PO.com owes me 1 cup of Tide

by **Specop_007** » Sat 12 Feb 2005, 23:54:45

I must admit, I was so happy and excited when I saw I have an edit button a little dribble of pee pee came out.
I'm filing suit. PO.com owes me 1 cop of Tide to wash my pants!

:-D

by **maverickdoc** » Sat 12 Feb 2005, 23:59:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', 'I') must admit, I was so happy and excited when I saw I have an edit button a little dribble of pee pee came out.
I'm filing suit. PO.com owes me 1 cop of Tide to wash my pants!

:-D

by **skateari** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:04:10

LOL, you think that avatar is big enough spec? Its kinda ruining the appearance of your thread a bit :lol:

by **skateari** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:06:16

ops, I diden't even read the post on here otherwise I woulden't have contributed.

Not sure what happened with my computer but now your avatar is back to normal size.

by **Specop_007** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:06:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skateari', 'L')OL, you think that avatar is big enough spec? Its kinda ruining the appearance of your thread a bit :lol:

by **BabyPeanut** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:15:40

Tide's made out of petrochemicals. You should be avoiding it, right?

http://www.ecos.com/

by **Specop_007** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:26:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BabyPeanut', 'T')ide's made out of petrochemicals. You should be avoiding it, right?

http://www.ecos.com/

by **skateari** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:50:18

just to let you know the title of your post reads "cop" not "cup".

Maybe you might want to use that Edit butten you peed your pants about and change it :wink:

by **Specop_007** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 00:55:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skateari', 'j')ust to let you know the title of your post reads "cop" not "cup".

Maybe you might want to use that Edit butten you peed your pants about and change it :wink:

by **skateari** » Sun 13 Feb 2005, 01:09:43

ops. I hadn't refreshed that page since my first post. my bad

by **gg3** » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 07:05:29

Seriously though, there is something to be gained in terms of conservation and efficiency, by adjusting detergent usage downward.

Detergent makers are primarily concerned with living up to claims about cleaning power. Thus the amounts of detergent they recommend per load are adjusted to be on the high side. This means that all the detergent doesn't quite come out in the rinse cycle (or requires more rinses, i.e. more water and electricity). Since detergents are tested to be relatively non-allergenic, the presence of residual detergent in your clothes isn't irritating to most people.

I've given this some thought since it has implications for water/electricity usage, and since the majority of commercial detergents are in some way petroleum-derived. There seems to be no substitute for personal judgement, largely subjective: based on experience using a particular brand of detergent, with different sized loads at different degrees of "dirtiness."

The potential savings are greater than 50% for detergent (i.e. using half or less-than-half the manufacturer's recommended amount). And, theoretically, it should be possible to get full cleaning ability *and* extract all the residual detergent via one spin immediately after the wash cycle, followed by one soak/rinse cycle (rather than two), followed by a final spin-dry. The energy and water savings come from eliminating the need for a second soak/rinse cycle and the third spin cycle that would follow.

by **Specop_007** » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 07:35:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'S')eriously though, there is something to be gained in terms of conservation and efficiency, by adjusting detergent usage downward.

Detergent makers are primarily concerned with living up to claims about cleaning power. Thus the amounts of detergent they recommend per load are adjusted to be on the high side. This means that all the detergent doesn't quite come out in the rinse cycle (or requires more rinses, i.e. more water and electricity). Since detergents are tested to be relatively non-allergenic, the presence of residual detergent in your clothes isn't irritating to most people.

I've given this some thought since it has implications for water/electricity usage, and since the majority of commercial detergents are in some way petroleum-derived. There seems to be no substitute for personal judgement, largely subjective: based on experience using a particular brand of detergent, with different sized loads at different degrees of "dirtiness."

The potential savings are greater than 50% for detergent (i.e. using half or less-than-half the manufacturer's recommended amount). And, theoretically, it should be possible to get full cleaning ability *and* extract all the residual detergent via one spin immediately after the wash cycle, followed by one soak/rinse cycle (rather than two), followed by a final spin-dry. The energy and water savings come from eliminating the need for a second soak/rinse cycle and the third spin cycle that would follow.

by **Madpaddy** » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 07:57:16

Specop_007 wrote:
I must admit, I was so happy and excited when I saw I have an edit button a little dribble of pee pee came out.
I'm filing suit. PO.com owes me 1 cop of Tide to wash my pants!

This image has disturbed me greatly, I am filing suit against PO.com for emotional distress for allowing this to be posted.

by **Specop_007** » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 08:48:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'S')pecop_007 wrote:
I must admit, I was so happy and excited when I saw I have an edit button a little dribble of pee pee came out.
I'm filing suit. PO.com owes me 1 cop of Tide to wash my pants!

This image has disturbed me greatly, I am filing suit against PO.com for emotional distress for allowing this to be posted.

by **Madpaddy** » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 10:03:31

To misquote the bible

A suit for a suit and all the world is naked

PO.com owes me 1 cup of Tide

PO.com owes me 1 cup of Tide

Re: PO.com owes me 1 cop of Tide

Who is online