I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.
Portosian
So I took a browse through your comment history out of idle curiosity. You're an "um actually" concern troll that just looks for things to argue about. It's pretty obvious you don't actually care. Maybe you shouldn't feel satisfaction with being a contrarian assbag for entertainment.
Do the French dislike honey?
Kinda sucks when you don't drink though. Best advice I've heard was to take up a social hobby, but I haven't a clue what that would be either.
Like you said, find an excuse to leave your house I guess.
Yeah I agree with that. I will, however, point out that it means basically the same thing as the word normal. Context does matter as much as being understood as meaning non-autistic.
Recreational weed was on the same ballot and both passed. Ohio actually managed to do two things right, which is a pleasant change of pace.
Well RIP your sanity and free time. You're going to wake up a few weeks from now after having nightmares about unsaturated belts.
I'd be worried that this will be used as a screen to kill "undesirables" without scrutiny.
If somebody called me a seppo, I wouldn't be offended, I'd just think they were kind of dumb. It's just too silly to take seriously as an insult.
Well, no. That's a kind of coffee.
It's also called Gaia, but Gaians sounds silly.
a= "birds are dinos"
b= "dinos are reptiles"
c= "birds are reptiles"
Structure: If a then b, therefore c
a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be "because birds are reptiles")
You've basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles