spujb@lemmy.cafe to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · edit-21 year agoit could happen to you rulelemmy.cafeimagemessage-square146fedilinkarrow-up1709arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up1709arrow-down1imageit could happen to you rulelemmy.cafespujb@lemmy.cafe to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · edit-21 year agomessage-square146fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareProgrammingSocks@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up6·11 months agoWasn’t federated, or was federated?
minus-squareNeato@ttrpg.networklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·11 months agoI’ve always got to invert the double negatives to parse crap like this: I probably would use an instance if it was federated to Threads. Not exactly the same meaning, but it gets you on the right side of the negatives.
minus-squareSwagGaribaldi@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·11 months agoYup, that’s what I meant, but like you said, it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning if I wrote it like that
minus-squareh14h@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·11 months agoBest way to address this is to reword a bit: I probably would not use avoid using an instance that wasn’t federated to Threads Using “not” twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.
minus-squareProgrammingSocks@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months agoI understood the meaning. I was clarifying the point OP was trying to make because I 100% disagree with it as worded.
Wasn’t federated, or was federated?
I’ve always got to invert the double negatives to parse crap like this:
Not exactly the same meaning, but it gets you on the right side of the negatives.
Yup, that’s what I meant, but like you said, it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning if I wrote it like that
Best way to address this is to reword a bit:
Using “not” twice in a single sentence is generally something worth avoiding IMO.
I understood the meaning. I was clarifying the point OP was trying to make because I 100% disagree with it as worded.