UK opposes a 2030 renewable energy target (Conservative push nuclear)

[Nihil]

10. ... says the person who is being wilfully obstructive, evasive, smearing and, yes, *rude*.

To recap:

.0 (Kristopher) OP article entitled "UK opposes a 2030 renewable energy target"
(with appropriate extracts).

.1 (Nihil) Agrees that this was a bad decision by the UK government and agreed with
the OP article comment that "the gas industry has been lobbying heavily".

.2 (Kristopher) Unrelated repost of standard "Let's defend gas and attach nuclear" paste buffer.

.3 (Kristopher) Unnecessary repost of extract already posted in .0

.4 (Nihil) Reply to .3 with sarcastic comment on the above unnecessary posts and questions
why the apparent spamming when my only previous post (.1) was actually in full agreement
with the OP and the article quoted therein.

.5 (Kristopher) Parrot of question in .4 with a link to .2

.6 (Nihil) Points out that have read that the contents of .2 both here and (many times) previously.

.7 (Kristopher) Standard accusation that X is "still serving the nuclear industry"
(despite the fact that this lie has been disproved many times over the years).

.8 (Nihil) Points out that .7 is yet another untruthful smear.

.9 (Kristopher - the person who has been posting the lies) tries to reclaim the "moral high ground"
with a "who me?" post pretending to be some sort of victim.

-------------------------


No, in .6 I *didn't* ask "what the point of post 2 was", I asked what the point of .5
(the one I replied to) was as it certainly wasn't an answer to my previous question:
"Why do you insist on spamming the shit out of me even when I'm agreeing with you?"


I am genuinely amazed that you seem incapable of recognising agreement on even a single point.

Why?