4 ms·

>I am all for renewables You have stated elsewhere that you think wind and solar are to do with communism. I am not sure exactly where you were going with that

>I am all for renewables You have stated elsewhere that you think wind and solar are to do with communism. I am not sure exactly where you were going with that as an argument, but I really don't believe that you meant it in a 'yayy, communism' kind of a way.

ThomPete 8y ago
No I haven't said that at all. I have said that the claim that wind and solar is the way forward is to do with the "communism has never been tried" argument. Why do you need to lie about what I actually said.
- starbeast 8y ago
  That may have been what you meant, but it was not what you said. pjc50 said: This is very much the "true communism has never been tried" argument, isn't it? Unless you know a way of building it without people? Then you said: "No its not at all the same cause thats not what i mean. I mean that people are ignorant to the dangers not that its dangerous. Has nothing to do with communism, wind and solar on the other hand do." The way this reads it is as though you have skipped the reference and have started talking about communism itself as opposed to the "true communism has never been tried" argument. Now this may have been unintentional on your part due to poor English, but if I have misunderstood it was not due to me trying to conflate your words in any way. You did the conflation for me.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    That's what I said which is pretty obvious from the context. You just decided to misunderstand it or are as poor at reading English as I am at writing it.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      Perhaps I can't parse English, or perhaps I am deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Couldn't possibly be that you are being a bit confusing in the first place, of course, as that would shift a little bit of blame to your court and we cannot possibly have that, now can we? Must be that I am being a bastard (which is fair assumption really, I can be a bit of a bastard). With that all said however, the interpretation you are putting forward (which it would only be reasonable to take as the correct interpretation of your words, as it is you describing what you meant to say), still doesn't support the notion that you are "all for renewables", now does it?

ThomPete 8y ago

No I haven't said that at all. I have said that the claim that wind and solar is the way forward is to do with the "communism has never been tried" argument. Why do you need to lie about what I actually said.

starbeast 8y ago
That may have been what you meant, but it was not what you said. pjc50 said: This is very much the "true communism has never been tried" argument, isn't it? Unless you know a way of building it without people? Then you said: "No its not at all the same cause thats not what i mean. I mean that people are ignorant to the dangers not that its dangerous. Has nothing to do with communism, wind and solar on the other hand do." The way this reads it is as though you have skipped the reference and have started talking about communism itself as opposed to the "true communism has never been tried" argument. Now this may have been unintentional on your part due to poor English, but if I have misunderstood it was not due to me trying to conflate your words in any way. You did the conflation for me.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  That's what I said which is pretty obvious from the context. You just decided to misunderstand it or are as poor at reading English as I am at writing it.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    Perhaps I can't parse English, or perhaps I am deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Couldn't possibly be that you are being a bit confusing in the first place, of course, as that would shift a little bit of blame to your court and we cannot possibly have that, now can we? Must be that I am being a bastard (which is fair assumption really, I can be a bit of a bastard). With that all said however, the interpretation you are putting forward (which it would only be reasonable to take as the correct interpretation of your words, as it is you describing what you meant to say), still doesn't support the notion that you are "all for renewables", now does it?