> refers to as corrugated fiberboard, which most people call cardboard in english. it's made of paper and glue ... there are different kinds of paper

Isn't that exactly the point I just made? I'm confused as to why you're restating it. In English nobody is going to mistake someone that makes a statement about "paper" as talking about "cardboard", whether they're referring to corrugated fiberboard or plain fiberboard (which are both often referred to as cardboard depending on whether the context is arts, crafts or something else).

> your talk about 'losing the thread' makes me think you are playing some kind of game where the objective is not to find out what the truth is but to sound convincing even if what you are saying is false

If you look at my original comment, what I said about paper is purely an example to illustrate that commonly recycled doesn't necessarily mean worth supporting harvesting for base materials. Many other things go into that assessment (such as whether the base material can be easily separated from other materials and how its cost to transport affect any possible profit that might motivate people to do so.

That you refuted that example by using an entirely different material seems to either be a non-sequitur or misguided. While presented as a counterpoint, it doesn't really seem to affect the claim I was making at all.

That is what I meant by it lost the thread. It didn't really add to the conversation at hand usefully in the way it was presented. If it was presented as an interesting factoid about recycling and cardboard, which is related to paper, that would be one thing, and I would fully support it. But as to whether it means something that can be/is recycled will be scavenged for profit in all cases, I don't think it really says anything one way or the other, and that was what I was trying to convey.

If you're trying to say that paper itself as what any native English speaker would assume we're talking about if they read it, and not just cardboard, is also profitable to recycle and people collect and turn that in for profit then please clarify that point. Otherwise, while an interesting fact, and I'm happy to now know it, I'm not sure it actually affects what I was trying to communicate originally in any way.

corrugated cardboard is made of paper, not an entirely different material; recycling cardboard is recycling paper. at this point i'm starting to question whether you've actually seen a piece of cardboard at some point or whether you're a large language model

certainly it is not the case that something that is commonly recycled will be scavenged for profit in all cases. even gold sometimes escapes recycling

> corrugated cardboard is made of paper, not an entirely different material; recycling cardboard is recycling paper

Did you actually bother to read what I wrote in my various comments? Much of it was devoted to explaining the difference in what it meant and when people say paper compared to what they mean when people say cardboard. Why do you think I talked about boards and chairs?

> at this point i'm starting to question whether you've actually seen a piece of cardboard at some point or whether you're a large language model

I could say the same for you, given your inability to follow what has been said across even a handful of replies.

> certainly it is not the case that something that is commonly recycled will be scavenged for profit in all cases. even gold sometimes escapes recycling

Which also wasn't my point. My point, again and put bluntly, is that some materials may exist in a space where it's not profitable enough to harvest for an individual but they are still recycled either because of subsidies or because efficiencies of scale can be brought to bear by a larger organization, or the combination of the two (subsidies for larger regional trash pickup companies that can also bring economies of scale to bear) which mean a material is recycled, even if not profitable for the common person. Another example would be items that are unlawful to discard of in the trash. There are various chemicals and materials that it's unlawful to dispose of in the trash in the U.S. (motor oil), meaning those items are taken to a recycling and/or disposal center even if there's no payment for doing so.

It's not about it escaping recycling because people miss it, it's about how both economies of scale and subsidies and laws that all go into whether something is recycled which affect that calculus beyond just whether it's profitable, and thus something being commonly recycled is not necessarily an indicator that it's lucrative enough to do so that the material will be harvested by people for profit.