Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How Many Forum Members Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?

This is topic How Many Forum Members Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003182

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-30-2004, 12:50 AM:

How many forum members does it take to change a light bulb? [av=k]

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

1 to move it to the Lighting section.

2 to argue that it should have been moved to the Electrical section.

7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.

5 to flame the spell checkers.

3 to correct spelling/grammar flames.

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp".

15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct.

19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum.

11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum.

36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty.

8 to say that light bulb changing should only be done by unions, and how unions change light bulbs better.

1 to make many sexual innuendos for no reason whatsoever.

1 to post many URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

26 to say how light bulbs of the past are so much better than the lightbulbs of today, and how truly good light requires the use of two lightbulbs in an alternating fashion.

17 to say that one light bulb works great and offer the advantages of automated lightbulbs.

13 to quote previous posts in their entirety and add "Me too" or perhaps just a [Smile]

.

5 to inform the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?".

13 to say "Do a search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs".

1 to lock the thread when enough is enough.

3 to continually unlock the thread, post their comments and then quickly lock it back up again.

1 lurker to change a lightbulb and start the whole thing over 6 months from now with a new thread.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-30-2004, 01:18 AM:

1 to post that Ushio light bulbs are far superior to Osrams

3 to argue that they've had no problems with Osrams in the inferior fixtures that they use

80 to agree that Chinese light bulbs suck ass

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-30-2004, 02:17 AM:

...BOTH of 'em!

>>> Phil

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-30-2004, 02:50 AM:

Hilarious. [thumbsup]

Yes, it doesn't seem surprising. The generic message board forum formula has survived, unchanged, throughout the past however-long-it's-been since the dawn of message board time. Why do we even post at all? [Razz]

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 04-30-2004, 03:05 AM:

"1 to make many sexual innuendos for no reason whatsoever."

What forum are you talking about? If you were talking about Film-Tech then that number should be a bit higher.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-30-2004, 03:16 AM:

So Chris.. what are you wearing RIGHT NOW?

>>> Phil

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-30-2004, 03:25 AM:

[stupid]

[av=b]

Chris-

Yes I know, but how else would I have been able to single out Phil?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-30-2004, 05:10 AM:

5 to point out that red LEDs are better than light bulbs and that everyone should switch to using them

50 to argue that red LEDs aren't really better than light bulbs and that the conversion is stupid

4 to argue that the discussion is pointless because all the great films were made before the whole "talkie" thing started, anyway

Posted by Daniel Alt (Member # 2303) on 04-30-2004, 05:56 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
1 to move it to the Lighting section.

2 to argue that it should have been moved to the Electrical section.

Could we please move this discussion to the "Joke" forum, where it belongs?

(please note: attempted humor.)

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-30-2004, 06:07 AM:

Yet another "bright" idea by Joe. I could just picture the light bulb coming on above his head when he thought of this one. [thumbsup]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-30-2004, 06:10 AM:

quote: Daniel Alt
(please note: attempted humor.)

Daniel, please note: Your attempt at humor has failed. This, as is ALL discussions here are of a serious and meaningful nature.

Yes Jeremy...unfortunately it was a "flashbulb" and it has been *used* and there is NOTHING left!

>>> Phil

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 04-30-2004, 07:06 AM:

Joe has an idea light that runs on natural gas. Unfortunately, his pilot has gone out. The gas has NEVER stopped, though.

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-30-2004, 07:13 AM:

I wonder if all this making fun of Joe is causing his bulb to flicker. [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-30-2004, 08:01 AM:

Someone should tell Joe that he left his light on out in the parking lot, and it's getting
DIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 04-30-2004, 09:16 AM:

Of course Joe forgot the small handful who lamented the change from carbon arcs to the lightbulb, and how carbon arc light was superior, even though the light bulb had longer life and was not as messy to handle. [Smile]

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 04-30-2004, 10:02 AM:

1 from a museum to point out that carbon-arcs were a bad idea and how lime light was the ultimate illuminatory source

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 04-30-2004, 01:00 PM:

1 more to point out that carbon-arc's don't really quallify as "bulbs".

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-30-2004, 01:11 PM:

at least 2 more people to start multiple threads in more than one forum about "how many forum members does it take to re-trim an arc lamp?"
50 people to argue over what make and model of lamphouse is best
1 moderator to lock the redundant and off-topic threads

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-01-2004, 07:57 AM:

Two people to argue about what is correct, posting alternating messages; "You're wrong!" ; "No, you're wrong!" ; "I had to fix your last install because you can't line up a light bulb." ; "Bite me!" ; "Blow me!"

One person to play the 'good guy'; "Now, now remember - there are no bad light bulbs ..."

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 05-01-2004, 09:34 AM:

[sleep]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-01-2004, 10:47 AM:

Seeing the Light can be a religious experience. I thought discussion of religion was banned on Film-Tech? [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-01-2004, 11:04 AM:

How many Microsoft executives does it take to change a lightbulb? None. They just declare darkness the new standard.

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 05-06-2004, 04:28 PM:

Here's a few more:

The Light Bulb Joke Archive