> Yes, you are wrong. I came with facts and an actual real-world example. Not sure where you sensed anger or why an internet comment hits you so personally. I think it's important to focus on the actual topic
I didn't say it hit me personally. I was saying that hit you personally. you keep thinking it's the other way around. You say you came with facts in the real world example but I guess I saw anger in how you needed to (and continue to seem to need to) frame what i said as, "out of thin air", not "taking a step back", and ”only view the issue from the “point of view” you created from thin air," and not having "removed underlying assumptions," nor "learned how things are playing out in the real world.”

That's a framing which is like very dismissive and not respectful of the position or perspective I bring. so it seems likely that you're not going to listen to what I'm going to say because you think it is stupid, has no basis in reality and not well thought through.

So I guess I saw yer anger there because why would you need to so disrespectfully dismiss someone else's position unless you are afraid of it or angry at them for having raised it. but there's plenty of generous ways you could find value in the perspective that I brought. But instead of acknowledging the value that was there you thought you needed to start your argument by looking down on it. Thereby trying to frame yourself as someone with an authoritative knowledge and perspective about this compared to as you framed what I was bringing, as lacking on this qualities that you can bring.

I think when someone displays that kind of extreme one-sided bias it's often driven by anger and fear. And it doesn't have anything to do with the reality but rather is a reflection of their own reaction.

So hopefully that clears things up, there.

That's good I didn't know that these prices were arranged beforehand. But I could have assumed that were the case without Really changing what I said. Because I'm pretty sure that these prices were agreed to or part of a contracted also included provisions that the prices could change to some extent it could be revised I'll put the full stop so I'm thinking that excellent is not in breach of contract here they're just doing what was as you say actually in the contract but it seems like you're the one who's probably pretending that excellent hasn't been living up to the contract but in fact it seems more like the narrative comes from the state, and maybe the state is saying this to cover how it's now bucking its obligations under that contract to meet the revised prices. And instead of copying to that it's creating a politicized issue out of it and arousing up some public anger and perhaps you've been included in this political delusion. No I don't know I'm not saying that's for sure but can you really say that's unequivocally false? There's no possibility of that? Exelon is 100% in breach of the contractual obligations?

so that was your bottom line. We've just redefined how that actually works. Now there's questions hanging over your bottom line assumption that Exelon is wrong and I wonder how you were going to resolve those.

you going to say that it's an insult to suggest that the political narrative about this maybe somehow deceptive and that you may have believed that. But that you want to just end yourself from this truth of politics my framing it as an insult suggest that you will not be able to accept some of the realities of the situation if you choose to view them as insults. Because you'll see them only a statements designed to insult rather than statements of fact are you really defending the notion that a politician would never ever even dream of creating a fake narrative that incorrectly mislaid responsibility away from themselves in order to cover their own asses and encourage the population to believe that fake narrative?

> To recap, you cannot explain why a large nuclear expansion in the US would work out differently than in Illinois. That was the simple question. I read 500+ words and still can't find the answer.

hold on will you ever ask me to explain that? That was never what we were talking about, was it? seems like you're moving the goal posts. But anyway it's irrelevant related point just you hadn't specifically asked me to explain that but from the way you reacted to a discussion so far it seems like you're not really open to hearing me explain about anything. So not that I'm really interested in the answer because it's not about me but I wonder why that is. And in any case that makes it seem less likely it's not that iconic explain so you cannot hear. Because I guess for you the conclusion is already forgone.

basically I feel sorry for you here at this point because it seems to me the following situation will unfold. as you led with this arrogant misframing of your position as being right and my position being without value and "wrong". It says that that's where you're invested that's what you need to believe and when someone needs to believe that it's very unlikely for them to be able to hear let alone admit that the way that they're thinking about this was somehow incorrect or could somehow be improved. So I think it's very unlikely that you're going to concede any ground or any points here and I think it's very unlikely that you're going to admit that the main arguments that I make that contradict your positions are right or have merit. So I wonder what is your desire to participate in what for you is just simply one-sided discussion if it is not simply to play out this theatricality of your own rightness that you need to believe? in short you're trying to prove your point and not learn something and I feel sad for you about that because it seems you got stuck there and what if your point is wrong--you're just going to persist in believing that delusion because you need to feel right? Well I feel sad for you about that because you won't see this whole picture and you'll stay stuck there.

But look if you're asking about how the situation for nuclear could play out in a successful way in any scenario nationally or in a state level and I think it all depends on how it is set up. The interaction between all the players the utility companies the politicians the state and the population and how they think about it. so all of the stakeholders have a responsibility to create a situation that works and I definitely believe it's possible to do that I don't believe there's any structural obstacles to creating working nuclear power utility that's cost-effective if people have the will to do that. And so far everything you've said that you see is either the company's fault or unsolvable I see as having a different bearing of responsibility for the cause but also very much solvable. so I guess the question is how do you convince someone with a defeatist attitude that change can actually happen? well I am guess and I'm pretty sure that words aren't going to do it. So you have to show them the change. so I suppose you're going to have to wait until you see that nuclear utilities are working in Chicago to believe that it's going to be possible. So I guess you going to have to wait until then to be able to have a proper and balanced discussion about it. Y
For you. It's kind of sad, but Oh well.

I get where you're coming from. It hasn't succeeded, as you see it, so why should you think it should?

Anyway... Hope you have a good one