3 ms·

>> Imagine having a family of ordinary children, plus God. And yes, the remainder of the article confirms the promise of this gaffe. > Imagine not being able t

by lutusp 2y ago

>> Imagine having a family of ordinary children, plus God. And yes, the remainder of the article confirms the promise of this gaffe. > Imagine not being able to parse a sentence. It was up to the author to parse the sentence in advance of posting it. And competent writers don't invite such obvious double meanings -- they undermine the value of the essay. >> That's not what "begging the question" actually means. > If you're referring to the logical fallacy, as a foreign English speaker it's the first time I hear about that "begging the question" sense. Expressions change over time, but normally by consensus. Without consensus, one is entitled to wonder whether the writer knows what the expression means. >> What -- in 2025, no spell checker? > The horror Some writers don't need a spell checker. Others require it.

g-b-r 2y ago
> It was up to the author to parse the sentence in advance of posting it. And competent writers don't invite such obvious double meanings -- they undermine the value of the essay. The author? She can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose. > Expressions change over time, but normally by consensus. Without consensus, one is entitled to wonder whether the writer knows what the expression means. Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it... > Some writers don't need a spell checker. Others require it. Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article. Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on.
- lutusp 2y ago
  > The author? It can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose. It contains a classic beginner's error -- object ambiguity. Rather funny in this specific case. > Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it, come on. Not at all -- but it was abundantly clear that the author didn't take the time to unambiguously identify the sentence's object, with a humorous outcome. > Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article. This is called a "false choice". But I think you know that. A vast middle ground lives between those extremes. > Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on. I have no stake in the article's topic, only its form. For all I know, these people are acting to protect irreplaceable historical artifacts. Just for the sake of argument. I just noticed something. The article's title -- "The great Hobby Lobby artifact heist" -- is itself a classic example of begging the question, because it presumes the truth of what it should be proving.

by lutusp 2y ago

g-b-r 2y ago

> It was up to the author to parse the sentence in advance of posting it. And competent writers don't invite such obvious double meanings -- they undermine the value of the essay. The author? She can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose. > Expressions change over time, but normally by consensus. Without consensus, one is entitled to wonder whether the writer knows what the expression means. Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it... > Some writers don't need a spell checker. Others require it. Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article. Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on.

lutusp 2y ago
> The author? It can't do it for the reader; to my knowledge it's a correct sentence, just a a bit verbose. It contains a classic beginner's error -- object ambiguity. Rather funny in this specific case. > Yes, you sure had trouble understanding it, come on. Not at all -- but it was abundantly clear that the author didn't take the time to unambiguously identify the sentence's object, with a humorous outcome. > Some are trying to win a Pulitzer, others just to write a substack article. This is called a "false choice". But I think you know that. A vast middle ground lives between those extremes. > Let's not pretend those were the reason why you didn't like the article, come on. I have no stake in the article's topic, only its form. For all I know, these people are acting to protect irreplaceable historical artifacts. Just for the sake of argument. I just noticed something. The article's title -- "The great Hobby Lobby artifact heist" -- is itself a classic example of begging the question, because it presumes the truth of what it should be proving.