Return to Answer

I am pretty sure I was the first to downvote your answer!

Note, I am also the person that asked the question.

I downvoted your answer because it changes the premise of the question.

In a black-box question about how to utilize excess energy, your answer talks about reactor efficiencies and $/Watt ratios. You might have valid points, but you don't even try to answer the actual question.

I didn't think it necessary of a comment to explain my actions as the reason seemed rather obvious to me. Heck you even start your answer by explaining that you won't answer the actual question - so what did you expect? Praise?

I can not talk for other downvoters though.

On another note your answer, at least to me, has a hostile/superior overtone:

The normal solution to this question is handled from an economic viewpoint rather than an engineering one.

 

The reasons why are fairly simple to see. Consider a few facts, then an economic picture emerges:

 

...

 

The steverino paraphrase of the three laws is thus:

 

1. There is a game.
2. You can't win.
3. You can't break even.

^{emphasis mine}

You might have had intended these as funny banter or something along that line. But the outcome, combined with your answer not even addressing the actual problem, came out quite differently.

Another example of this would be in your very question on here:

If I am going to get downvoted for sound answers on the basis of ignorance, then what is the point of reputation on the site?

You're instantly assuming that the downvotes must be due to misunderstanding of your answer. You don't even consider the possibility of the downvoting party being smart enough to understand your answer and still downvoting it.

Looking through the comments on your answer as well as this question on here you spend numerous occasions to call out the other party/parties ignorant or outright dumb. People don't like being called stupid.

Heck you even call them out on their own answers being inadequate. Yet you don't do that on their answer, no you do it in the comments of your own answer - which is a form of deflecting the actual subject of the discussion.

You lash out on all sides yet are the only one getting struck by these hits.

I am pretty sure I was the first to downvote your answer!

Note, I am also the person that asked the question.

I downvoted your answer because it changes the premise of the question.

In a black-box question about how to utilize excess energy, your answer talks about reactor efficiencies and $/Watt ratios. You might have valid points, but you don't even try to answer the actual question.

I didn't think it necessary of a comment to explain my actions as the reason seemed rather obvious to me. Heck you even start your answer by explaining that you won't answer the actual question - so what did you expect? Praise?

I can not talk for other downvoters though.

On another note your answer, at least to me, has a hostile/superior overtone:

The normal solution to this question is handled from an economic viewpoint rather than an engineering one.

The reasons why are fairly simple to see. Consider a few facts, then an economic picture emerges:

...

The steverino paraphrase of the three laws is thus:

1. There is a game.
2. You can't win.
3. You can't break even.

^{emphasis mine}

You might have had intended these as funny banter or something along that line. But the outcome, combined with your answer not even addressing the actual problem, came out quite differently.

Another example of this would be in your very question on here:

If I am going to get downvoted for sound answers on the basis of ignorance, then what is the point of reputation on the site?

You're instantly assuming that the downvotes must be due to misunderstanding of your answer. You don't even consider the possibility of the downvoting party being smart enough to understand your answer and still downvoting it.

Looking through the comments on your answer as well as this question on here you spend numerous occasions to call out the other party/parties ignorant or outright dumb. People don't like being called stupid.

Heck you even call them out on their own answers being inadequate. Yet you don't do that on their answer, no you do it in the comments of your own answer - which is a form of deflecting the actual subject of the discussion.

You lash out on all sides yet are the only one getting struck by these hits.

I am pretty sure I was the first to downvote your answer!

Note, I am also the person that asked the question.

I downvoted your answer because it changes the premise of the question.

In a black-box question about how to utilize excess energy, your answer talks about reactor efficiencies and $/Watt ratios. You might have valid points, but you don't even try to answer the actual question.

I didn't think it necessary of a comment to explain my actions as the reason seemed rather obvious to me. Heck you even start your answer by explaining that you won't answer the actual question - so what did you expect? Praise?

I can not talk for other downvoters though.

On another note your answer, at least to me, has a hostile/superior overtone:

The normal solution to this question is handled from an economic viewpoint rather than an engineering one.

The reasons why are fairly simple to see. Consider a few facts, then an economic picture emerges:

...

The steverino paraphrase of the three laws is thus:

1. There is a game.
2. You can't win.
3. You can't break even.

^{emphasis mine}

You might have had intended these as funny banter or something along that line. But the outcome, combined with your answer not even addressing the actual problem, came out quite differently.

I am pretty sure I was the first to downvote your answer!

Note, I am also the person that asked the question.

I downvoted your answer because it changes the premise of the question.

In a black-box question about how to utilize excess energy, your answer talks about reactor efficiencies and $/Watt ratios. You might have valid points, but you don't even try to answer the actual question.

I didn't think it necessary of a comment to explain my actions as the reason seemed rather obvious to me. Heck you even start your answer by explaining that you won't answer the actual question - so what did you expect? Praise?

I can not talk for other downvoters though.

On another note your answer, at least to me, has a hostile/superior overtone:

The normal solution to this question is handled from an economic viewpoint rather than an engineering one.

The reasons why are fairly simple to see. Consider a few facts, then an economic picture emerges:

...

The steverino paraphrase of the three laws is thus:

1. There is a game.
2. You can't win.
3. You can't break even.

^{emphasis mine}

You might have had intended these as funny banter or something along that line. But the outcome, combined with your answer not even addressing the actual problem, came out quite differently.

Another example of this would be in your very question on here:

If I am going to get downvoted for sound answers on the basis of ignorance, then what is the point of reputation on the site?

You're instantly assuming that the downvotes must be due to misunderstanding of your answer. You don't even consider the possibility of the downvoting party being smart enough to understand your answer and still downvoting it.

Looking through the comments on your answer as well as this question on here you spend numerous occasions to call out the other party/parties ignorant or outright dumb. People don't like being called stupid.

Heck you even call them out on their own answers being inadequate. Yet you don't do that on their answer, no you do it in the comments of your own answer - which is a form of deflecting the actual subject of the discussion.

You lash out on all sides yet are the only one getting struck by these hits.

I am pretty sure I was the first to downvote your answer!

Note, I am also the person that asked the question.

I downvoted your answer because it changes the premise of the question.

In a black-box question about how to utilize excess energy, your answer talks about reactor efficiencies and $/Watt ratios. You might have valid points, but you don't even try to answer the actual question.

I didn't think it necessary of a comment to explain my actions as the reason seemed rather obvious to me. Heck you even start your answer by explaining that you won't answer the actual question - so what did you expect? Praise?

I can not talk for other downvoters though.

On another note your answer, at least to me, has a hostile/superior overtone:

The normal solution to this question is handled from an economic viewpoint rather than an engineering one.

The reasons why are fairly simple to see. Consider a few facts, then an economic picture emerges:

...

The steverino paraphrase of the three laws is thus:

1. There is a game.
2. You can't win.
3. You can't break even.

You might have had intended these as funny banter or something along that line. But the outcome, combined with your answer not even addressing the actual problem, came out quite differently.

I am pretty sure I was the first to downvote your answer!

Note, I am also the person that asked the question.

I downvoted your answer because it changes the premise of the question.

In a black-box question about how to utilize excess energy, your answer talks about reactor efficiencies and $/Watt ratios. You might have valid points, but you don't even try to answer the actual question.

I didn't think it necessary of a comment to explain my actions as the reason seemed rather obvious to me. Heck you even start your answer by explaining that you won't answer the actual question - so what did you expect? Praise?

I can not talk for other downvoters though.

On another note your answer, at least to me, has a hostile/superior overtone:

The normal solution to this question is handled from an economic viewpoint rather than an engineering one.

The reasons why are fairly simple to see. Consider a few facts, then an economic picture emerges:

...

The steverino paraphrase of the three laws is thus:

1. There is a game.
2. You can't win.
3. You can't break even.

^{emphasis mine}

You might have had intended these as funny banter or something along that line. But the outcome, combined with your answer not even addressing the actual problem, came out quite differently.