New names.

[Supsalemgr]

Skin did supply some comic relief.

[neoplacebo]

I know neoplacebo. neoplacebo is a friend of mine, and I agree with that assessment.

Thank you for your support.

[Crock Hunter]

The gator doth protest too much....the very reason that I would like to see Ludicrous Sextus join us is to balance the inane leftist garbage sourcing from NYT, Mother Jones, Nation and Alternet, et al. Disliking his sources because they don't agree with your dogma is little reason to keep him away

You cannot discuss anything with someone that does not value facts.. nor anyone that rejects reality..

A Brief History of Slime: DeLudicrous Sexless Edition.

Several years ago on the old greenvilleonline forum, in a discussion about Compact Florescent Lamps, I posted that the unit of measure for Light Output is the "Lumen"and that in comparing the output of incandescent lamps and CFLs it is Lumens that matter.. NOT Watts.. So foolishly inspired by my BSEE and 4 decades of experience... I said that Lumens per Watt is the measure of efficiency to be considered...

DeLud who then posted as Jazz, trolled endlessly that "Watts" were the measure else why would manufactures put "Watts" on the package... The explanation is that rating lamps in Watts is a holdover from the early days of electrification as a easy means for the homeowner to determine the total load on the then less capable circuits..

Of course... Watts has little to nothing to do with Light Output example being that your 1100 Watt Hair Dryer or your Electric Iron are less than ideal sources of illumination...

Needless to say.. to this day.. DeLud will still insist that Watts are the determining factor.. .

You cannot discuss anything with someone that does not value facts.. nor anyone that rejects reality..

[scooter]

moved post

[nobody]

The gator doth protest too much....the very reason that I would like to see Ludicrous Sextus join us is to balance the inane leftist garbage sourcing from NYT, Mother Jones, Nation and Alternet, et al. Disliking his sources because they don't agree with your dogma is little reason to keep him away

You cannot discuss anything with someone that does not value facts.. nor anyone that rejects reality..

A Brief History of Slime: DeLudicrous Sexless Edition.

Several years ago on the old greenvilleonline forum, in a discussion about Compact Florescent Lamps, I posted that the unit of measure for Light Output is the "Lumen"and that in comparing the output of incandescent lamps and CFLs it is Lumens that matter.. NOT Watts.. So foolishly inspired by my BSEE and 4 decades of experience... I said that Lumens per Watt is the measure of efficiency to be considered...

DeLud who then posted as Jazz, trolled endlessly that "Watts" were the measure else why would manufactures put "Watts" on the package... The explanation is that rating lamps in Watts is a holdover from the early days of electrification as a easy means for the homeowner to determine the total load on the then less capable circuits..

Of course... Watts has little to nothing to do with Light Output example being that your 1100 Watt Hair Dryer or your Electric Iron are less than ideal sources of illumination...

Needless to say.. to this day.. DeLud will still insist that Watts are the determining factor.. .

You cannot discuss anything with someone that does not value facts.. nor anyone that rejects reality..

First I like CFLs I replaced almost all my incandescent lights before they burned out. I still have that supply of used bulbs I'm working down.

To my point. It was corporate welfare, asked for by GE and others, to have incandescent bulb manufacturing stopped. The manufacture of CFLs could not compete with incandescent manufacturing cost. Most middle and low class people are penny wise and pound foolish. If continued one could buy a dozen incandescent bulbs for one CFL.

Liberals, even liberal companies like GE, are against the freedom for the stupid class.

[scooter]

No dear, I'm far from frustrated. I could have posted one of my finest (I have no porn), but I do believe in being tactful.

You're full of crap. If the avatar is a pic of you, the last place you would be is here.

Indeed, you are frustrated.

Just sayin ...

Perhaps you'd rather get your jollies from this photo; this should relieve your frustrations.




Tennis anyone? She'd make an excellent mate for the babe in the photo I presented to you in the 'Styling the Site' thread. enjoy!!!

[Reality]

Crock said; "So foolishly inspired by my BSEE and 4 decades of experience... I said that Lumens per Watt is the measure of efficiency to be considered... "

Crock, didn't you know that more than one poster and pseudo expert on this forum value linked sources over hands on experience except when they use their own experience.

[Reality]

I guess that leaves you out Vred.

[Crock Hunter]

First I like CFLs I replaced almost all my incandescent lights before they burned out. I still have that supply of used bulbs I'm working down.

Good.. But as I tried to explain to DeLudicrous the key is to select the right technology for the job... ...CFLs are great for general lighting but suck as task lighting IMHO.. I use CFLs in hard to access locations.... ..

One excellent example was the attempt to use LED lights in traffic signals in areas with significant snowfall.. the LEDs didn't produce enough heat to melt away the snow and ice so the signals were often obscured.. DeLud danced around with this "proves the demise of" tidbit as though he had CFL's head on a stick..

What seems like common sense to you or I .. just completely baffles the guy.. .

It was corporate welfare, .

BullShit.. Corporate welfare is best seen in the coal, oil and gas industry.. ..

to have incandescent bulb manufacturing stopped..

You or I will never live long enough to see incandescent bulb manufacturing stopped.. That it is is yet another rightwing lie that nitwits love to repeat ... . .

Liberals, even liberal companies like GE, are against the freedom for the stupid class.

I have no idea what the hell that even means... it sounds like more of your extremist nonsense.. . ..

.

[neoplacebo]

I knew of the term lumens, but always thought light output was measured in candela.....but I ain't an EE

[neoplacebo]

I guess that leaves you out Vred.

Except for those many, many times that your "experience" has been proven wrong by me, especially on military matters. The list has grown quite long.

We recently had a guy where I work (he's no longer with us, but he's not dead) that bragged about having 35 years experience in our industry.....turned out he had 1 year of experience 35 times.

[Crock Hunter]

I knew of the term lumens, but always thought light output was measured in candela.....but I ain't an EE

I was trying (likely unsuccessfully) to not come across as too nerdy... Yes there is of course a relationship between Lumens and Candela... ... per Wiki...

If a light source emits one candela of luminous intensity uniformly across a solid angle of one steradian, the total luminous flux emitted into that angle is one lumen (1 cd·1 sr = 1 lm).

[neoplacebo]

I knew of the term lumens, but always thought light output was measured in candela.....but I ain't an EE

I was trying (likely unsuccessfully) to not come across as too nerdy... Yes there is of course a relationship between Lumens and Candela... ... per Wiki...

If a light source emits one candela of luminous intensity uniformly across a solid angle of one steradian, the total luminous flux emitted into that angle is one lumen (1 cd·1 sr = 1 lm).

Ok, thanks. I don't know what a steradian is but will guess it's a minute or second of an angle......or maybe the stuff Lance used lo those many years without being caught.

[Reality]

Nope Vred, you're living in that proverbial tree again. You haven't proven anyone wrong on any subject. You think because you make the last post in an endless thread of non substance by you that it's your point that has been proven. After a while talking to post gets old.

[Stinger]

Nope Vred, you're living in that proverbial tree again. You haven't proven anyone wrong on any subject. Tne hell Vrede hasn't. You're just too stupid to realize it or too much the craven coward to admit. You and your Siamese AH twin have been shot down so many times you look like the Confederate air force. You think because you make the last post in an endless thread of non substance by you that it's your point that has been proven. When Vrede posts factual support and all you've got is "Oh, yeah?' then Vrede just bested your dumb azz.

What frickin' year is it? After a while talking to post gets old. One would think that cutting and running from every mistake would get old, but you're still doing it. I do have to compliment you, thought. You run a lot faster than anyone else your age.

[Stinger]

[ to balance the inane leftist garbage sourcing from NYT, Mother Jones, Nation and Alternet, et al. Disliking his sources because they don't agree with your dogma is little reason to keep him away.

Show one person who has posted from Alternet.

Show one thing from the NYT, Mother Jones, or the Nation that you have debunked.

You choose one discredited revisionist and cling to his discredited ideas, ignoring mountains of information, and then claim the NYT is garbage sourcing.

Shows your inability to distinguish from solid objective journalism and what you really, really, really, really want to JUST BELIEVE.

That's why you're always wrong.

The regulars at the GoUpstate forum, many which are here now, some are not, quoted often from these sources. I could give you examples if the forum was still there. Most of the listed sources are leftist opinion sites and constant purveyors of those kind of lies, whether you have sourced them or not. As far as the bias at the NYT, one has to be immensely stupid to consider that bird cage liner...or poodle crap catcher.... to be "solid objective journalism". Evidently, some of their own editors disagree:

http://www.inquisitr.com/313855/new-yor ... eral-bias/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opini ... all&src=pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 03938.html

The mountain of lies and biases the the NYT peddles every day doesn't counteract the truth, so why do you believe that the mountain of Northern biases in the Civil War debate would counter the truth either. It's not the volume, it's the ACCURACY that counts.

So, in all that ignorant bluster, you couldn't:

A) find anyone here who posted from alter net

B) discredit one thing from NYT, Mother Jones, or The Nation magazine.

And instead of just manning up and admitting it, you jumped through all sorts of hoops to try to make it seem like you did something. Kind of a cut-and-run in place.

Again, you chug Kool Aid from one single discredited source, reject an entire body of work by scores of distinguished experts, and then label as "garbage" a source where you cannot discredit a single story. You can't disprove a single thing they write, but because it conflicts with your beliefs, you reject the facts.

Shows a lot about your "thinking" processes. Somewhere in your genome, the rational thought and logic genes are absent.

Since you're having such difficulty with the thinking process, let me help you out with some of your ignorance here. Your little campaign about the bias of the NYT is about social/cultural bias, not political bias or factual error. Their choice of articles and slant of articles about certain social issues may be slanted . . . kind of like Fox slants political articles and actually promoted the Tea Party when it first started. That makes Fox have a political bias while NYT only shows a social bias.

Their covering of social issues like gay marriage may be slanted, but their coverage of newsworthy events -- e.g. Benghazi attack, the economy, Hurricane Sandy, the presidential race -- is objective and unrivaled in the U.S.

Now, for those who truly need to remain willfully ignorant in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of facts clashing with what they really, really, really, really want to believe, then dismissing the entire NYT as garbage sourcing is probably a good idea.

For those who wish to remain currently and fully informed, it would be stupid to dismiss the NYT.

[Leo Lyons]

We recently had a guy where I work (he's no longer with us, but he's not dead) that bragged about having 35 years experience in our industry.....turned out he had 1 year of experience 35 times.

I suppose he was that legendary Pole-lock trying to screw in a light bulb!?!

BTW, I Googled 'neoplacebo'; the nearest word it could come up with was 'no place'. Now we know.

[mike]

BTW, I Googled 'neoplacebo'; the nearest word it could come up with was 'no place'. Now we know.

You are obviously uneducated as to the history of the wonderful poster known as "placebo."

And a liar.

[gongoozler]

Mother Jones did make a splash recently. It released the tape of Mitten telling fat cats that he does not care about the "47%" parasites, like "Reality". Of course, Mother Jones didn't have to do any editorializing, Mitten's own words were sufficient.

Do you really think that Mittens said he did not care about the 47%, as in, not give a rip about them?

He was saying that no matter what he does there are about 47% of the population that won't vote for him. As in, I don't need to focus my time trying to sway about 47% of the voters because it's a lost cause. Not that he doesn't care about them as in their welfare.

[O Really]

Mother Jones did make a splash recently. It released the tape of Mitten telling fat cats that he does not care about the "47%" parasites, like "Reality". Of course, Mother Jones didn't have to do any editorializing, Mitten's own words were sufficient.

Do you really think that Mittens said he did not care about the 47%, as in, not give a rip about them?

He was saying that no matter what he does there are about 47% of the population that won't vote for him. As in, I don't need to focus my time trying to sway about 47% of the voters because it's a lost cause. Not that he doesn't care about them as in their welfare.

No, that wasn't it. He said that, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. But then he went on to describe them as "victims" "irresponsible," yada. That's what he's getting deservedly ripped for. If he'd just said "47% of the people are hard-core Democratic supporters, and I would be wasting my time to try to get their vote" nobody would have noticed.