The “cool” blue CFLs I tried were unpleasantly blue, and not flattering to skin tones, even though they supposedly mimic daylight. Although I’ve heard from people who prefer the blue ones, I can’t see why, and use “warm” lamps everywhere.
Gazpacho - thanks for those links! I didn’t know they made 3-way CFs yet but I’m going to order a couple. We splurged on new lamps last year and most of them take 3-way. I’ve been good and put regular CFs in the ones we use most (our bedroom) but I miss the 3-way capability.
A question for the group: The quality of light we get from our CFLs looks strange, compared with what we see from an incandescent bulb. Would one labelled “full spectrum” do a better job of mimicking what my eyes are used to?
You need to try one and see if you like it. Looking funny is pretty subjective.
This seems like a good thread for an add-on.
Has anyone tried any LED replacements yet?
If so, did you like them and where did you buy them?
I think by next year LED Christmas lights should be getting more reasonable in price. I hope this is true.
A few weeks ago I was browsing 1000bulbs.com and a few other site for LED Xmas lights.
Jim
Understood - I’m just trying to interpret the descriptions of “warm white” vs. “full spectrum” I found on Wikipedia. Looks like “warm white” would give closer to the effect I’m used to from incandescents. I checked the bulbs we have right now and they don’t specify anything like the color spectrum, so I don’t know what they are.
Also - does anyone know what they mean by “high definition” for a CFL? The term is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and I haven’t had any luck finding anything more than that (except the more expensive 3-way bulbs are “full spectrum” and “high definition” vs “warm white”).
Has anybody actually found a “warm-enough” CF? I keep looking, because I’d really like to use them, but even the “warm” ones throw off ass ugly light. My boyfriend is a film guy and he wants to use orange gels on them, ugh.
Sorry, cannot help myself, it’s a Saturday morning and I’m bored.
I know the CFL has some interesting rules, but I’ve never heard of the “drawback” before. 
Sorry, go back to your much more intelligent discussion. 
In the “East Coast Offense” popularized by the Halifax Schooners in the late 80s, the drawback was a nickname given to the receiver who lined up between the slotback and the O line. (In the CFL, only the receivers nearest to the sidelines are called wide receivers, unlike the NFL where any receiver not lined up as a tight end gets that label. In an ordinary formation that in the NFL would be described as 4 wideouts, the inside two are called slotbacks or inside receivers.) The Schooners quickly realized that while the 6 receiver sets made for lots of big plays on offense, they were nonetheless at a disadvantage in 2nd and short situations given their relative dearth of running options. So they started having the “drawbacks” be in motion on nearly every play, and depending on the timing of the snap could run a draw play using the motion receiver as a running back. Hence the nickname.
Ah man, I miss watching those guys run up huuuuuge scores on every team in the league and still lose cuz their defense was slightly less effective in stopping opposing offenses than a stiff breeze.
Man, I had no idea! Thanks for that interesting tidbit. Down here, we don’t get to watch nearly enough CFL games.
Umm…just in case you plan on repeating any of that as an interesting bit of football trivia, I may have taken one or two or six liberties with the truth in that post. It sounded good though, I thought.
<sigh> Laugh at the dumb 'merican day, right? 