The article had a title that explicitly states that 6 countries have shown evidence of this, and then your dumb ass decides that means the entire world and changes the whole meaning of the headline because you’re too stupid to understand it.
Uh huh, coming from the guy crying about a title that says “air pollution is becoming more dangerous than smoking” just because it mentions specific countries in the headline does not mean air pollution in other countries is less toxic if it exists. Sure Western countries have had more regulations. Take a look at the fire map for the USA, then read right pass the headline. If you can.
I actually didn’t come up with the title. Maybe another editor did? Because that’s who helps write these things. But if you look at the science in the article, I think the title is fine. If you don’t like the title. Make a new one.
Which title? Did an editor write the title? You all should fight for the biggest removed title in the thunder dome.
Jesus Christ, go touch some grass
The article had a title that explicitly states that 6 countries have shown evidence of this, and then your dumb ass decides that means the entire world and changes the whole meaning of the headline because you’re too stupid to understand it.
I think you might be removed. The air particulates are more dangerous than smoking. Doesn’t matter where you are.
I think you may need some mental health care. Go find a therapist. Sounds like you really need one.
Uh huh, coming from the guy crying about a title that says “air pollution is becoming more dangerous than smoking” just because it mentions specific countries in the headline does not mean air pollution in other countries is less toxic if it exists. Sure Western countries have had more regulations. Take a look at the fire map for the USA, then read right pass the headline. If you can.
The USA fire map doesn’t matter. How hard is that to understand?
Post articles with their original titles. It’s not hard.
Add comments if you want to editorialize things. But don’t make that decision for the readers before they’ve seen the article.
Your post entirely changes the meaning of the article by deliberately misrepresenting the contents.
I actually didn’t come up with the title. Maybe another editor did? Because that’s who helps write these things. But if you look at the science in the article, I think the title is fine. If you don’t like the title. Make a new one.