Solid State Lighting - New Inventors, ABC, 11 July 2007

[John Tserkezis]

Sally wrote:

Unfortunately it's useless killfiling the invariably horrible Phil, becuase
the rest of you will keep on (Usenet outdated syndrome) quoting him!

Yeah sorry, it makes sense. I won't quote him in future.

No great loss, he doesn't have anything of substance to say anyway...

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Sally]

Thanks John!

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:469b1a38$0$14825$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Sally wrote:

Unfortunately it's useless killfiling the invariably horrible Phil,
becuase the rest of you will keep on (Usenet outdated syndrome) quoting
him!

Yeah sorry, it makes sense. I won't quote him in future.

No great loss, he doesn't have anything of substance to say anyway...

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tjserks itself off "



** YOU cannot read.

YOU are a grossly autistic, illiterate MORON.


PISSSSSSSSSS OFFFFFFFFFFFF




......... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"David L. Jones"

What really annoys me (apart from that teminally patronising
presenter!) is the readiness of the panel to endorse virtually
anything that appears on the show. To my knowledge, they have never
said "This is a load of %$#@ ! Forget it !!"

** Hardly likely - as there is a selection and vetting process before
any
" invention" gets on the show.

Plus the ABC could easily face a defamation action if your scenario were
ever carried out.

They got away with it all the time on that Dragon's Den show on
Channel 7.

** Totally irrelevant to TNI.

You pathetic idiot.



......... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Tserks itself off MORON "

I still don't see why anyone would buy them though, because dollar for
dollar, halogens win hands down.

** The claim made was for * 5 times * the efficiency of a halogen lamp
with similar light output.

Also claimed was a break even period of 1 year and a ten year life.

Plenty of reason to use them, if true.

YOU DUMBFUCK, HEE HAWING ASS.





........ Phil

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:58:27 +1000, John Tserkezis
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

I still don't see why anyone would buy them though, because dollar for
dollar, halogens win hands down. Only perhaps tree huggers may buy them.

The latest SC mag has an article on Ostar LED lights that are claimed
to be on par with halogens for light output:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Osram-Ostar-Lighting-LED.htm

I don't have the article in front of me, but IIRC several thousand of
these were installed in some European supermarket complex.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Franc Zabkar wrote:

The latest SC mag has an article on Ostar LED lights that are claimed
to be on par with halogens for light output:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Osram-Ostar-Lighting-LED.htm

I don't have the article in front of me, but IIRC several thousand of
these were installed in some European supermarket complex.

That's about what I would expect. However, LEDs cost a LOT more than
halogens, so even allowing for reduced life in halogens compared to LEDs,
halogens still win.

LEDS have their place however, especially where the long life makes up for
their initial high cost. Such as high ceilings, or difficult to access light
fixtures.

What I'm objecting to, is the blanket comments that paint LEDs to be the
end-all-be-all in lighting technology, to the determent of everything else.

Much like the CFL debate. Sure they have their place, but not as a simple
drop-in replacement.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[David L. Jones]

On Jul 16, 5:52 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"David L. Jones"

What really annoys me (apart from that teminally patronising
presenter!) is the readiness of the panel to endorse virtually
anything that appears on the show. To my knowledge, they have never
said "This is a load of %$#@ ! Forget it !!"

** Hardly likely - as there is a selection and vetting process before
any
" invention" gets on the show.

Plus the ABC could easily face a defamation action if your scenario were
ever carried out.

They got away with it all the time on that Dragon's Den show on
Channel 7.

** Totally irrelevant to TNI.

It is totally relevant.

You pathetic idiot.

Any time you need more money for your medication Phil, we'd all be
happy to help you out, just post your PayPal address.

Dave.

 

[Phil Allison]

"David L. Jones"

What really annoys me (apart from that teminally patronising
presenter!) is the readiness of the panel to endorse virtually
anything that appears on the show. To my knowledge, they have never
said "This is a load of %$#@ ! Forget it !!"

** Hardly likely - as there is a selection and vetting process
before
any " invention" gets on the show.

Plus the ABC could easily face a defamation action if your scenario
were
ever carried out.

They got away with it all the time on that Dragon's Den show on
Channel 7.

** Totally irrelevant to TNI.

It is totally relevant.

** ROTFLMAO !!!


What a pathetic pile of sub human excrement is DL Jones.

The lying, gutless autistic cretin has not got one single clue about any
damn thing.

Just constantly spews his brainless bullshit about for the sake of having
something to say.

Peeeeeeukkkkkkkkeeeee



....... Phil

 

[Poxy]

Franc Zabkar wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:58:27 +1000, John Tserkezis
jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

I still don't see why anyone would buy them though, because dollar
for dollar, halogens win hands down. Only perhaps tree huggers may
buy them.

The latest SC mag has an article on Ostar LED lights that are claimed
to be on par with halogens for light output:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Osram-Ostar-Lighting-LED.htm

I haven't seen that SC yet, but looking at the specs for that Osram unit one
thing stands out - the CRI (Colour Rendering Index) quoted is 80, which
makes for pretty horrible light compared to the better fluorescents.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Poxy"

I haven't seen that SC yet, but looking at the specs for that Osram unit
one thing stands out - the CRI (Colour Rendering Index) quoted is 80,
which makes for pretty horrible light compared to the better fluorescents.

** The Pox Head moron gets it totally wrong again.

As per bloody usual.





........ Phil

 

[Poxy]

Phil Allison wrote:

"Poxy"

I haven't seen that SC yet, but looking at the specs for that Osram
unit one thing stands out - the CRI (Colour Rendering Index) quoted
is 80, which makes for pretty horrible light compared to the better
fluorescents.


** The Pox Head moron gets it totally wrong again.

As per bloody usual.

Be a nice(r) chap and go to bed Phil.

 

[kreed]

On Jul 15, 11:47 am, "Peter Parker" <park...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message

news:5fr32dF3ebttkU1@mid.individual.net...

His " electronic insemination probe " must be a real DOOZEY !!

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1969641.htm

Sounds like a cock and bull story.

The mind boggles at how that one would work.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Poxy"


** Make your ( wrong) point or PISS OFF .



........ Phil

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:06:34 +1000, John Tserkezis
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> put finger to keyboard and
composed:

The only failure mode I've seen with LEDs was O/C. And I don't remember
seeing more than two of those in my career.

I've seen quite a few O/C failures, although mine were confined to one
particular type of bargraph display. I never saw any shorted LEDs.
Then again, none of these were high current types.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John the Fuckwit Jerk Off


** FUCK OFF

- CRIMINAL MORON





......... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

" Poxy the Piss Head "

" ... the CRI (Colour Rendering Index) quoted is 80, which makes
for pretty horrible light compared to the better fluorescents. "

And that's my opinion.


** But it certainly ain't FACT - which IS how you stated it.

I think most intelligent people can discern a subjective opinion like
"horrible" and make their own judgement as to how to interpret it.

** Utter bollocks.

It was stated by you as a proven FACT.

Because Poxy - YOU know SFA about any damn thing.

Now again, you failed to address my point with a coherent, rational
response.

** No point whatever in trying to reason with a posturing, anonymous pile of
brain dead shit.

That is just feeding a TROLL.

Colossal, asinine PITA jerks like "Poxy the Piss Head" think this NG is
a chat room for mental retards.

No it ain't.

This statement and language carries with it the implication that you are
an authority on what is permissable with respect to posts to this group.

** A chat room for retarded, anonymous fuckwits like Poxy it ain't.

Continue think it is and you will have a fight on your hands.

The very nature of unmoderated newsgroups contradicts this concept,

* On the contrary - this NG is a not a stinking chat room.

Same goes for nearly all technically oriented NGs.

Moderated chat forums full of fools exist on the internet where you can have
some pathetic little graphic represent you and hide behind an even more
stupid name than " Poxy" ???

For fuck's sake - go join one NOW.

You utterly ridiculous ARSEHOLE.



........ Phil

 

[Poxy]

I wrote:

If you disagree with a stated fact or opion, by all means respond, but
spare
us the attitude - the insults, the lame capitalisation and worst (and
saddest) of all, re-naming the subject line - it's, frankly, rather
tiresome.

And there you go. Sigh.

Phil Allison wrote:

" Poxy the Piss Head "

This statement and language carries with it the implication that you
are an authority on what is permissable with respect to posts to
this group.


** A chat room for retarded, anonymous fuckwits like Poxy it ain't.

Continue think it is and you will have a fight on your hands.

So I'm right - you think you are the authority this group - you decide who
is allowed to post and pass ultimate judgement on what they post. What in
heaven's name gave you the idea this was the case? Was there some kind of
vote I missed?

The fundamental problem is that you can't actually *do* anything except
blather on with increasing hysteria.

The very nature of unmoderated newsgroups contradicts this concept,


* On the contrary - this NG is a not a stinking chat room.

Same goes for nearly all technically oriented NGs.

I think your fury is clouding your vision. I said, very clearly, that this
was an unmoderated newsgroup, which is precisely what it is. I never said it
was a "chat room". My point was that by it being unmoderated, nobody has the
right to demand somone stop posting.

If you really want the ability to stop people from posting, I suggest you
create your own online forum.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Poxy the Fuckwit Piss Head"


** On the contrary - this NG is a not a stinking chat room.

Same goes for nearly all technically oriented NGs.

Moderated chat forums full of fools exist on the internet where you can have
some pathetic little graphic represent you and hide behind an even more
stupid name than " Poxy" ???

For fuck's sake - go join one NOW.

You utterly ridiculous

ARSEHOLE TROLL.






........ Phil

 

[John Tserkezis]

Phil Allison wrote:

** On the contrary - this NG is a not a stinking chat room.
Same goes for nearly all technically oriented NGs.

Oh, so ALL other non-technical groups ARE "stinking chat rooms" as you put it?

Moderated chat forums full of fools exist on the internet where you can have
some pathetic little graphic represent you and hide behind an even more
stupid name than " Poxy" ???

I grew up on BBS's, where your real name was a must.

The internet is different, and the norm is anonymity.
Deal with it.

For fuck's sake - go join one NOW.

You don't like it? YOU go to another group. No wait, you already have,
you've infested groups such as aus.legal, rec.autos.driving and probably more
(didn't bother looking that far back into the archives).

They are obviously non-technical groups, and you've infested them with the
same type of response you do here. In fact, I didn't see any kind of response
other than your usual foul drivel that does nothing more than make you look
the fool.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>