Beaver [she/her]@lemmy.ca to Canada@lemmy.caEnglish · 3 months agoCanadian rail decision is a win for companies, union leader sayswww.reuters.comexternal-linkmessage-square10fedilinkarrow-up158arrow-down11
arrow-up157arrow-down1external-linkCanadian rail decision is a win for companies, union leader sayswww.reuters.comBeaver [she/her]@lemmy.ca to Canada@lemmy.caEnglish · 3 months agomessage-square10fedilink
minus-squaren3m37h@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·edit-23 months agoHe probably didn’t say “and” If he did that it would be miss quoting which IMO is worse
minus-squareenkers@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up3·edit-23 months agoYou’re nitpicking. It’s not a direct quote anyways; it’s already paraphrased. They had no issue editorializing “them” to “companies”, so adding an implied “and” wouldn’t be any worse than that.
minus-squaren3m37h@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down4·3 months agoPot calling kettle black, I understood the title without the bloody and
minus-squareenkers@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 months agoMaybe I misunderstood your previous comment, because I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying my version of the title would have been fine without the “and” I added? I’m struggling to understand what you’re taking issue with.
He probably didn’t say “and” If he did that it would be miss quoting which IMO is worse
You’re nitpicking. It’s not a direct quote anyways; it’s already paraphrased. They had no issue editorializing “them” to “companies”, so adding an implied “and” wouldn’t be any worse than that.
Pot calling kettle black, I understood the title without the bloody and
Maybe I misunderstood your previous comment, because I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say here.
Are you saying my version of the title would have been fine without the “and” I added? I’m struggling to understand what you’re taking issue with.