SorteKanin@feddit.dk to Comic Strips@lemmy.world · 4 months agoSMBC [2012-02-02]www.smbc-comics.comexternal-linkmessage-square7fedilinkarrow-up1604arrow-down114file-text
arrow-up1590arrow-down1external-linkSMBC [2012-02-02]www.smbc-comics.comSorteKanin@feddit.dk to Comic Strips@lemmy.world · 4 months agomessage-square7fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareRecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up38arrow-down2·4 months agoThose supposedly outrageous counter examples are much less unheard of though.
minus-squareleverage@lemdro.idlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down3·4 months agoBecause those are beaches of the 4th amendment, so of course you don’t see that happen very often. That’s the point being made.
minus-squarepacmondo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up25arrow-down1·edit-24 months agoThe person you’re replying to is saying that those breaches of the 4th amendment are less absurd now than they were at the time the comic was written
minus-squarepantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down4·4 months ago much less unheard of Don’t fail to not use double negatives! No wonder the responder didn’t unsuccessfully misunderstand the sentence.
![SMBC [2012-02-02]](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120202.gif){kind=link}
Those supposedly outrageous counter examples are much less unheard of though.
Because those are beaches of the 4th amendment, so of course you don’t see that happen very often. That’s the point being made.
The person you’re replying to is saying that those breaches of the 4th amendment are less absurd now than they were at the time the comic was written
Don’t fail to not use double negatives!
No wonder the responder didn’t unsuccessfully misunderstand the sentence.
Yesn’t