"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest
growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth
of "antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a
****ty communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Do you want to try parsing that sentence into something simple, Tom? It
looks to me like you say:

1) Antitheists' hatred of religion is proactive, often organized, often
violent and craving power.

2) This is the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.


Now, maybe you can explain how that's NOT equivalent to saying that
violent antitheists are the fastest-growing group of the non-religious.

I've been editing for a long time, but if you somehow flipped that one on
its back and slid it under the other pea, I missed it.

--
Ed Huntress


You imply:
often violent = always violent
often rains = always rains
often eats out = always eats out

Thanks for the lesson in logic and language, Mr. Twisty!

Here's the important lesson: The way you wrote those sentences, the anaphor
(THIS group) refers to the antecedent "those whose hatred of religion is
proactive, often-organized, often violent and craving power."

If one wants to be generous, he could say that you wrote an ambiguous
sentence, since it isn't clear whether the antecedent for THIS is those
violent ones, or just anti-theists in general.

But I'm not in a generous mood. g The hardball analysis of your sentences
is that, if you didn't intend the violent ones to be the referent, your
passage reflects a failure of salience. The closest, most salient referent
to the anaphor is the violent ones.

(The editor pulls out his blue pencil, corrects the passage, and moves
on...)

--
Ed Huntress