1/ I started to read this and before I was halfway done, I smelled bullshit. Note that he does not say "directly under Stonehenge". He says "directly under the Stonehenge World Heritage Site." My nares flared.https://twitter.com/Celtic_Films/status/1321727940564979713 …
-
-
3/ Let's re-read the original sentence. > They're putting a $3 billion dollar tunnel for an expressway highway directly under the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. What purpose does the word "directly" serve here? Yes, a tunnel is, by definition "under". But DIRECTLY under?
Show this thread -
4/ And, actually, wait. Why are these terrible people proposing a tunnel in the first place? Do they want to ruin Stonehenge? <google> Oh, odd, it's actually a proposal to IMPROVE the Stonehenge site by removing an unsightly EXISTING highway that runs 400 feet away
Show this thread -
5/ Apparently this project has been underway (well, in the paperwork stage) for a quarter of a century, and the activists have already weighed in a dozen times and gotten significant concessions. What do they want now? No tunnel? No! A LONGER tunnel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_road_tunnel …
Show this thread -
6/ Anyway, the whole marketing of the controversy is stupid full of lies. Thanks, I hate it.
Show this thread -
7/ "Directly. Under."https://twitter.com/CarlHedgren/status/1322124620154179584?s=19 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
how big is the SITE?
Google took 2 seconds to tell me: