4 ms·
> Misleading headline; if you look at the actual US government source, (...) Let's pause a moment to think about this sentence alone.
by locknitpicker 5mo ago
> Misleading headline; if you look at the actual US government source, (...)
Let's pause a moment to think about this sentence alone.
- strken 5mo agoVague innuendo doesn't stop the headline from being misleading, since it's based on that same source.
- locknitpicker 5mo ago> Vague innuendo There is no innuendo. The only claim in this discussion is trying to cast doubt on semantics such as whether "destroyed" or "damaged" has a meaningful difference. In the meantime, let's verify what the US government classifies as "damage". https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyd07m7e1xo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyd07m7e1xo This doesn't even fit the old "the front fell off" skit.