• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        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!