they're 'confusing' you for the parent poster of the comment chain you directly replied to in the discussion that you inserted yourself into, something understandable from anyone who spends time on sites that have parent/child discussion chains.
the confusion is solely yours alone, but for any other new users to the site you're taking up the role of continuing the discussion by commenting on reply chains inside that discussion, so having a reply to your comment that mistakenly mentions "your" previous post can be immediately understood in this context as the parents post and not as a misdirected attack that needs to be personally identified before continuing casual discussion.
do you need any more context to respond with honest intentions?
FCOL, I didn't even make a point/take a side, I genuinely want to know what the difference is between "shutdown a conversation" and "dismiss opposing argument without consideration".
That post was the first post I made on this story, and I'm supposed to accept that prior to posting that I was shutting down discussion?
> it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty
With all respect to you, that's rich.
It seems like your "simple observation" is referring to the false dichotomy of stating that there are only money from Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer (and the likes?) as an alternative to governmental money?
There is a plethora of way to finance any projects besides either be financed by the government or large corporations – and luckily much research is funded in other ways.
I am sure one can easily think up more ways to figure financing of (scientific) projects.
When financing come from an independent fond, the board of that fond according to the purpose.
Either you need to need to be indipendently wealthy or follow the desires of who or whatever gave the funds to the foundation.
Do you believe this money doesn't carry any obligations?