While “of is, of is not” didn’t hurt my understanding that much, the article would be better off without them.
I agree, and also note that the way luke dismisses the “is not” misses much of the point that is trying to be expressed by the phrase. If it is going to be discussed at all it deserves the same kind of parameterizing as ‘objective’ received.
While “of is, of is not” didn’t hurt my understanding that much, the article would be better off without them.
I agree, and also note that the way luke dismisses the “is not” misses much of the point that is trying to be expressed by the phrase. If it is going to be discussed at all it deserves the same kind of parameterizing as ‘objective’ received.