5 ms·

> You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply > You don't get to us

> You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply > You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense I literally said nothing of the kind

ben_w 3y ago
Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse): You know we can see your comments, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522
- illiarian 3y ago
  > You know we can see your comments, right? Yes, I do. > And you've got a… distinct… writing style Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote. The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors" To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average" Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it. How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    This: > Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. Makes this: > is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse A case in point. I'm not even going to bother now with the rest; the abrasiveness you approach this topic with is uninteresting to me, and does not help me learn new things. That's also not an ad hominem, by the way; it's a critique, sure, but not even intended as a response to the attempted argument.

ben_w 3y ago

Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse): You know we can see your comments, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522

illiarian 3y ago
> You know we can see your comments, right? Yes, I do. > And you've got a… distinct… writing style Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote. The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors" To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average" Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it. How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.
- ben_w 3y ago
  This: > Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. Makes this: > is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse A case in point. I'm not even going to bother now with the rest; the abrasiveness you approach this topic with is uninteresting to me, and does not help me learn new things. That's also not an ad hominem, by the way; it's a critique, sure, but not even intended as a response to the attempted argument.