Texas has an isolated grid. They can't buy or export power. This causes grid overloads. People have ended up freezing and dying in heat waves due to power outages.
You said "maybe it ok, maybe it saves money even if there are catastrophes, but I don't even know what the money is like".
Why would you say that a terrible power grid induces crisis is ok at all, let alone when you don't even know how the money breaks down?
He is the one who specifically brought up profits as a potential reason to accept catastrophe then got all offended and aggressive, name calling etc when people challenged this. Even going as far as to deny bringing profits into it THEN admitting he had no idea of the numbers but STILL doubling down on the ‘don’t believe your lying eyes about what I wrote’.
I genuinely questioned whether it was just me until I checked back in the thread this morning.
So far as I can tell you have not done so, and, judging from appearances, the one writing offended and aggressive comments is not me.
You used the words 'edgy' and 'pathetic' amongst others. I'm sure the edit history is available to mods if you wanna go there.
I will no longer engage, you aren't doing it in good faith and you have lied several times on this thread alone.
Or at least type out the quoted sentences that you remember with 'edgy' and 'pathetic'? And then any passing reader can email dang to confirm if that's in a past comment revision, like you said?
If your unwilling to put in that basic effort after making such an accusation, then it seems self-defeating, plus no one would trust it.
I do sometimes use 'edgy', so maybe that is possible, but I really don't think I've ever called anyone 'pathetic', so this seems like a lame accusation.
(As a sidenote I don't even remember for my own comments made 48 hours ago how I edited them or what words changed after, so it's pretty astonishing that another user is keeping track.)
I wasn't too impressed with the last conversation I had with you, Cyberdildonics, and at best it seems as if your objecting to your own hasty paraphrase of my comment so I don't see how this could benefit any passing reader either.
You basically said 'what if it saves money' when discussing multiple state wide crises. Saying 'what if' isn't an argument in the first place, now you're avoiding confronting what you said completely.
Trying to argue around this fact is pretty odd and it's unclear what the intention is.
You are also free to contact any HN user you trust and confirm whether I'm making this up or not?
I don't understand your question at all. Making what up? Why are all your comments deflection? Why not quote yourself and explain what you were trying to say?
I explicitly stated 3 days ago:
> Well this seems a bit too snarky and not in good faith so I'm not going to substantially respond any further.
See this link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37516711
Frankly, although I didn't want to bring it up previously lest it be too embarrassing, perhaps logging off and seeking some help would be the better choice, if you are genuinely forgetting how to check past HN comments.
EDIT: After thinking it over, I'm going to disengage here since I rather not risk the chance of inadvertently nudging someone further into a negative spiral.
You didn't substantially respond at all.
No one is victimizing you by asking you to focus on what you originally. You originally said that maybe statewide energy crisis that directly result in deaths are fine because it might make sense financially without even having any numbers or actual information of any kind.
All you did after was try to be insulting and act like you are being victimized while avoiding anything about what you originally said.
Why not just deal with the current topic? Why not explain what you said? It's bizarre that you would rather thrash around and try to blame people for replying when you could just deal with the thread directly.