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

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

> So Dave's route would lead us to discounting the
> usefulness of doing anything in any sector -- in
> other words, paralysis.

I didn't realise he was a Republican.  :^)

> Whether the average Cub Scout is a better
> economist than Dave, or he has a profound
> problem with intellectual honesty -- or both -- is
> not my concern...
>
> Having spent a significant part of my life trying to
> be effective in environmental education, I conclude
> that part of the usefulness of the CFL discussion
> (aside from actual energy and other environmental
> benefits) is to raise public awareness. Does BobbyG
> have any clue about how much of the purchase
> price of products he buys is consumed by advertising
> dollars to influence his decision?

I can't speak about electrical mnanufacturers but I'm
somewhat familiar with things in the pharmaceutical
world (close relative served as VP of BMY for many
years).  They spend almost as much on advertising
as on production and R&D combined.

> The Proctor and Gambles of the world would eat
> Tide for breakfast to get a marketing tool like CFLs.
> What is "empty" about a tool that is effective both
> in real environmental benefits and in helping to
> cause the desired -- nay , necessary -- change in
> behaviour?

Nothing.  Bobby and Dave both like to use such
mischaracterizations in place of logic and data.

>> If people want to really clean up the air, they
>> need to spend money not on CFL stop-gap
>> measures that add back a noxious poison,
>
> Bobby doesn't respond to my and other's posts
> on this topic because he has no cogent response.
> He's just babbling at this point IMO.

Agreed.  I pointed out the non-response repeatedly
and Bobby continued as though no ine had said
anything.  It's almost like arguing in ASA.

> Some of us have actually participated in _applying_
> Section 505, 33 U.S.C. 1365 (Citizen Suit Provision
> of the Clean Water Act). See my previous posts.
> This can be a heck of a lot more effective than
> "lobbying"...
>
> Writing is fine, but does he know that _going_ to
> DC is far more effective than writing? Some of us
> have been doing the latter for decades. (See my
> previous posts.)
>
> Is Bobby aware of the consortium of US States that
> have _sued_ in Federal court (not jist "demanded"
> whatever the heck that means in the real world)
> for just that?
>
> It's wunnerfull to see the heat that this topic creates.
> But the efficacy in turning that energy into light
> could be improved. Perhaps the intellectual equivalent
> of a CFL is needed  -- he says, ducking ;-)

Someone one quipped that lightbulbs don't actually
illuminate anything.  They just suck light out of the
room when you turn them off.  I suspect one side of
this argument is trying to do just that.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>