Re: {OT} Hey Bambi Butt Holes....why not tax flushes like Oz?

Were you this burnt out in the head in your younger days, or is this recent? How do YOU suggest Australia handle its ongoing drought?

Absolutely yes.

In my part of Virginia we get one refill of swimming pools a year and a waiver of the sewage rate for that period.

No, it doesn't. But I don't make the rules.

No, it doesn't. But I don't make the rules.

====================

Would it make sense if his locale was in the second year of a severe drought?

I would start taking dumps in dark corners. It usually takes 4 flushes to get everything down.

Read the thread from the beginning, paying very close attention to "Australia".

This discussion is about Australia. They're trying to get people to use less water because of an ongoing drought. It doesn't matter where water ends up after it's used. What matters is the initial use of the water.

Another classic from Alisa Surkis and Monica Nolan:

The issue is not where the water ends up (sewer), but its initial use.

He posted an article about Australia's plan to limit WATER USE. He then used his own pool along with a question about whether similar rules should be applied here. I chose to assume that since there's a good reason for Australia's plan (ongoing drought), we should apply the same variables to the sot's question.

To *NOT* apply those same variables is absurd.

Here's your chance to redeem yourself:

Why do you think low-flush toilets came into existence?

Yes, for those who did a minimal amount of research and bought the right ones.

Now, explain how "left wing" belongs in a discussion of these toilets. Do not venture further into responses which we would expect to hear from boys practicing one-upmanship with stupid humor in a 7th grade locker room.

The government doesn't test a lot of products, and yet it's still possible to purchase the best ones. For example, you could hire a private detective to help you find your public library. Then, you walk in a take a look at Consumer Reports.

In order to believe what you just wrote, you would also need to believe that water supply is not a problem anywhere in America, or anywhere else in the world.

Is that really what you believe?

You can believe those two things, but you cannot reliably connect the two in any way.

Even Hush Bimbo (your mentor) isn't nutty enough to connect low-flush toilets to the factors you are describing.

Don't you live near Rosie O'Donnell? Ellen and Porsche let me borrow theirs.

So, to summarize your views:

1) Low flush toilets came from the minds of environmental extremists who want mankind eradicated, even though all sane people know that some parts of the world are desperately low on water.

2) The government (which you believe should keep its nose out of most things) should evaluate toilet quality.

3) It is not the consumer's job to do even minimal research before making purchases. They should depend on the government to make sure there are no lousy products lurking out there.

It's more like a shortage of water. In addition, it takes more energy (and fresh water) to treat high volume of sewage than a lower volume.

In many parts of the world, there is a shortage of water, including some parts of the US and Middle East.

Another option is to recycle the wastewater directly. (It is already recycled, with rain.) In CA, they're dumping the cleaned wastewater back into the water table. In the space shuttle and space station, let's just say yesterday's pee is today's coffee. There's a yuck factor with recycling waste water, but it works. And in Japan, they are really efficient, even recylcing wash water (from clothes washers) to flush toilets and water grass and gardens.

But LOW flush toilets do NOT save water when multiple flushes are required, for the most part. Water CAN be saved by simply NOT flushing for just pee.