Another non-sequitur.
Our property has no grass.
No rules about such, nor signs.
So, non-sequitur, ad hominem and false.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Quite the trifecta – you remain the undefeated champion.
I suppose every website has its sometime trolls.
Don’t you folks have better things to do than argue about this 
?
2 Likes
TL;DR.
This is about running an Airbnb right? Or the private hygiene habits of hosts?
If it’s the former, I don’t foresee ever putting a bidet seat in my Airbnb for the same reason I just took the ceiling fan with light and remote out. I’d like my Airbnb to seem upscale for the price and neighborhood, but not at the expense of complicating things. I don’t want messages about how the bidet works or any added maintenance. As far as flushing goes, I think most people flush when peeing and in an Airbnb they are going to use TP as well.
If it’s the latter, I have a bidet seat in my bathroom. They are especially helpful for older people with mobility issues for promoting cleanliness. I don’t have those issues now but if I ever did, I have the seat. I’ve also used a simple cold spray hose that attaches to the plumbing going to the toilet and I might go back to that. It’s not as elegant but it’s every bit as efficient and in my climate the “cold” water isn’t unpleasant. When I pee, I dry off with a towel, I don’t use TP. In a household everyone would want their own reusable towel. I don’t always flush pee. But I have found that in the summer, when I don’t flush, the slime in the toilet multiplies much faster and I have to clean it more often. Again, since I live alone, not flushing in my bathroom isn’t an issue. But I don’t imagine most people in multiple person homes (with guests added) are leaving pee and TP in the toilet to stew between uses. For poop, I wipe, use the bidet, then dry off with my towel.
Overall I feel confident that I save water with a bidet but I didn’t buy it to save water. Note I said “save water,” not “save resources.”
My final thought that I don’t think was addressed is that manufacturing a bidet seat or spray hose (and they are probably all made overseas and shipped to the US and EU) uses resources. Then the bidet seats go into the landfill when they quit working. Old school porcelain bidets might save resources long term but I’m not sure about bidet seats. The resources used and garbage created is one of the things that seems to be missing from most discussions about the environment. That’s especially true of EVs, solar panels and batteries. Edit to add; environment loving Americans, including me, are always looking for ways to feel good about our overconsumption of resources. We aren’t that interested in actually doing what is needed to “save the planet.”
Here’s my “better late than never” entry into this pissing contest:
The best environmental advice is still “reduce, reuse, recycle.” If you aren’t going to use a towel, buy the high rated TP and then save the tp you use when you pee and reuse it. When it is no longer usable, put it in your compost bin. Use the compost to grow your own vegetables that are watered with pee water you’ve scooped out of your toilet, or better yet, pee in a bucket and pour it on your plants.
3 Likes
I find it disingenuous when folks decry the capitalist overtones of actually trying to sell your product to people who want to buy it. Remember, this is the interweb - a series of tubes - and linking products to social media content is how people make money.
Bottom line (see what I did there?) is that bidets are cleaner and less of a drain on resources than using TP alone. And it FEELS great.
1 Like
This is what the WaPo article called ‘performance’. With a bowel movement the bidet will get you cleaner than with toilet paper alone.
For some that’s its greatest appeal. The article cites the environment and cost savings as well.
As we’ve tediously learned and the saying goes: “your mileage may vary”.
[quote=“Rolf, post:94, topic:48985”] I
find it disingenuous when folks decry the capitalist overtones of actually trying to sell your product to people who want to buy it.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is saying that. Of course anyone who has a product to sell, be it a bidet or an Airbnb listing, is going to market it somehow.
What is disingenuous is articles which purport to be about saving the planet, etc, when those articles are financed by those trying to sell their product.
Just like so-called scientific studies which are actually financed by the fossil fuel industry, cigarette companies, or the makers of toxic chemicals.
1 Like
Just to understand, are you suggesting that The Washington Post article was financed by those trying to sell a product here? If so, why?
IF there were a bidet ad as I was reading Washington Post – and I see none yet – is that a reflection that I’ve Googled it quite a bit? That I’m reading right then and there a bidet article? What inference can I reasonably make?
This WaPo article that has been subject to so much discussion here says it’s about the environment, savings and performance benefits of a bidet. It is not sponsored content.
I would think most newspapers derive some portion of its revenues from ads, even before the digital age.
So there’s a distinction between a newspaper that derives revenues from ads from one deriving income from undisclosed sponsored content.
My apologies. My memory was foggy about the type of ground cover you have rules and signs about.
From one of your posts:
"We don’t have grass but sedum that cannot be walked upon. We state that in our rules and we have several signs from Etsy that say “Do Not Walk on Landscaping.”
It has links in the article to a company that sells bidets, and another link to a toilet paper company. What about that don’t you understand?
Well, you said ‘grass’ and we have none, nor any rules about grass. We once had a rule about not walking on the sedum, which are succulents that are crushed when walked upon. But no longer, just signage not to walk on landscaping.
Regardless, this was a non-sequitur, just as references to our having a pool were. These comments did not add to the discussion.
Another non-sequitur.
Are you saying that The Washington Post article was financed by those product sellers to which the links were made? What is your evidence for that?
Purely argumentative. Does not add to the discussion.
This whole thread has really gone down the toilet. It was okay at first but then it’s like someone came along with a floater that just wouldn’t flush. So I’m going to close the lid and lock the door so no one else comes in here.
7 Likes