Had an idea in my head from the energy-saving bulb thread. Then I forgot it and ended up with this instead:
INT - CLASSROOM- EVENING
A LONE PUPIL, TIM, SITS AT A DESK, ILLUMINATED BY THE HARSH GLARE OF A FLUORESCENT LIGHT. MISS SMITH, THE TEACHER, PACES MENACINGLY, PAPER IN HAND.
MISS SMITH
So, Tim. You know why you're in detention?
TIM
Yes, Miss. I got an "E" for my Physics homework.
MISS SMITH
That's right, Tim. Question three: (READING) "Using the information given, the energy-saving bulb would be 4p cheaper per day compared with a normal one." (TO TIM) Correct. (READING AGAIN) "However, due to the long warm-up period, degradation of the bulb's intensity over time and migraine-inducing light quality, the energy-saving bulb is still inferior and quite possibly as costly in the long term".
TIM
Well it's true, Miss.
MISS SMITH
But it's not in the syllabus, Tim.
TIM
So, the syllabus is wrong. Anyway, the question said to discuss...
MISS SMITH
...the advantages, Tim. The advantages.
TIM
This light's hurting my eyes. I want to go home.
MISS SMITH
There. That wasn't hard, was it?
TIM
What?
MISS SMITH
"Energy-saving bulbs are more effective for interrogating suspects, which could save considerable fees in police costs."
TIM
THAT'S in the syllabus?
MISS SMITH
Well, it doesn't matter anyway, the EU has banned incandescent bulbs now. Just write 100 lines: "Energy-saving bulbs will help prevent global warming."
TIM
Isn't that a pointless waste of ink?
MISS SMITH
In blood.
