• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    and did lots of commercials

    God have some respect, journalism right here. She died after fighting what sounds like a horrible disease. This isn’t a text, you’re supposed to be honoring her life. The very least they can do is have a formal tone about her cut-short career.

    • SL3wvmnas@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      Holy fuck “glioma of the central nervous system” sounds mind bendingly horrible.

      Agree on the beeing respectful part.

    • handsoffmydata@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I‘d encourage you to read beyond the sub headline. The actual article goes into much more detail.

        • handsoffmydata@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Exactly, the sub headline of which I encouraged you to read beyond for more detail. Seems like reading comprehension could be an issue though so best of luck to you.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            …what? I don’t care where in the article it happened. “Lots” is very informal. “A lot of commercials” would have been slightly better, or simply “many commercials” or “several”.

            Jesus dude. I read the article. I said I didn’t like the phrasing of that line. I don’t care where in the article it happened or if later in the article they changed their wording. That specific line, which I pulled from the article, top or bottom I really don’t care, is informal.

            You then assumed I just stopped reading there? Because I called out something towards the top I must have stopped reading? What is this an ego thing? “They had an issue with the top of the article so clearly they didn’t read any further”. Is that what this whole comment is, an assumption that I didn’t read, and then you personally attacked me because of that assumption?