Re: energy conservation

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:00:00 -0500, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<lPOdnRN1Q4owGzrYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:n87lp293fjootapprrospelvlublesrks9@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:48:02 -0500, "Robert Green"
>> <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> <JNmdnWlV9_uWBgfYnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>>
>> >"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:4597a64b.1374743484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Today's NYT has an excellent article on energy conservation.
>> >>
>> >>      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/business/30diet.html?ref=science
>> >
>> >There were some eye-openers in there for me:
>> >
>> >"[A CFL] uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer,
>produces
>> >450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers
>> >$30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a
>> >traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar
>appearance.
>> >As a result, the bulbs have languished on store shelves for a quarter
>> >century; only 6 percent of households use the bulbs today."
>>
>> Jist so others are not too confused, this and your other quotes are not in
>> the article that you cite.
>>
>> Rather, they are from today's article that I cited previously in this
>> tread, , namely :
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/business/02bulb.html
>
>Thanks for the correction!   I'll have to remember to "tread" more lightly
>in the future and make sure when I'm cutting and pasting that I actually
>pick up the new item and not spit out what was previously cut.  Why Windows
>didn't incorporate a multi-item clipboard with a selectable history list
>early on is a mystery to me.   (-:

Hi Bobby,

I haven't used the newsreader that you use (Outlook Express) in many years,
but last I knew, it didn't actually show the threaded nature of usenet posts.
Like AOL, it destroyed the structure and really made it harder for folks to
follow and post to threads.  I note this because you may not have noticed/be
able to see that you didn't actually post a response to the thread that had
the correct url in it. So once your fingers chose which post to respond to,
there was no way to cut/paste it correctly ands preserve the thread structure
unless you manually  modified the header and posted with a different
newsreader. The post you wanted to respond to was
<o1rkp2p1sd5047tnnbvhs0ci9kusvi38b5@xxxxxxx>

which you will notice is not in the list of messages above and not in the
header of your response.  (By now folks without threaded newsreaders will
find my comments abstruse/daft; Folks that remember tin and pine may also
remember elaborate threads the sole purpose of which was to create a design
by 'painting' a picture on the screen with the structure of the thread -- a
sort of ASCII art that was done collaboratively and in which the thread
structure and repeated message Subject were themselves the object d'art. }

>I'm hoping most folks here are bright enough to figure out what I was saying
>from the actual quotes themselves and the comments I appended thereafter.
>Any confusion appears minimal, particularly since you seem to be the only
>one who noticed!  You weren't *really* confused by the switched URL, were
>you?

Only momentarily, but I knew that there were two articles. And when I clicked
on it to bring it up, it didn't bring up the article you were commenting on.
To do that, I had to find my post and click on the url in that. I suppose
that most the seven people who actually read this thread didn't realize that
it was a response to a completely different article. Your comments still made
sense, but made even more with reference to the article you were actually
commenting on.

HTH... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org