@[email protected] to [email protected]English • edit-29 months agoit could happen to you rulelemmy.cafeimagemessage-square140fedilinkarrow-up1689arrow-down141file-text
arrow-up1648arrow-down1imageit could happen to you rulelemmy.cafe@[email protected] to [email protected]English • edit-29 months agomessage-square140fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareNeatolinkfedilinkEnglish3•9 months agoI’ve always got to invert the double negatives to parse crap like this: I probably would use an instance if it was federated to Threads. Not exactly the same meaning, but it gets you on the right side of the negatives.
minus-square@SwagGaribaldilinkEnglish6•9 months agoYup, that’s what I meant, but like you said, it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning if I wrote it like that
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•9 months agoBest way to address this is to reword a bit: I probably would not use avoid using an instance that wasn’t federated to Threads Using “not” twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•8 months agoI understood the meaning. I was clarifying the point OP was trying to make because I 100% disagree with it as worded.
I’ve always got to invert the double negatives to parse crap like this:
Not exactly the same meaning, but it gets you on the right side of the negatives.
Yup, that’s what I meant, but like you said, it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning if I wrote it like that
Best way to address this is to reword a bit:
Using “not” twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.
I understood the meaning. I was clarifying the point OP was trying to make because I 100% disagree with it as worded.