5 ms·
A commenter says it's at Changsha: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Changsha&sll=28.22818,112.033081&sspn=1.045401,1.783905&ie=UTF8&
by mchouza 16y ago
A commenter says it's at Changsha:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Changsha&sll=28.22818,112.033081&sspn=1.045401,1.783905&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Changsha,+Hunan,+China&ll=28.22818,112.939453&spn=1.045401,1.783905&z=10 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&...
- chrischen 16y agoIt's not even close to Shanghai.
- phlux 16y ago'Shanghai' was likely stated to make it more easily place-able in the mind of the reader.
- chrischen 16y agoThey might as well have said 'China.'
- barkingcat 16y agothis is totally WRONG - it's 1000km away. It's like saying "Microsoft is headquartered in San Francisco" to make Seattle easily place-able in the mind of the reader.
- phlux 16y agoI get that, I am saying they did it on purpose regardless.
- barkingcat 16y agono my point is that the author most likely got the wrong information than having done it on purpose. I can understand a person not being fluent in a foreign language, but I can't understand a person misrepresenting a distance of 1000km on purpose. Most likely it was just bad editing/bad writing - and it's unconscionable to explain it away as "on purpose". And by the way, the original article now has the corrected location: Changsha It wasn't on purpose - just a mistake.