A New York county clerk has again refused to file a more than $100,000 civil judgment from Texas against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills.
It’s literally the second paragraph of the article. You’d think a literate person with time to write inane comments would be able to read the article. And yet.
Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are two different things. Can you grasp the concept?? Does your inanity know no bounds?! Have you, at long last, no sense of decency, sir?!
Indeed. The Title of the book and the Entirety of the Book are part of the same work! If you want to comment on the title of the book you MUST read the entirety of the book!
The trailer for the movie and the entire movie are part of the same body of work. If you want to comment on the trailer for the movie you must see the entire movie first.
The appetizer and the dinner are part of the same body of work if you want to comment on the appetizer you must eat the entire dinner first.
Etc, Etc.
If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.
The title HAS a context without anything else being done. That is the point. The title (while being part of the same body of work) is alone.
And here’s the thing: most people don’t see the whole movie before taking something away from the trailer. (Super-seekrit PRO TIP: The people who create the trailers know this and use it to their advantage.)
Comparing a movie that takes an hour+ to watch to an article that it would take you 5 minutes to read tops to get enough context to not make dumb comments. Yeah, totally comparable.
People like you are why I have to send multiple work emails after I’ve already mentioned all the relevant details in the first message, all because I didn’t put the whole gods damned message in the subject line.
Take a hooked on phonics course if reading is that hard for you.
If you’re not going to read the article or have any interest in it, why bother interacting on the subject at all? The fuck are you even talking about then?
I think you are ignoring point they are making. If the headline and article tell two different stories, those who just read the headline can come away with a different impression of what’s happening. You can argue people that just read the headline shouldn’t exist, but they do.
No, I get that that’s their point. I’m definitely making the argument that if all you’re going to read is the headline, then maybe don’t complain about missing out on the full context.
It’s literally the second paragraph of the article. You’d think a literate person with time to write inane comments would be able to read the article. And yet.
FYI, it seems like you are marked as a bot. You might want to change that (assuming you aren’t a bot)
Thanks I’m fairly certain that I’m a human.
We’re gonna do this again?
Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are two different things. Can you grasp the concept?? Does your inanity know no bounds?! Have you, at long last, no sense of decency, sir?!
Hey! THE HEADLINE and THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE are part of the same body of work. If you want all the context, read all of the work.
If they put all the context in the title, the title would just be the article and would need its own summary.
Indeed. The Title of the book and the Entirety of the Book are part of the same work! If you want to comment on the title of the book you MUST read the entirety of the book!
The trailer for the movie and the entire movie are part of the same body of work. If you want to comment on the trailer for the movie you must see the entire movie first.
The appetizer and the dinner are part of the same body of work if you want to comment on the appetizer you must eat the entire dinner first.
Etc, Etc.
The title HAS a context without anything else being done. That is the point. The title (while being part of the same body of work) is alone. And here’s the thing: most people don’t see the whole movie before taking something away from the trailer. (Super-seekrit PRO TIP: The people who create the trailers know this and use it to their advantage.)
Comparing a movie that takes an hour+ to watch to an article that it would take you 5 minutes to read tops to get enough context to not make dumb comments. Yeah, totally comparable.
People like you are why I have to send multiple work emails after I’ve already mentioned all the relevant details in the first message, all because I didn’t put the whole gods damned message in the subject line.
Take a hooked on phonics course if reading is that hard for you.
FFS I’m not talking about the article for a reason. How (or why) you refuse to understand that is beyond me.
Yeah yeah hooked on phonics, ace repartee. Anyway.
If you’re not going to read the article or have any interest in it, why bother interacting on the subject at all? The fuck are you even talking about then?
I think you are ignoring point they are making. If the headline and article tell two different stories, those who just read the headline can come away with a different impression of what’s happening. You can argue people that just read the headline shouldn’t exist, but they do.
No, I get that that’s their point. I’m definitely making the argument that if all you’re going to read is the headline, then maybe don’t complain about missing out on the full context.