ATLANTA, US: A US homeowner is mulling the next step after a company mistakenly demolished a home she owned in southwest Atlanta. Susan Hodgson told the local WAGA-TV station on Friday (Oct 20) that when she returned from vacation she found a pile of rubble in place of what used to be her longtime fam
Original post says it wasn’t a home, implying it was only a house, not a home. You asked what it was [if not a home]. A different person again said it wasn’t a home since nobody lived there, also implying it was just a house, not a home. Then you said it has been [her home].
I clarified that there’s a difference between a house and a home, since that is the point the people you replied to twice were trying to make but you didn’t catch. My point, whether it is stupid or not and whether you agree with it or not, wasn’t really all that difficult to comprehend. So if you don’t know what point I’m trying to make, maybe you’re an idiot? I don’t know.
The big thing we’re trying to say is that there’s a huge difference between coming back from vacation to find your home demolished, with all of your treasured and/or valuable belongings in it and also nowhere to sleep/cook/relax, versus finding an empty husk that was unused for 15 years is now gone. Yes, she owned the former house and is owed significant compensation from the demo company. Maybe there is even significant emotional trauma after her childhood home is destroyed. But that’s still different from what the headline implies.
Your argument is immaterial, and a waste of time. I’m not interested in what you have to say. Should you decide to continue this ridiculous diatribe, I’ll simply block you.
It hasn’t been anybody’s home for far too long in a country full of homeless people.
No, it has. See, when you buy a thing, you own it.
Oh it’s a thing. But it’s been nobody’s home for years.
That’s a house, not a home.
deleted by creator
I didnt use either word.
And no, it’s demolished.
It was a house.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but it’s obviously stupid.
Original post says it wasn’t a home, implying it was only a house, not a home. You asked what it was [if not a home]. A different person again said it wasn’t a home since nobody lived there, also implying it was just a house, not a home. Then you said it has been [her home].
I clarified that there’s a difference between a house and a home, since that is the point the people you replied to twice were trying to make but you didn’t catch. My point, whether it is stupid or not and whether you agree with it or not, wasn’t really all that difficult to comprehend. So if you don’t know what point I’m trying to make, maybe you’re an idiot? I don’t know.
The big thing we’re trying to say is that there’s a huge difference between coming back from vacation to find your home demolished, with all of your treasured and/or valuable belongings in it and also nowhere to sleep/cook/relax, versus finding an empty husk that was unused for 15 years is now gone. Yes, she owned the former house and is owed significant compensation from the demo company. Maybe there is even significant emotional trauma after her childhood home is destroyed. But that’s still different from what the headline implies.
Home, house, both paid for possessions?
No difference.
Your argument is immaterial, and a waste of time. I’m not interested in what you have to say. Should you decide to continue this ridiculous diatribe, I’ll simply block you.
Cheers!
Are you…dumb?
No, but I’ve reported you for contributing nothing but an inflammatory remark. Cheers!
deleted by creator