Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:04:29 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<EfSdnWtUi4FiqqvbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

Well at least BobbyG and I apparently agree on one thing -- presumably
Bobby does agrees with the statement below that he quotes or he have
wouldn't stirred the pot by starting yet another new thread with this
quote on this tired, tiring, and marginally on-topic subject for c.h.a.

Bobby usefully provided this pertinent quote:

> ..  A key to the abiding grass-roots
>resistance to CFLs, Reed and other experts said, is indelible consumer
>memories of the hideous looks and poor quality of earlier generations of
>fluorescent lights. . . . "People remember them from 20 years ago and
>they are not going to forgive," said Dave Shiller, vice president of new
>business development for MaxLite, a Fairfield, N.J., company that
>manufactures CFL bulbs.

This is part of why when Dave Houston advances the fiction that nothing
has changed with CFLs in 20 years, which he first did five years ago in
this newsgroup, and that fluorescents are a Quote: "bad idea", as he also
did, the effects are so pernicious.

He uses a falsehood (namely that nothing has changed) to discourage folks
that might otherwise find CFLs jist fine from trying them.

If folks were charged with the carbon footprint of the indirect results of
their actions and recommendations, Dave'd be in deep doodoo. As is, there
are few significant negative consequence for him although others might be
paying for long it after we're gone and what he's done is recorded in
perpetuity..

...Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org