> Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? It didn't invalidate your argument. You made a good point about the phrase "Mexican Chernobyl" leading

> Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? It didn't invalidate your argument. You made a good point about the phrase "Mexican Chernobyl" leading some people to think they were talking about a reactor accident. I agree that that phrasing is somewhat problematic. What I am objecting to is the use of the word 'clickbait' and again, quite obviously, that the title wasn't 'pure clickbait'. The title was still informative and gave a fairly good indication of what the article was about. There is an issue with the title, yes, but that can be pointed out without indulging in hyperbole, which is what undermines (not invalidates) your point. But your comment was still much, much better than the original one I objected to; I wouldn't have said anything in reply to your comment except for it being in that thread under the one I first replied to.