4 ms·

Amused at the disgruntled Grainger folk who don't want the bridge now - litter and foot traffic annoy them. Very human response. But hey Grainger, the bridge w

Amused at the disgruntled Grainger folk who don't want the bridge now - litter and foot traffic annoy them. Very human response. But hey Grainger, the bridge was there first! You don't like it, put your business somewhere else. The bridge is for the kids, always has been, so suck it up.

achr2 3y ago
I found that funny from the perspective of it invalidating the claim that the bridge was disused. It’s like a Yogi Berra adage.
- pigbearpig 3y ago
  How does it invalidate the claim? I don't see anything saying the bridge is used. If you mean that garbage collects, I'm assuming that to mean that wind blown trash (probably from the highway) collects and they clean it up.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
To be fair, it doesn't sound like they were trying to complain about it or get rid of it. Somebody came to them for their opinion and they don't like it. There are plenty of things I'll complain about if asked that I generally suck it up and deal with.
tedunangst 3y ago
I doubt the person complaining selected the site for the warehouse.
pigbearpig 3y ago
I think you're jumping to a few conclusions. How does foot traffic annoy them exactly? Who isn't annoyed by litter? There are no more kids. If a bridge that I and no one else uses, means that I have to pick up wind-blown litter everyday, I'd complain a bit too.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tylervigen 3y ago
  Some clarification here: when JoeAltmaier made his comment, the article contained a sentence that said, "They [Grainger] wanted the bridge torn down!" After reading that comment and other comments like it online, I decided that it was casting the Grainger team in a worse light than I intended to, so I removed that sentence. The people at Grainger don't like the bridge, but it's not like they are out petitioning for its destruction. Even if they were, I would understand where they were coming from. My article romanticizes the bridge a bit, but it's not a particularly nice bridge to walk over today.

achr2 3y ago

I found that funny from the perspective of it invalidating the claim that the bridge was disused. It’s like a Yogi Berra adage.

pigbearpig 3y ago
How does it invalidate the claim? I don't see anything saying the bridge is used. If you mean that garbage collects, I'm assuming that to mean that wind blown trash (probably from the highway) collects and they clean it up.

boomboomsubban 3y ago

To be fair, it doesn't sound like they were trying to complain about it or get rid of it. Somebody came to them for their opinion and they don't like it. There are plenty of things I'll complain about if asked that I generally suck it up and deal with.

tedunangst 3y ago

I doubt the person complaining selected the site for the warehouse.

pigbearpig 3y ago

I think you're jumping to a few conclusions. How does foot traffic annoy them exactly? Who isn't annoyed by litter? There are no more kids. If a bridge that I and no one else uses, means that I have to pick up wind-blown litter everyday, I'd complain a bit too.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tylervigen 3y ago
Some clarification here: when JoeAltmaier made his comment, the article contained a sentence that said, "They [Grainger] wanted the bridge torn down!" After reading that comment and other comments like it online, I decided that it was casting the Grainger team in a worse light than I intended to, so I removed that sentence. The people at Grainger don't like the bridge, but it's not like they are out petitioning for its destruction. Even if they were, I would understand where they were coming from. My article romanticizes the bridge a bit, but it's not a particularly nice bridge to walk over today.