You started your responses to me in this thread by arguing that because "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing", the mere suggestion that it could have done something to prepare for the recent situation was nonsense. Now you are saying that "the only winterization recommendations that would have made a difference for Texas came from within the Texas energy sector itself", so, whether or not these were in fact the only recommendations made, your belated acceptance that such recommendations were made represents complete capitulation on that point, and tacitly acknowledges that your response to my original post was the only nonsense to be found at that time.

It is, of course, irrelevant where the criticism of the existing infrastructure came from, what is relevant is that it was not acted on, and therefore, the question of why it was not acted on is very pertinent, just as I have been saying from the beginning. And, for the third or fourth time, you are trying a slightly different version of the nonsensical notion that if other jurisdictions' infrastructure is not perfect, then what led to Texas' debacle is a question that should not be asked.

Furthermore, your newly-found claim that Texas' infrastructure was criticized from within can only raise additional questions of why such recommendations were ignored - was the Texas energy sector prevented from implementing its own recommendations?

>Dishonesty is the sort of rhetoric...

This is just a continuation of the childish outburst in your previous post, which does nothing to rehabilitate your reputation for critical thinking, which has been thoroughly trashed, by your own hand, in this thread.

What is telling here is that you're no longer arguing on the basis of the governor's conservatism, or trends in conservative politics -- but that was the whole substance of your initial reply to me.

Furthermore, your newly-found claim that Texas' infrastructure was criticized from within...

You are not being truthful, here. Consider the comment of mine that you first replied to, where I wrote:

...the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days.

This is pretty amusing: your current situation is best described in terms of cartoon tropes - you are in a superposition of the character who has just sawn through the tree-branch he is sitting on, and the character who has run off a cliff but not noticed it. By acknowledging that Texas was warned of the vulnerability of its energy infrastructure - and by industry insiders, no less - you have demolished your claim that there's nothing to see here.

Of course the question of why these warnings were ignored needs to be asked, and to anyone who understands anything about human nature, it is obvious that your insistence that certain questions should not be asked is the purely political position here.

What has changed about my situation? My remarks about the Texas regulator's recommendations are in the first comment you replied to. Are you dealing in truth, here? Or is it more of your characteristic dishonesty?

The problem here is not with asking the question, but how you chose to answer it: by bringing up partisan irrelevancies, in order to tell a divisive fable.

> My remarks about the Texas regulator's recommendations are in the first comment you replied to.

The full text of that comment is "This is not a fair reading of the article. It actually discusses national winterization versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days", and I would be interested to see how you can find "the only winterization recommendations that would have made a difference for Texas came from within the Texas energy sector itself" in there (it does, of course, contain the seeds of one of your absurd ideas - that other entities' failings excuse those of Texas - but that unshakeable non-sequitur is a separate issue.)

- And even if that was somehow what you intended to say, then it would merely mean that you have been flying with no visible means of support for longer than I thought. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that fact in your recent post, as otherwise I would never have guessed that you recognize it as being so!

I do see that, in another thread, you wrote "there's no solution that works if we don't hold regulators accountable and the regulators don't hold the industry accountable." Yes, indeed - recognizing, of course, that the state executive and legislature have considerable control over the regulatory process, and a corresponding responsibility in the debacle.

It doesn't seem like you've been paying much attention to what I've actually said.

The comment I replied to was not a fair reading of the article, and left out both a lot of what the article said and a lot of what was important to understanding the situation.