You know we can see your comments, right?
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:
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.
> 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.