flourescents when parctical, which is
'for about 90% of my uses.

*Do you dispose of them properly?
*Their impact on mercury in the environment is a problem not mentioned
nor easily determined.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 25, 2:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 25, 2:08*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

When what you should say is it *might* go up. But you still based this
claim on "previous legislation" and the "unintended consequences"
thereof.

But then again it *might* not have any consequence at all on property
crime. You're making stuff up.

Either way, it's a weak excuse against more efficient lights. Do you
have stock in an incandescent lighting manufacturer or something? LoL..

No, I just don't want the old bulbs banned.
I use the flourescents when parctical, which is
'for about 90% of my uses.

*Do you dispose of them properly?
*Their impact on mercury in the environment is a problem not mentioned
nor easily determined.

ScottW

no problem, I ship them to Mynmar.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 25, 3:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

I never said I had any objection.
American consumers should have free choice.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 25, 1:17*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:08*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jun 25, 2:08*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:55*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:57*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

Duh!!!
The law hasn't gone into effect yet.
The new bulbs are not yet mandatory, so they are not
used for that purpose.

BTW, Clyde, go back an reread what you wrote:

"Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to the
energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for home security
setups. watch property crime go up"

You are saying that as a result of *previous* legislation "going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs"..."are useless for home security
setups." Therefore, you say (or "at least" strongly imply) that as a
result of *previous* legislation property crime has gone up.

And to that I say "Duh!" LOL!

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

thus, "Watch property crime go up"
I di not say it did go up, I said'it would go up
and that you should watch for it.

When what you should say is it *might* go up. But you still based this
claim on "previous legislation" and the "unintended consequences"
thereof.

But then again it *might* not have any consequence at all on property
crime. You're making stuff up.

Either way, it's a weak excuse against more efficient lights. Do you
have stock in an incandescent lighting manufacturer or something? LoL..

No, I just don't want the old bulbs banned.
I use the flourescents when parctical, which is
'for about 90% of my uses.

*Do you dispose of them properly?
*Their impact on mercury in the environment is a problem not mentioned
nor easily determined.

Duh.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 25, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 25, 3:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

I never said I had any objection.
American consumers should have free choice.

I want a CRT for TV.

It looks like I'm screwed. Why aren't you whining about that? LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 26, 1:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 25, 3:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

I never said I had any objection.
American consumers should have free choice.

I want a CRT for TV.

It looks like I'm screwed. Why aren't you whining about that? LoL.

Not the same issue.
The government didn't prohibit that.
Market forces are lined up against you.
Not a government ban

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 12:35*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 26, 1:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

I never said I had any objection.
American consumers should have free choice.

I want a CRT for TV.

It looks like I'm screwed. Why aren't you whining about that? LoL.

Not the same issue.
The government didn't prohibit that.
Market forces are lined up against you.
Not a government ban

Step 1: go one Facebook
Step 2: form a group called "I hate CFLs!"
Step 3: whine there.

LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

On Jun 26, 2:27*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 26, 12:35*am, Clyde Slick wrote:



On Jun 26, 1:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

I never said I had any objection.
American consumers should have free choice.

I want a CRT for TV.

It looks like I'm screwed. Why aren't you whining about that? LoL.

Not the same issue.
The government didn't prohibit that.
Market forces are lined up against you.
Not a government ban

Step 1: go one Facebook
Step 2: form a group called "I hate CFLs!"
Step 3: whine there.

LoL.

You are pretty thickheaded.
I don't hate CFL's
I hate being forced to use them exclusively.
You are pro choice, aren't you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 1:02*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 26, 5:57*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

I hate being forced to use them exclusively.
You are pro choice, aren't you?

* You'll eventually be forced to upgrade all your appliance with more
efficient ones.

Doesn't that just suck? The inefficient ones work so much better.

LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

* You'll eventually be forced to upgrade all your appliance with more
efficient ones.

Doesn't that just suck? The inefficient ones work so much better.

Witless is sore 'cause he invested in wind turbines that are already
obsolete.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 26, 1:02*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 26, 5:57*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On Jun 26, 2:27*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jun 26, 12:35*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 26, 1:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Jun 25, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 25, 3:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

No, I am saying that they will go up
when the flourescent mandate kicks in.

Based on...?

Clyde, before you try to answer that question, I have a more pressing one:
Are there any alternative-flour bulbs on the market for those who are
allergic to wheat?

China makes some rice based ones, mostly long grained

Well isn't that perfect. What are your objections to american consumers
buying the Chinese ones, other than the obvious?

I never said I had any objection.
American consumers should have free choice.

I want a CRT for TV.

It looks like I'm screwed. Why aren't you whining about that? LoL..

Not the same issue.
The government didn't prohibit that.
Market forces are lined up against you.
Not a government ban

Step 1: go one Facebook
Step 2: form a group called "I hate CFLs!"
Step 3: whine there.

LoL.

You are pretty thickheaded.
I don't hate CFL's
I hate being forced to use them exclusively.
You are pro choice, aren't you?

* You'll eventually be forced to upgrade all your appliance with more
efficient ones.

Meanwhile the CBO estimate is revealed to be crap.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ent/wm2503.cfm

Oh, another blog. Hm. OK, I'll play.

Energy costs will be reduced by 100%. Manna will rain from Heaven.
Cars will be free and so will women. The legal drinking age will be
12. Everybody will be a millionaire. Heroin will cure cancer. Pot will
increase intelligence by 50% (the first 100 joints are on me. 2pid!
LoL).

There ya go, 2pid. An effective counter to your blog.

Now what?

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ent/wm2503.cfm

Oh, another blog. Hm. OK, I'll play.

Energy costs will be reduced by 100%. Manna will rain from Heaven.
Cars will be free and so will women. The legal drinking age will be
12. Everybody will be a millionaire. Heroin will cure cancer. Pot will
increase intelligence by 50% (the first 100 joints are on me. 2pid!
LoL).

There ya go, 2pid. An effective counter to your blog.

Now what?

Didn't we already refer to government studies showing a small financial
impact and lower electricity bills? It's like he's starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 27, 7:27*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Now what?

Didn't we already refer to government studies showing a small financial
impact and lower electricity bills? It's like he's starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.

2pid can only see evidence that supports his already-made-up-mind.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.

I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MiNe 109 said:

It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.

I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

It's a rich vein he's given us.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 27, 11:31*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

*It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.

I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

Sensorimotor Stage (Birth-2 Years)
Even though Piaget was opposed to applying age norms to the stages,
most researchers consider approximately the first two years of life to
be the Sensorimotor Stage (McCormick, 1997). Infants mainly make use
of senses and motor capabilities to experience the environment. For
instance, if infants cannot see or touch an object, they stop trying
to find it. Once infants develop the capability to recognize that a
hidden object still continues to exist, they start searching for it.

The characteristic limitation of this stage is ‘thinking only by
doing’. The Sensorimotor infant gains physical knowledge.

http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/piaget/index.htm

Piaget beat you to it.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

*It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.

I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

[snip]

Piaget beat you to it.

That's all very well, but if you're gonna go all scientific, I think you
absolutely must refer to Pavlov's work.

woof!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 27, 6:20*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

*It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.
I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

[snip]

Piaget beat you to it.

That's all very well, but if you're gonna go all scientific, I think you
absolutely must refer to Pavlov's work.

Was Pavlov a pioneer in the field of whining or something?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

*It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.
I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

[snip]

Piaget beat you to it.

That's all very well, but if you're gonna go all scientific, I think you
absolutely must refer to Pavlov's work.

Was Pavlov a pioneer in the field of whining or something?

I believe his field was slobber control.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 27, 9:23*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

It's like [Witless is] starting over from
zero and hadn't seen any contrary evidence.
I'd ask if I can quote you, but in fact you're quoting me.

[snip]

Piaget beat you to it.

That's all very well, but if you're gonna go all scientific, I think you
absolutely must refer to Pavlov's work.

Was Pavlov a pioneer in the field of whining or something?

I believe his field was slobber control.

Thank God 2pid isn't peeing all over the rug again. This Pavlov
apparently couldn't help with 2pid's bladder control.