I think you took more offense in that than intended ;) On your first point, you said > The person you're reacting to was correct. So I took "you" to be the p

I think you took more offense in that than intended ;) On your first point, you said > The person you're reacting to was correct. So I took "you" to be the parent (godelski) who was responding (=reacting) to ncmncm, who accused me of spreading disinformation. You then continued with > They're reacting to someone who is spreading information they well know to be false. I took this "they" to reference ncmncm, who is responding (reacting) to my original comment - which then means that you would've said that I'm spreading misinformation. Given this new information, the "they" probably referenced "godelski", too - which is the source of our misunderstanding. To you second point, you're right that this was probably not the best strategic response. That being said, my original comment provided arguments and a (hopefully) valid source, while the responses accused me of spreading knowingly wrong information (well, technically only one did, but as outlined in point 1, I was unaware of that at the time of writing the comment). Proving that I knew what I said was wrong is a pretty high bar, so I decided to ask for only points that were wrong in my original comments. The comment was a bit salty, I agree, but in the context that I made a good argument (IMO) and the only response was "false" without even a hint to a specific fault, I didn't really see a more reasonable way to respond - but I should've pointed this out more clearly. It was definitely not my intention to make someone work for free to debunk my baseless claims. And, to end things, just a minor nitpick - I'm actually not a nuclear fanboy at all, I was just responding honestly why desert solar was not an option, since it was something I've looked at before.