From very early in the conversation I've said, quote, "Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect". Since the beginning, I've

From very early in the conversation I've said, quote, "Let's be clear: I'm not saying that your claims are fundamentally incorrect". Since the beginning, I've been clear: it's just bullshit to pretend that the two reasons you brought would have changed any of the conclusion in this article. That's totally crazy. You have an article, you say "naah, it's just because ..." and then when someone says "not really, it's mainly because ..." you say "yeah, in fact it's not really because of what I've said, but I never pretended it was the case". Again, if you now agree that your two reasons are not changing much of the conclusion, then you were just hyper misleading and ishonest when attacking the article pretending they did not explain well because they forgot to say reasons that the whole industry, including report that you have brought, agrees are at best negligible on the situation. You could simply have said "I don't agree with the conclusion because it was due to EDF governance". But you didn't did you? Thanks, now go away, let the adults deal with the situation and continue to think you are not the problem.