• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    She’s also not the victim of a lion attack. Neither the title nor the body of the article state she was made homeless.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          How dare we discuss an article here, on a site dedicated to discussing articles?!

          How bout you stop telling people what you think they’re allowed to comment on.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Haha you’re really just trying to argue at this point aren’t you? I didn’t call anyone out - I referred to calling out the fact that this is a clickbait headline, which it 100% is. Did you write the shitty headline in question? Why are you so worked up about this?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -21 year ago

                You said:

                this is a clickbait headline and is right to be called out for it

                Then I said:

                Calling out someone doesn’t matter if the person in question doesn’t hear it.

                And now:

                I didn’t call anyone out

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  I said that the headline should be called out. Not the author. A headline is not a person. It cannot hear. You know what, you can’t be this stupid. You’re obviously a troll. Blocked.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -31 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        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.