Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 7016953" data-attributes="member: 6701872">I didn't say it is.I didn't say it did.I think it comes down to probability.Which is more likely?A) The experienced authors chose words and layout for a reason, the editing passes saw nothing wrong because nothing was wrong in this case, and a small number of people reading the passage are coming away with an unintended interpretation. (I say &quot;a small number of people&quot; because not even all of the forum goers here, a small sample of an extensive population, share the interpretation in question)B) The layout and word choices made run in direct opposition to the authors intended meaning of the passage and they didn't realize it, the editing passes also didn't realize there was a disagreement between how the text reads and what it is intended to mean, and only a small number of people reading the passage have come away with the intended interpretation.A is unquestionably more likely. Especially given that the authors have been asked numerous questions about rest, and still no mistake in the text regarding that section has been noticed and errated to make Arial Black's interpretation actually supported by the text - and there have been 3 pieces of errata made to that very section of text, showing that it can't be explained away by saying &quot;They just haven't notice the mistake because they haven't looked at that section again since it went to print.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AaronOfBarbaria, post: 7016953, member: 6701872"] I didn't say it is. I didn't say it did. I think it comes down to probability. Which is more likely? A) The experienced authors chose words and layout for a reason, the editing passes saw nothing wrong because nothing was wrong in this case, and a small number of people reading the passage are coming away with an unintended interpretation. (I say "a small number of people" because not even all of the forum goers here, a small sample of an extensive population, share the interpretation in question) B) The layout and word choices made run in direct opposition to the authors intended meaning of the passage and they didn't realize it, the editing passes also didn't realize there was a disagreement between how the text reads and what it is intended to mean, and only a small number of people reading the passage have come away with the intended interpretation. A is unquestionably more likely. Especially given that the authors have been asked numerous questions about rest, and still no mistake in the text regarding that section has been noticed and errated to make Arial Black's interpretation actually supported by the text - and there have been 3 pieces of errata made to that very section of text, showing that it can't be explained away by saying "They just haven't notice the mistake because they haven't looked at that section again since it went to print." [/QUOTE]

Verification