3 ms·
You're being disingenuous. The language in your original comment was quite noticeably biased in favour of the project. You still could have written a comment a
by oska 10y ago
You're being disingenuous. The language in your original comment was quite noticeably biased in favour of the project.
You still could have written a comment about the NAWAPA but in much more neutral terms. Up to you, but with your choosing to write such a ‘ra-ra’ comment it is completely unsurprising that people responded to balance things up and point out the massive down-sides of the project which you had glossed over.
- tristanj 10y agoSince you're keen on giving advice, I'll bite, how would you describe NAWAPA to others? The way I see it, no matter which way I described it, I knew there would be commenters who would have a visceral reaction when they learned about the project's externalities. There's a reason this project was killed before getting anywhere. Hence, I knew full on when writing the grandparent comment there would be that kind of reply, from people solely letting others know how much they disagree with the project. I don't see much value arguing with these commenters, because they've already decided their opinion. And I gain no benefit convincing them otherwise. Obviously, based on the votes on the grandparent comment, some people did find what I wrote interesting or insightful enough to upvote. But it did bring out many unhappy posters. How would you have handled it?