https://www.axios.com/china-spy-california-politicians-9d2dfb99-f839-4e00-8bd...

A member of The House Intelligence Committee was boinking a Chinese spy?

China lies AGAIN !

60 incandescent watts, is about 850 Lumens, 100 watts incandescent, is about 1600 Lumens.
It depends on the color temperature, (Kelvin) of the light,
because watts is a measure of energy,
and lumens are a measure of, visible light/‘brightness’.

Have been a fan of LED for a long time. When they became practicable I started replacing incandescent's.

Always knew China LIES, but this is a new total low.
China started LYING, as soon as they became the big player in LED lighting.
Lowes, two standard LED bulbs listed as,
“Equivalent to 100 watt bulb”
The fine print, shows 810 Lumens, and 2700 Kelvin
(Kelvin scale, in reference to light bulbs, is generally from 2500 to 6000.
That bulb at 2700 Kelvin should have been 1600-1700 Lumens, at 5000 Kelvin should been 1400-1500 Lumens)

But China LIES, and continues to lower, and Lower, and LOWER, the Americans expectations!
And light bulbs are just one tiny thing.

Now who is still believing the c-19 was a, ‘accident’ ??????????
Oh I know, the tt clones, and all the people who just spent $1,000.00 on a phone, standing overnight in the bitter cold, to spend another $1,100.00 for a new phone which works the same as their $1,000.00 one !

And the shepol who do not think this is a War with China.
(not a War like WW2, or a War where the casualties are not 18-30 year old’s)
A War where China, with the help from major media, and election ‘officials’,
Get sheple, scrambling to stand in line.
And all who do NOT, do what they are TOLD to do, Do NOT stand in line, do NOT kiss China’s AZZ, are NOT, patriotic !!!!!  
Cause they have been TOLD to say that !

"The fine print, shows 810 Lumens, and 2700 Kelvin
(Kelvin scale, in reference to light bulbs, is generally from 2500 to 6000.
That bulb at 2700 Kelvin should have been 1600-1700 Lumens, at 5000 Kelvin should been 1400-1500 Lumens)"


 We can't directly convert Kelvin to Lumens, so how are you establishing the estimate?

 Is there chart you are using?

"Do as a person called tt, often said !"

 How would I look up what method You are using without you telling me?

 Again holding other people to the standard of a past forum member you don't even respect holds no merit.  This is like having a neighbor that tells you that you are a jerk all the time then moves away, so you go around calling everyone else jerks and blame the neighbor that's not even around anymore for your statements.

WOW !

And you believe, the analogy of Fairy Dust Sprinklers,
banning a model of firearm, will stop school shootings,
the same way that,
banning a red car,
because a red car was used in a bank robbery,
will stop bank robberies.

       Is a bad analogy ???????


 Yes and I have explained why multiple times.  Then you say stuff like I must have brought it up "before your time" even though it was in your threads that I made the posts.

 The red car argument didn't work.  When it was tried more people sided with the gun-control measures.  It's that simple.


 As for the :

"(I will leave out the,
"Don't Be So Fucccken Lazy",
in front of, 'look it up for yourself')"

 I already have.  It will come as no surprise I actually looked up 9 sources and average them.

 I was asking You what source You are using.  I have no way to look that up.  But I guess it's somehow TT's fault you feel the need to keep being resistant to simple requests.  We all know if Webstermark asked for this you would tell him.

"It's all in the, 'tone' of voice."

 In a typed forum.  Clever workaround.



"Can you site your references for this ?"

 Yes but will you look through them?

 I have about 30 pages of survey results from CO when we developed the initial survey process in response to magazine capacity legislation.  This is the big one that really showed that a lot of people blew off arguments about how mag size does not impact crime potential.  This is where murder rate per minute came about.

 I have about 9 pages when they tried to add 50cal rifles to a statewide ban list.

 I have about 80 pages of results from the DRMC § 38-130 ordinance in Denver when we challenge it with CO pre-emption.  

 I will gladly go over this with you.

"How many of those people, that answered that survey,
BELIEVED,
banning a Model of firearm, will stop school shootings, 'gun free zones' will stop crime, Stealing, Destroying, Disrupting, is a, 'peaceful protest'."

 The "gun free zones" and Peaceful protest information isn't part of the topic and you know that.  I very specifically stated the topic of each survey.

 About 44% of survey participants believe that firearms bans will reduce homicide rates.  About 39% supported a high capacity magazine ban.

 When challenged with arguments like "red car", or "ban cellphones" the survey rates did not change.  No change.

 When challenged with arguments like "How do we keep high-capacity magazines from criminals?" or "Will a criminal choose a different weapon if the one they want is not available?" the survey results changed.  Fewer people supported bans on magazines or weapons when these arguments were posed by about 19% on each topic.

 Proper arguments is how we managed to recall local politicians.  Instead of making arguments nobody cared about, like imaginary cell-phone bans, we used criminal intent and capability to access firearms/magazines and people went out and voted to recall that otherwise would have believed the garbage that was being pushed out on local/social media.

 So telling people about banning red cars changes no one's mind, but asking how a ban changes criminal behavior does.  The connection to criminal behavior is more effective, nobody makes a strong connection to banning cellphones, but they do to losing things to criminals.

 Yeah basically this has been my experience:

 Red car = no change.  "These morons want to ban red cars, really?  I'm not signing sh!t."

 Criminal access = change.  "I never thought about it that way.  Where do I sign?"

 That's been my point this whole time.  Some arguments work against the goal.