LOOK, OUT CALIFORNIA
There's a movement to make your toilets even more "efficient."
Meanwhile in Greenville, MS: A flaming toilet.
« Previous | Main | Next »
May 24, 2006
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
If this bill passes, will it's supporters be "flush" with success?
Posted by: LucyVanPelt | May 24, 2006 at 09:27 AM
Up next: A proposal to mandate a big hole in your bathroom floor that leads directly to a pit under your house.
Hey, I think that's how the Romans did it.
Posted by: Chianca at Large | May 24, 2006 at 09:27 AM
More efficient?? Have they learned nothing?
Posted by: Lisa Bisa Fo Fisa | May 24, 2006 at 09:27 AM
*Holds Sign and walks in a circle*
No Low Flow!! No Low Flow!! No Low Flow!!
Posted by: CoastRaven | May 24, 2006 at 09:33 AM
Hey! I have an idea! Why not just eliminate 300 Olympic sized swimming pools, and make Californians drink regular ol' tap water? According to my highly scientific calculations, that will save just as much water, and still permit toilets to, er, go with the flow.
Note: The preceding opinion is, surprisingly, not endorsed by the Toilet Manufacturers Association.
Posted by: Betsy | May 24, 2006 at 09:34 AM
You'll take my high-flush toilet when you pry it out from under my cold, dead tushie.
Posted by: Bill | May 24, 2006 at 09:37 AM
If you didn't have to flush them seventeen times to sink those p.diddies they might actually save water.
Posted by: aLIEN8 | May 24, 2006 at 09:37 AM
"believed to be a prank"?
Posted by: puppytoes | May 24, 2006 at 09:52 AM
Cold Dead Tushie(y?) - GNFARB?
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | May 24, 2006 at 09:55 AM
A movement to make your toilets more efficient?
That's a bit like shagging for virginity, isn't it?
Posted by: Dr Acula | May 24, 2006 at 10:07 AM
"Kids are being questioned," Green said. "We will get to the bottom of this."
Indeed.
Posted by: BillyJoeJimBob | May 24, 2006 at 10:18 AM
If everyone in SoCal would merely stop watering their lawns, it'd be amazing how much water they could save ...
... 300 Olympic-sized swimming pools ... Um ... how much is that in metric?
(Takes famous Owns a 7-gallon Hi-Flow Toilet T-shirt out of luggage, to amire and gloat ...)
(Mentions breakage of AP Stylebook rules in Flaming Toilet story ...)
Posted by: O. the U(manity) | May 24, 2006 at 10:25 AM
*snork* at dr acula!
Posted by: crossgirl | May 24, 2006 at 10:29 AM
118,800,000 gallons, or 449,064,000 liters
Posted by: mudstuffin | May 24, 2006 at 10:46 AM
mudstuffin - showoff!!
Posted by: CoastRaven | May 24, 2006 at 10:50 AM
...so in the final analysis the cost of drinking aquafina while swiimming in your a giant pool in the middle of your green lawn is living in a cesspit...
I guess that seems reasonable...
Posted by: Betsy | May 24, 2006 at 10:51 AM
I haven't clicked on the links yet; I just saw the words 'movement' and 'toilet' in the same sentence and proceeded to giggle uncontrollably. Keep 'em coming Dave.
Posted by: KOW | May 24, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Been said, but sadly one flush won't do (or won't doo-doo). We put 'em in, and my water bill went UP! California. Plenty of wine, expensive real estate, and whiny movie stars. Wisdom? Not so much.
Posted by: Todd McLaren | May 24, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Aha! That would be one use for the Fireproof Toilet Seat I saw in a hardware store ad years ago!
Posted by: CandyT | May 24, 2006 at 01:15 PM
I wouldn't consider a toilet efficient unless you could use it to flush this bill. It's the biggest load of crap I have seen today.
Posted by: Albert | May 25, 2006 at 04:02 PM