• RocksForBrains@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah a shell the width of a *toothbrush-stood-on-end will make some big holes.

    Edit: for the people.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Still poorly worded lol. When you say the width of a toothbrush, I think the width of it, not the length

      • Screwthehole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s extremely poorly worded, as the word weapon is not the same as the word shell or ammunition. In fact, that’s why we have separate words for both. I’d have thought people with English degrees (journalists still need education right?) would know these things.

        But I’m not a journalist, so I guess they know best right? 😅

        • Nepenthe@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, certainly that can’t be an intentional choice. That would violate the entire oath of journalism. The people rely on them.

          • vortic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If it confused a bunch of people, I’d say it’s poorly worded. “A gun the length of a toothbrush” made me think of a small pistol not a cannon.

            • starman2112@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s because british journalists are incredibly stupid. Industry standard is to refer to weapons by their bore–you don’t call a Glock 19 a 185mm handgun, after all.