▲ 576 ▼ City roads should be ‘ripped out completely’ to fight pollution, says government adviser (www.telegraph.co.uk) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 218 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) It's literally the title. I can't even understand down voting this, unless you're delusional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Oh, you're basing your opinions on fact-twisting headlines of right-wing "newspapers", instead of, you know, reading the actual article where even they have to paint the picture just a liiittle bit differently. You do understand the difference between "removing roads completely" and "removing all roads", right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (2 children) You do understand the difference between "removing roads completely" and "removing all roads", right? What do you think the distinction is, in this context? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, I can help you with that: "removing roads completely" does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially. "Removing all roads" on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many. There, that was easy, wasn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors." This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That's what this article is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense. Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋 PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago One of the roads near my house was removed completely. All roads near my house were removed completely. Two different implications, no? Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that's why I read articles (usually) before commenting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] homoludens@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is a difference between roads and streets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And which one is it that you think is being proposed to be "ripped out completely" in this article? Based on your link, I believe in this context it is 'streets'. Well, just go back and read my arguments, and then recognize that all of them apply to 'streets', and that making the distinction between 'streets' and 'roads' does not weaken my arguments in any way. Try a different approach, something besides pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, the expert is proposing to rip out roads - so my first guess would be they mean roads, not streets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) By the definition in your link, a 'road' would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are 'streets'. The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about 'streets', by your definition. Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns. Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Oh, you're basing your opinions on fact-twisting headlines of right-wing "newspapers", instead of, you know, reading the actual article where even they have to paint the picture just a liiittle bit differently. You do understand the difference between "removing roads completely" and "removing all roads", right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (2 children) You do understand the difference between "removing roads completely" and "removing all roads", right? What do you think the distinction is, in this context? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, I can help you with that: "removing roads completely" does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially. "Removing all roads" on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many. There, that was easy, wasn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors." This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That's what this article is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense. Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋 PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago One of the roads near my house was removed completely. All roads near my house were removed completely. Two different implications, no? Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that's why I read articles (usually) before commenting. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (2 children) You do understand the difference between "removing roads completely" and "removing all roads", right? What do you think the distinction is, in this context? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, I can help you with that: "removing roads completely" does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially. "Removing all roads" on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many. There, that was easy, wasn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors." This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That's what this article is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense. Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋 PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago One of the roads near my house was removed completely. All roads near my house were removed completely. Two different implications, no? Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that's why I read articles (usually) before commenting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, I can help you with that: "removing roads completely" does not specify how many roads are to be removed, only that the ones being removed are removed completely, as opposed to partially. "Removing all roads" on the other hand means removing all roads, as opposed to, e.g., some, or many. There, that was easy, wasn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors." This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That's what this article is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense. Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋 PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) A government adviser has called for roads in cities to be “ripped out completely” to combat air pollution. [...] “We should start changing our cities and actually start thinking about ripping out road infrastructure and turning them into green spaces or green transport corridors." This guy is talking about taking all the roads out of cities. That's what this article is about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense. Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋 PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) So, after I explained to you, several times, that nobody wants to rip out all roads, you continue to drone on about that. Yeah, I can see why you fall for right-wing nonsense. Well, good luck, and have fun barking up all the fantasy trees in your mind! 👋 PS: you totally should visit Seoul or/and Utrecht sometime. You know, might broaden your horizon a bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, I continue to "drone on" about the content of the article which this comment section is about. Are you lost? Did you read the article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sorry, are you talking about a different article? Or different people? Maybe you could quote something from the article which supports your point... you know, like I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Can you point me to the quantifiers in your quotes or the article? Maybe you should do something about your terrible reading comprehension: https://elt.oup.com/student/solutions/preint/grammar/grammar_03_012e permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child) "completely" is a quantifier. You still haven't supported your point from the original source. I have. I am not the one struggling with reading comprehension. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 🥱 https://linguapress.com/grammar/quantifiers.htm https://lemm.ee/comment/6876196 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) What is your point? Do you think this page contains an exhaustive list of quantifiers? "Completely" is a quantifier. And... you still haven't supported your point from the original source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) "Completely" is a quantifier. A quantifier of intensity not a quantifier of quantity. This is really not that hard. you still haven't supported your point from the original source See, this is not how these things work. You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I showed you you're wrong. That is my point. End of story. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 2 years ago You're the one who made a claim about the content of this article. I didn't 'make a claim about the content of this article' ... I quoted content directly from this article. I showed you you're wrong. No, you haven't. You've given your opinion, which is different from what is proposed in the article. Which is fine, the proposal in the article is poorly thought out and anyone reasonable should have a different opinion... which is my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 2 points 2 years ago One of the roads near my house was removed completely. All roads near my house were removed completely. Two different implications, no? Yes, the title implies something more extreme than is actually proposed, but that's why I read articles (usually) before commenting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homoludens@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is a difference between roads and streets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And which one is it that you think is being proposed to be "ripped out completely" in this article? Based on your link, I believe in this context it is 'streets'. Well, just go back and read my arguments, and then recognize that all of them apply to 'streets', and that making the distinction between 'streets' and 'roads' does not weaken my arguments in any way. Try a different approach, something besides pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, the expert is proposing to rip out roads - so my first guess would be they mean roads, not streets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) By the definition in your link, a 'road' would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are 'streets'. The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about 'streets', by your definition. Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns. Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively". permalink fedilink source parent
[+] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -8 points 2 years ago (1 child) And which one is it that you think is being proposed to be "ripped out completely" in this article? Based on your link, I believe in this context it is 'streets'. Well, just go back and read my arguments, and then recognize that all of them apply to 'streets', and that making the distinction between 'streets' and 'roads' does not weaken my arguments in any way. Try a different approach, something besides pedantry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, the expert is proposing to rip out roads - so my first guess would be they mean roads, not streets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) By the definition in your link, a 'road' would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are 'streets'. The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about 'streets', by your definition. Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns. Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homoludens@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, the expert is proposing to rip out roads - so my first guess would be they mean roads, not streets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) By the definition in your link, a 'road' would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are 'streets'. The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about 'streets', by your definition. Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns. Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) By the definition in your link, a 'road' would be between two cities, and the paths inside the city (where the buildings are) are 'streets'. The expert is talking about removing the paved surfaces inside cities, so he is talking about 'streets', by your definition. Apparently the expert uses different definitions from yours. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homoludens@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns. Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homoludens@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago A road may also have buildings on either side though its main function is as a transportation route, a way of getting from one place to another, especially between towns. Just for starter: "especially" does not mean "exclusively". permalink fedilink source parent