You post employs good parallelism of form, yet poor parallelism of substance.
EDIT: no longer relevant, but kept for context
I added to the comment and expanded on what I thought would be an obvious inference.
I didn’t find your inference too oblique, I found it too inaccurate.
You post employs good parallelism of form, yet poor parallelism of substance.
EDIT: no longer relevant, but kept for context
I added to the comment and expanded on what I thought would be an obvious inference.
I didn’t find your inference too oblique, I found it too inaccurate.