Might be good if you gave the link to that thread you locked. You've left out a few things.
{1} In that thread, I saw that you'd asked "Greg" for sources to support what he said about nuclear reactors needing offsite power. So I gave you sources for what I posted about solar flares and vulnerabilty of grids. One of those articles was identified as coming from Scientific American. I gave title, date, and author, and checked that Google would find it directly from that info.
Unlike 2012 members who posted in the present thread, you ignored the Sci Am article. You implied I can't tell legit concerns from YouTube nonsense. I then told you that the article cited FERC sources. You now declined to read it because "this site doesn't do nuclear activism".
{2} At the same time you were accusing me (falsely) of being a nuclear activist, you challenged the relevance of the article and my posts to 2012. Here's part of my response:
"The Scientific American article you continue to blow off is about solar flares and vulnerability of power grids. That's one of your major topics on this website. It mentions "nuclear" only once, in connection with a transformer damaged by a geomagnetic storm.
{Continuing quote} Anyone who reads this thread and the sources I gave will see the truth pretty quickly, especially since one of this site's gurus blew off the Scientific American article about solar storms and vulnerability of grids without even reading it, and just for good measure threw in a snotty little crack that I can’t tell the difference between YouTube and sources that are legit.
{Continuing} Anyone that reads all three pages of that article will see I soft pedaled it. It’ll show that regulars here have been ignorant of real issues and how the power industry talks about them (like “hundred-year events”).
My bad on the anger. But not cool to ask one participant to provide sources, then refuse to read another participant's refs because you assume they might be woo, or because you pigeonholed him as a nuclear activist.
Your reply to my response was
{Quoting my post} Anyone that reads all three pages of that article will see I soft pedaled it.
Your response: Looks like a pretty routine ax-grinding to me, and you come across as really angry to boot."
If you really were referring to my summary of the article, instead of the article itself, then I apologize. But in that case, since you apparently still hadn't read the article (in the same post you were still justifying the "YouTube" remark), it seems you had no objective basis for concluding that my summary of the article wasn't a soft-pedal.
In summary, at worst I've only partly misrepresented what you said about the article. If I did misrepresent you, I apologize. But you could have avoided being "misrepresented" by reading the article the first time. Or the second.
Regarding starting this thread in this forum:
"By the way, we have plenty of existing threads about solar and geomagnetic activity, as well as a main menu article."
As noted above, it's not clear that you considered my articles relevant enough for you to read, and you locked the thread and moved it to Off-Topic. So I started the present thread here. Are you saying now that I underestimated the relevance of those articles?
Regarding your accusation of blackmail, in the thread you locked and moved:
It wasn't blackmail. It was a promise to drop this subject and let you delete the record of your refusal to read the articles, etc., if 2012hoax would post a brief summary of what those articles said, and how they corrected what some members had posted in that thread. As I've said, I'm not here to make your site look bad. I provided a summary that I think a fair reader would consider pretty mild. (People who didn't read all the articles might want to before replying.)
So, it was a promise, not a threat. You have a great website that helps a lot of people, and I'd never say anything bad about it.
Nuke (guest) 05 Oct 2011 21:53
