I read the original comment by ACCount37 in the same way Forbo and BolexNOLA did - that ACCount37 is fine with cooling towers or dams, but not with coal stacks. This is a fully reasonable interpretation, considering the comment they were responding to explicitly listed those 3 examples; had they not been so explicit, it might be more reasonable to interpret it as simply not having an opinion on items not listed, but that isn't the case.
And since you're so keen on pointing out that this is public: you don't come off looking very great. Might wanna work on that.
We need you to avoid perpetuating or escalating flamewars on HN. Energy/climate topics are among the most predictable flamebait topics, and as a longtime user we need to see you being circumspect and making your contributions de-escalatory rather than escalatory. We've had to ask you several times before respect the site's guidelines and purpose. Please try harder.
You and I can disagree about interpretation all day long but there’s no misinterpreting your incredibly condescending tone. Have a good rest of your Sunday man.
Call it what you want, either way it was rude and unnecessary.
As for your point: If that’s what he’s doing then he’s doing a piss poor job because several of us clearly heard an implied “but not coal fire plant smoke stacks” while he said infrastructure for renewables on the skyline can be pretty.
