Strange problem with low energy light bulb

[Sally]

You *like* the foul/fowl language? It must be pleasant at your family
mealtable, John. In my field and level we regard such indulgences as
clutter. The pursuit of an intellectual consideration requires meaningful
expression and entirely precludes it, very word being of value. Strongly
asserted differences of opinion are very helpful in exploring the truth but
foul language invariably obscures it. And by the way, attempts to arrive at
the truth logically involve opinion-holders declaring that they were wrong
from tem to time (both sides usually (but not always) can't be right). How
often do you see the abusive posters here stating genuinely that after
reading the other side they have concluded that they were wrong?

 

[Sally]

Murphy's Law! s/be "every"!

 

[Eeyore]

Sorry, there is no convention really. People are free to top or bottom
post if they wish on unmoderated groups or email.

Now, do you think it really makes sense to have to scroll down for such
a short reply?

Do you think it makes sense not to snip so we can see what you're replying to ?

Top-posting is for lazy arrogant ppl.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

True Mr T!

True what.

You're comment appears witrhout any context.

Graham

 

[Arfa Daily]

You *like* the foul/fowl language? It must be pleasant at your family
mealtable, John. In my field and level we regard such indulgences as
clutter. The pursuit of an intellectual consideration requires meaningful
expression and entirely precludes it, very word being of value. Strongly
asserted differences of opinion are very helpful in exploring the truth
but foul language invariably obscures it. And by the way, attempts to
arrive at the truth logically involve opinion-holders declaring that they
were wrong from tem to time (both sides usually (but not always) can't be
right). How often do you see the abusive posters here stating genuinely
that after reading the other side they have concluded that they were
wrong?

Maybe not on *your* group, but on this one, quite often, actually ...

Arfa

 

[Arfa Daily]

Sorry, there is no convention really. People are free to top or bottom
post if they wish on unmoderated groups or email.

Now, do you think it really makes sense to have to scroll down for such a
short reply? And I really didn't see that I was criticizing anything. I
just stated that I don't really care which way someone posts. It is
always fairly easy to figure out. I just figure there is no reason to be
a tight-ass about it. My work here is done.

FD

Sorry, but there is a convention - on this group at least, but maybe not on
yours. I did not specifically say that you were being critical, because I
did not believe that you particularly were. I just used your post as a
vehicle to reply to the others that have popped up on this thread now from
the groups that it's been cross-posted to, and who *are* criticising.

Arfa

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

I'm interested to know what's the "defence mechanism" that benefits
from low color temperatures?

I doubt there is one. The reason prolonged bass might be unsettling is that
any animal is wary of a conspicuous expenditure of energy, and that really
IS about as close to a 'universal' 'preference' as we can get. Any agency
that can conspicously expend energy is potentially a serious risk, either
because it's a source of elemental power, or because it's aware of its
power and feels no need to hide it from the world around it.

The animals with a defensive relation to colour temperature are likely to
be those that fear fire, or are wary of us because we have learned to use
fire. That won't likely be evolution (might need an actual genetic record
to establish that), but it is conditioning, adaptation.

I don't think we have any imperative that makes us need low colour
temperatures. We do have an imperative for warmth, and while that comes
from flame it is possible to connect the two things, but as soon as we get
warmth some other way, all bets are off.

It's interesting to look at how other animals relate to tungsten lighting.
(Crude generalisation alert!) Cats and dogs like it, rats and snakes do
not. That surely shows that it really doesn't matter half as much as how
they react to us.

Preference for higher colour temperatures might be likely based on
efficient shortwave light making things easily visible. Preference for low
colour temperatures is mostly symbolic. The purely functional
basis of the preference for low colour temperatures is itself symbolic,
many people find 'functional' to be almost a synonym for 'bleak' or
'dreary'. Possibly because of an aversion to work (which I can understand),
or more likely because having to ration energy usage implies discomfort.
There's no reason it should do so though, as in this case we're talking
about limiting energy expenditure by choice. That's the whole point of
these new kinds of lamp. Being able to choose leaves us open to new kinds
of conditioning.

 

[Meat Plow]

I thought I was poasting to the Usenets?

poast ?
you realise you are wasting your time ?

 

[John Fields]

Murphy's Law! s/be "every"!

 

[John Fields]

You *like* the foul/fowl language?

---
Hmm...

"grousing", "fowl language", "for the birds"...

I see you missed the "humor" in those avian references and are
referring to foul language which hasn't even been used yet, unless I
missed something.
---

It must be pleasant at your family mealtable, John.

---
Sarcasm, so soon? **** you, Sally! (Now _that's_ an example of
foul language.)
---

In my field and level we regard such indulgences as
clutter. The pursuit of an intellectual consideration requires meaningful
expression and entirely precludes it, very word being of value. Strongly
asserted differences of opinion are very helpful in exploring the truth but
foul language invariably obscures it. And by the way, attempts to arrive at
the truth logically involve opinion-holders declaring that they were wrong
from tem to time (both sides usually (but not always) can't be right). How
often do you see the abusive posters here stating genuinely that after
reading the other side they have concluded that they were wrong?

---
It happens on occasion and, since most of USENET considers top
posting to be abusive or, at the very least, annoying, it makes me
wonder why you haven't admitted to being wrong about it and changed
your practice.

Even Google Groups advises against top posting at:

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250

"Summarize what you're following up.

When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just
start typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article
does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."


Just consider this post, for example. What I'm doing is called
"in-line" posting and is basically designed to reply to specific
areas of a post on a line-by-line basis in order to address each
point individually. Note that the replies always _follow_ the area
being commented on, since preceding that area would make no sense
and would cause the reader unnecessary confusion. Since the reply
follows the point being discussed it is a type of bottom posting and
both allow the smooth chronological give-and-take of a thread to be
easily followed.

In conclusion, this is not email; it's USENET, and as such no one
knows when a reader will pick up a post containing subject matter
with which he's not familiar or where, in time, that post was
generated. Having to slog through a chronologically reversed post
to find the beginning of the thread when one is used to the normal
flow of time is annoying, and inconsiderate of the top poster.

Also, for your edification, I've rearranged the thread in this post
in proper chronological order in order that you may see how much
more smoothly it flows.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Top-posting is for lazy arrogant ppl.

Like donkeys who are too damn lazy to type 'people'?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Arfa Daily]

It happens on occasion and, since most of USENET considers top
posting to be abusive or, at the very least, annoying, it makes me
wonder why you haven't admitted to being wrong about it and changed
your practice.

Even Google Groups advises against top posting at:

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250

"Summarize what you're following up.

When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just
start typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article
does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."


Just consider this post, for example. What I'm doing is called
"in-line" posting and is basically designed to reply to specific
areas of a post on a line-by-line basis in order to address each
point individually. Note that the replies always _follow_ the area
being commented on, since preceding that area would make no sense
and would cause the reader unnecessary confusion. Since the reply
follows the point being discussed it is a type of bottom posting and
both allow the smooth chronological give-and-take of a thread to be
easily followed.

In conclusion, this is not email; it's USENET, and as such no one
knows when a reader will pick up a post containing subject matter
with which he's not familiar or where, in time, that post was
generated. Having to slog through a chronologically reversed post
to find the beginning of the thread when one is used to the normal
flow of time is annoying, and inconsiderate of the top poster.

Also, for your edification, I've rearranged the thread in this post
in proper chronological order in order that you may see how much
more smoothly it flows.

Very nicely summarised ...

Arfa

 

[JANA]

I guess mercury, neon, and xenon gas is good for us to put in to the ground
and breath.

I'll leave it at that!!!

--

JANA
_____




At least that which doesn't settle in your lungs I guess. Current research
shows micro particulates as being very hazardous.

Thanks

Since he provided no epidemiological studies to show the long term *proven*
effects of any of them on the human body, what exactly are you thanking him
for?
I'll keep an open mind while awaiting some FACTS.

MrT.

 

[[email protected]]

I guess mercury, neon, and xenon gas is good for us to put in to the ground
and breath.

I'll leave it at that!!!

Neon and Xenon are noble gases, read inert.

 

[Peter Dettmann]

seing as you're posting this to aus.electronics I think you should
know that Australian fuel additive ethanol is made from sugar refinery
waste, not from food crops.
Bye.
Jasen

Wow we had better get moving on having sugar removed from all grocery
and food outlets.

Peter Dettmann

 

[D0n Pearce]

[email protected] (Don Pearce) wrote...

FUCKING BUM FIDDLE No idea who posted that FUCKING ANAL FELCHING load
of unpleasantness. FLAPS PORK SWORD MOIST FELCH BUM BANDIT ****
SCRUBBER FANNY MAIN VEIN SHITHEAD ****

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Yes, he must be a "newby" I think.

MrT.

Maybe even new enough that his computer will melt down when he hits a
real 10,000 post flamefest. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Fields]

Very nicely summarised ...

Arfa

 

[Arny Krueger]

I guess mercury, neon, and xenon gas is good for us to
put in to the ground and breath.

Mercury is naturally ocurring in the ground. Neon and Xenon are inert gasses
that can only harm living things by displacing gasses in the atmoshphere
that they need. You can breathe all the Neon and Xenon that you want to,
provided you also get enough oxygen.

 

[Don Pearce]

Mercury is naturally ocurring in the ground. Neon and Xenon are inert gasses
that can only harm living things by displacing gasses in the atmoshphere
that they need. You can breathe all the Neon and Xenon that you want to,
provided you also get enough oxygen.

There have been big problems in Cornwall with radioactive Radon. It
comes out of the granite and can build up to dangerous levels in
houses.

d