Is it click bait if the explanation is also in the title? I admittedly have not yet clicked on it, but it looks like (at least now) the next line “office is to be closed” is that same key to their secrets (though admittedly yeah that’s a pretty cringe way to put it)

I only like the albums they did with dave grohl on drums, the rest just don’t seem to hit for me.

I’m pretty sure that’s only songs for the deaf and a few songs on like clockwork. I can’t get into any of their other stuff.

I think they’re saying this:

Family meals would comprise of three restaurants worth of people since they’re all immortal

Separately, you can never retire since you will never hit retirement age

I did a quick Google search, and I’m guessing miso is the ulcer treatment misoprostol that you shouldn’t take during pregnancy. A d and c is a dilation and cutterage, an invasive surgical procedure that removes something from the uterus. In this instance the something was a nonviable pregnancy that went awry from possibly the medication (or other factors).

Admittedly i was also confused about miso, and immediately thought soup? I was extremely incorrect

I appreciate your reply and question. I think it comes across rude because the correction wasn’t really necessary to understand the context of what was said, and it’s even less of a correction and more of a personal preference. It doesn’t add much to the conversation, which makes it seem more like grammatical pedantry. The fact that it wasn’t entirely correct made it seem even more out of place.

For the record, I’m not accusing you of being rude, just identifying how the comment came across. I’m not assuming intent with your original comment and apologize if it seemed like I had.

I actually don’t think this is correct. Whom is used when the unknown person is the object being impacted (to whom did you sell your car). In this sentence, “who” is actually referring to a person performing the action (the sentences “who questioned him?” And “where are those who questioned him?” Would use who, not whom. You wouldn’t say “whom questioned him,” but whom could be used to replace “him,” such as “he questioned whom?”).

As I alluded to above, you can usually see if it’s who or whom by changing it to he/she (who) or him/her (whom). You may need to adjust the sentence slightly, but it will normally work. Above you need to remove the “where are those” portion to find the answer.

So I believe that your correction came across a bit rude, and I’m fairly certain it is also wrong.

This is how I’ve always understood it as well. The two spellings are homophones so it’s a pretty easy mistake to make.

I disagree, “should’ve” and “should of” sound virtually identical when spoken (at least in some regions, can’t speak for all pronunciations). I can imagine why a non english native speaker would have trouble with this, though I’m not disagreeing with it being a common issue amongst native speakers as well.

I think he’s saying her behavior was bs, not the other stuff

quietly turns around

Oh i know that place! It’s the corner bistro!