ATLANTA, US: A US homeowner is mulling the next step after a company mistakenly demolished a home she owned in southwest Atlanta. Susan Hodgson told the local WAGA-TV station on Friday (Oct 20) that when she returned from vacation she found a pile of rubble in place of what used to be her longtime fam
Original post says it wasn’t a home, implying it was only a house, not a home. You asked what it was [if not a home]. A different person again said it wasn’t a home since nobody lived there, also implying it was just a house, not a home. Then you said it has been [her home].
I clarified that there’s a difference between a house and a home, since that is the point the people you replied to twice were trying to make but you didn’t catch. My point, whether it is stupid or not and whether you agree with it or not, wasn’t really all that difficult to comprehend. So if you don’t know what point I’m trying to make, maybe you’re an idiot? I don’t know.
The big thing we’re trying to say is that there’s a huge difference between coming back from vacation to find your home demolished, with all of your treasured and/or valuable belongings in it and also nowhere to sleep/cook/relax, versus finding an empty husk that was unused for 15 years is now gone. Yes, she owned the former house and is owed significant compensation from the demo company. Maybe there is even significant emotional trauma after her childhood home is destroyed. But that’s still different from what the headline implies.
Your argument is immaterial, and a waste of time. I’m not interested in what you have to say. Should you decide to continue this ridiculous diatribe, I’ll simply block you.
It says she returned from vacation to find home demolished, but then in the article specifies this is a “family home” that has been boarded up. That is very different than coming home to find your own home demolished. It still sucks but this is a clickbait headline and is right to be called out for it.
Considering she no longer has to pay to maintain something that has been useless to her for years, she’s better off in some ways. If she had let someone rent it and live there, this couldn’t have occurred. At some point in the past she decided it was cheaper and easier to board it up, that decision probably took into account the expense of demolishing it. Now that’s been done for her at no cost, she has options. But those facts will be part of the legal case.
Who’s do you reckon it is?
It hasn’t been anybody’s home for far too long in a country full of homeless people.
No, it has. See, when you buy a thing, you own it.
Oh it’s a thing. But it’s been nobody’s home for years.
That’s a house, not a home.
deleted by creator
I didnt use either word.
And no, it’s demolished.
It was a house.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but it’s obviously stupid.
Original post says it wasn’t a home, implying it was only a house, not a home. You asked what it was [if not a home]. A different person again said it wasn’t a home since nobody lived there, also implying it was just a house, not a home. Then you said it has been [her home].
I clarified that there’s a difference between a house and a home, since that is the point the people you replied to twice were trying to make but you didn’t catch. My point, whether it is stupid or not and whether you agree with it or not, wasn’t really all that difficult to comprehend. So if you don’t know what point I’m trying to make, maybe you’re an idiot? I don’t know.
The big thing we’re trying to say is that there’s a huge difference between coming back from vacation to find your home demolished, with all of your treasured and/or valuable belongings in it and also nowhere to sleep/cook/relax, versus finding an empty husk that was unused for 15 years is now gone. Yes, she owned the former house and is owed significant compensation from the demo company. Maybe there is even significant emotional trauma after her childhood home is destroyed. But that’s still different from what the headline implies.
Home, house, both paid for possessions?
No difference.
Your argument is immaterial, and a waste of time. I’m not interested in what you have to say. Should you decide to continue this ridiculous diatribe, I’ll simply block you.
Cheers!
Are you…dumb?
No, but I’ve reported you for contributing nothing but an inflammatory remark. Cheers!
Well no-one’s by now, really.
They paid for it and paid to keep it maintained.
Why is it not theirs?
Removed by mod
A home is where someone lives. A house is a house.
You’re arguing semantics on the title. Why? Her property was destroyed. That’s the important part.
While it’s still very upsetting to her I’m sure, this has not made her homeless. That’s the difference.
She’s also not the victim of a lion attack. Neither the title nor the body of the article state she was made homeless.
It says she returned from vacation to find home demolished, but then in the article specifies this is a “family home” that has been boarded up. That is very different than coming home to find your own home demolished. It still sucks but this is a clickbait headline and is right to be called out for it.
Then email the editor. I didn’t have trouble reading what wasn’t being written.
Considering she no longer has to pay to maintain something that has been useless to her for years, she’s better off in some ways. If she had let someone rent it and live there, this couldn’t have occurred. At some point in the past she decided it was cheaper and easier to board it up, that decision probably took into account the expense of demolishing it. Now that’s been done for her at no cost, she has options. But those facts will be part of the legal case.
You have no idea what the real estate market is in that area and it’s not for you to decide if she’s better off without that property. Fuck off.
I’d fucking tell the company to put all the old lumber back in place.
The title is misleading, Imo. I don’t care if some woman’s abandoned building got accidentally demolished… Like at all.
I just block people like this. It makes Lemmy better 😊.
Their house, not their home.
Shallow and pedantic
The best kind of correct.