I appreciate the kind words, but there is a fixation here that troubles me. We do want to be accurate in the charges we make, do we not? If there are defects in grammar, punctuation, style, etc., fine. This isn’t a law review. I was on law review, and even there, though I may have disagreed with the substance of a piece, I never found it beneficial to hammer the piece for errors that weren’t there. It only weakens the force of the criticism of the true errors. And even if you think she merely stumbled into the correct use of the term, it is still correct, and doesn’t warrant our attention. I don’t get this.
I don’t understand it either but you answered with tremendous profundity. :)