You must log in or register to comment.
Oh, another news about “who said what” on a social site crammed into 10 posts with 2 sentences each?
Back in the day they would have straight up banned you from most forums for that.
There’s nothing more ironic than this, and it reads like an onion post. Why should I be “banned” from “most forums” for this?
I was talking about the twitter post the article references? Its almost like my first sentence has something to do with the second.
Okay, I was confused because you said:
Back in the day they would have straight up banned you from most forums for that.
That is a pretty standard to phrase it that way. I cant make you invest more brainpower into reading my stupid comments but I cant downgrade my phrasing any more than this.
Is this rudeness really called for? I’m just asking you to explain what you mean by this clearly ambiguous sentence. I’m not trying to imply anything, just trying to understand what you’re saying.
They aren’t calling you stupid, they are calling themselves stupid.
And “you” is very common to use in English to mean “people in general”.
If you are a non-native speaker, it might be misinterpreted.
Thanks, even though I’m a non-native speaker with a degree in English and another in a linguistics-related field, I don’t think this was the case. Sentences can be ambiguous, all they had to do was explain that instead of being rude. They said “banned you from most forums” and I’m somehow supposed to guess they meant news rooms or journalist forums? And also somehow supposed to guess that “banned” refers to banning a journalist or from Twitter or something?
I asked my partner who’s a native speaker and they agreed that it sounded off and was unclear. They also didn’t think it made sense. So I doubt it has anything to do with my level of English /:
PS: coupled with the fact that this perfectly Not The Onion post is being downvoted to hell plus that sentence made it more confusing. When I write shit online, I try to avoid using “you” when giving examples because I know how easily it can be misinterpreted. It’s not being a “non-native”, it’s just being a good writer. Sorry not sorry.
I think this poster is probably hurt that you didn’t carefully read what they wrote, and are making them repeat themselves.
Some might even class it as rude to engage in a conversation without reading carefully. If you had read carefully, you would not be in any danger of thinking that you are being accused of doing something worthy of that ban.
It is clear that the one who’d get banned is the author of the Jerusalem Post article.
Again, you were rude first but failing to read carefully, and the continuing to belabor the point after having it explained to you.
I read carefully. I asked another person. I then asked OP what they mean, in a clear way that shows where I was confused. Then I explained again what my confusion was.
Your point is not convincing.
You could say “they would have banned someone” 🤷♂️
I don’t get how this was downvoted. The ambiguity of “minimizes” along with an article literally minimizing civilian casualties is 100% the onion. Maybe it’s too depressing to be funny. I certainly can’t laugh at it, it’s more that it makes me feel even more cynical about the world, but it does feel like the onion to me.
That’s what I thought too. The claim is over the roof… “THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY!”
In all of history? Give me a break, JPost lol
The ambiguity of minimizes? What’s ambiguous about using that word here?
Either they’ve reduced the quantity of them, or they’ve downplayed them
Would be nice if they had more than once source. This is basically just copy paste of Twitter posts with additional ra ra ra fluff
