First a response to the substance of the discussion in brief: As I posted in part earlier, this is incorrect in part:
1) because Norway had (eg) conventional fluorescents and High-Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps before it had CFLs. Old fluorescents have more mercury per lumen than CFLs. So the assertion that "they were putting no mercury in the environment before " is flat-out wrong even if only looking at the source component from lighting. 2) Norway has been the atmospheric dumping ground for Europe's mercury-laden soot for centuries. Their soil and aquatic environments are loaded with mercury. 3) and there are other sources in Norway including thermometers, thermostats, and a sunken Nazi U-boat with 65 metric tons aboard.Also,
4) CFLs sequestered in a landfills are inconsequential compared to what is mobile in aquatic and atmospheric and soil environments already. And Norway has mandatory recycling already, but might ban CFLs anyway. 5) CFLs are easier to recycle correctly than long fluorescents 6) CFLs can be put into a contain to prevent breakage or otherwise contain the mercury so that if they are land-filled, the mercury is less mobile.Time permitting I will post more, intended to be useful to others under an appropriate subject.
(My principal area of expertise for 20 years was the mobilization, transport and fate of environmental pollutants but not specifically mercury. While not central to my research I was invited and nominally chaired a working session at the Second International Environmental Geochemistry meeting in Upsala Sweden on trace metals in the environment including mercury in the late 80's. I was obviously much more up-to-date on trace metals in Scandinavia then.)
ROTFL As you will see when time permits me to respond fully, my problem was quite the opposite of being "stumped".
The original post dealt with many different topics that did not relate specifically to " N:Vision CFL's "
To be useful (and that is the intention), a new subject and a well-posed intro to the subject is preferred and netiquette tradition. A "subject that is informative" is also usenet tradition. Brevity is also usenet tradition. But you posted an exceptional long initial post with a myriad of different topics.
Hence the triage in which I responded first to other parts of your multi-topic, very long post. Very simple. very customary. Not stumped.
Snipping to isolate the part that I am/was responding to in any particular post is normal and customary and recommended in usenet and what I did in this case.
I will answer more of the question above in a separate post when time permitted.
What is *not* normal and customary in my experience is for someone to start a post with one topic in the subject and then immediately launch into an entirely different topic. Usenet custom and common sense suggest that the subject should inform the reader of the content.
I tried to be helpful. C'est tout.
" [Mercury discussion unrelated to subject deleted] " is a simple, accurate, explanatory statement using simple declarative language.
If you could read the words in the tone and tenor written and intended, you would not have any problem with them.
I used to do a lot of technical review and the statement used would have completely acceptable and non-confrontational in that context by folks accustomed to being reviewed.
"bub" ?
Actually, my understanding of how usenet works is/was supposed to work is pretty good and tracks long-standing netiquette.
When folks post a request for help (as you did in the refrigerator thread), and others respond helpfully, it is/was customary for the poster to summarize when so requested. Look at your favorite newsgroup netiquette source.
It is both rude and a violation of usenet tradition in my opinion to ask for help, post incorrect data, and then refuse to correct or summarize -- as you have done with the refrigerator threads.
There is no "harpie mode". Go to the top and re-read. In fact there is no 'modality'. Read it out loud, say, in a friendly, lilting British accent . The 'modality' is entirely owing to _your_ perception.
Your imagery does not fit the circumstances.
Feeling is mutual ;-) "Future of Home Automation is ..." except that many/most of your assertions in that other thread you started are flat-out false and you weren't willing correct them so someone else had to clean up the misinformation you left behind. Jist my opinion, but firmly held.
Yup. As it stands, you have (eg) posted the assertion that your ancient refrigerator only uses X watts. And you have also posted that you re-measured. This is a simple plain-language request that you post the data. Why do you resist correcting the record ? It isn't for my benefit! It is so others are not mislead (I am not). When you did summarize recently a thread in another context, it was acknowledged. Good job .
My experience with you has been than when you post misinformation, rather than correcting it, you first disappear into a cloud of ink like a squid into its own camouflage and then, with respect to the topic, disappear altogether.
What context are you talking about? "Harp"? How does getting the facts right, instead of wrong, constitute "harping"? You are creating a record. Is it right and useful? If not, what do you do to correct it? If you don't , who will? If no one does, how useful will usenet be?
The analogy I use is pollution. Does my/your/anyone's uncorrected information pollute usenet? If so who cleans it up? If it isn't cleaned up, what happens to the usefulness?
LOL. No need for you to be defensive ;-) You wrote a subject title about a specific brand of CFLs and then what? forgot and posted about Norwegian energy supplies?
Not bilious, no ill intent,and certainly not vicious as you were trying to be in the paragraph above.
No bile, no attack mode. If you go back to the beginning of this post, and re-read it without the assumption of "bile", you will find that there is no bile in it. The 'modality' is in your perception.
Let's turn this around to see if it helps. Now I see now by the context in your _second_ use of "bub" that you don't use "bub" in an insulting way, right? I thought that you did the first time you used "bub" it to address me.
See how you can be misunderstood (too:-) ?
HTH ... Marc Marc_F_Hult