576
City roads should be ‘ripped out completely’ to fight pollution, says government adviser (www.telegraph.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
218 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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
    •
  • [+] -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
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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