Ah, “with you” is a critical addition to your piece. Thanks!
( I am trying to agree, and can now agree, agreeably. What was not clear was if you were sharing an opinion as widely held by others, or one held by you. The latter I can easily validate and support. The former is less obviously true with only the evidence of one anonymous non-reader).
Hmm, I thought it was rather obviously implied when I made my first comment - but you’re right, I should always strive to be less ambiguous. (Serious point. I am only ever ambiguous when I mean to be - well that’s the intention!) 
I’ve noticed that a lot of indirect communicators rely on others who are not to ‘get’ such things. We wont.
Some US media websites started doing that (making them much better and faster loading browsing experiences, ironically). It may be that some third party is the one doing the tracking and the newspaper staff can’t just turn it off themselves without breaking the web site. But really, the issue is that this is their business model and they don’t want to, ultimately - there’s no easy fix for that.
Well, I’m assuming here - the store co-owner came in and was speaking to the council about it, and I can’t imagine why they would be there had they not been complaining about it themselves. (The alternative is someone else found out, brought the issue before the council and they asked the bakery co-owner to appear before them to answer questions. Which seems less likely, but who knows.)
As is your wont.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
