Project Wonderful Banner

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Those damned Ideas

What's Mallard raving about today?

CFL, Ideas.

Uhhh, Mallard. It's not the light bulb's fault.


Tog said...

Mallard makes a face like he's passing a sharp brick, then has an "idea" that looks like a turd.

...Tinsley's making it just too easy.

Holy shit, are you still going on about CFLs? Give it UP, fool. The rest of the world's left your sad sorry ass waaaaaay behind. Spend less time whining about them, more time learning to draw them.

What, did CFLs show up on the corner of Glenn Beck's chalkboard or something? Even your most red-necked, brain-impaired fan has to be scratching his already-irritated scalp over this one.

Toots McGee said...

The "cheeto" returns for a second day as a "compact flourescent lightbulb". The props department at Mallard Fillmore (dba Drunken Hack Inc.) is slacking off. ("Sheaf of paper" was misplaced recently, prompting sackings and a reorganization of the entire department.)

Bill the Splut said...

I replaced my bulbs with CFLs 7 years ago. My electric bill dropped 10%, and the first one just burned out last month, dead as Tinny's imagination.

Me, I'm saving money, but Tinny's all "HIPPY ECOFAG AL GORE IS FAT LOL!" Too bad his tiny brain hasn't grasped the concept "Less $ on electricity=more $ for booze."

Kip W said...

I came here to say what Tog already said: It's no light bulb, it's a glowing turd. What else would you expect to come out of the head of Mallard/Tinsley?

exanonymous said...

He should look on the bright side: (no pun intended)

People all over the nation with hangovers in dark rooms are appreciating the benefits of NOT having that bright overhead light instantly going on.

And everyone else realizes there's this giant free light source in the sky that one can use for about 12 hours a day, provided one wakes up early enough, like before 2pm.

Rootbeer said...

The venomous opposition to CFLs is frankly baffling to me.

Are there really people who need to switch lights on and off so often that it's unacceptable to wait almost a second for light to appear, and a minute or two until ideal color temperature is achieved?

Are the flicker and slight bluish tinge of some budget-line CFLs based on ten-year-old designs so offensive that people would rather spend hundreds more dollars -- and much more time on stepladders -- to sustain their incandescent habits?

Are they so lazy that they can't bring the rare dead bulb to the hardware store to be recycled when they go to buy its replacement? So clumsy or drunk that they're smashing CFL bulbs frequently enough to worry about mercury exposure?

dlauthor said...

@Rootbeer: They oppose it because liberals like them, and libruls are done. It really doesn't get much beyond brain-stem-level reactions with Tinshley's crowd.

Also, I think Tinshley hates them because, as the evidence demonstrates, they're way harder for him to draw than a plain round bulb.

Frank Stone said...

The good news is that Mallard has what passes for multiple facial expressions today. The bad news is that this means Brucie has used up all his artistic growth for the next three years on one strip. Congratulations?

DiR said...

Oh the horrors, we have to wait 10 or so seconds for them to get to full brightness. It's like the Holocaust. IN OUR LAMPS.

Does he not know that CFLS come in various wattages and brightness? Or has be just been buying the 60watt softs, and not he's complaining about it?

rewinn said...

I think the reflexive hatred against CFLs is exactly the same as the reflexive hatred of an alcoholic against AA.