▲ 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 -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