I figured it was you who needed some comfort, since your voluminous opposition hinged on the excessively narrow semantics you were imposing on him. I, myself, was able to just take the essay at face value. Amazingly, I was able to understand that paragraph even though I'm a fan of both phone systems he mentioned.

Yet Gruber does.

That's just disingenuous.

No, the "narrow semantics" you suggest were a summarization of Gruber's general approach, as I stated in my original post. And lets go back to Gruber's actual words again: "Android and iPhone fans will read the preceding paragraph very differently."

He's clear to point out (a) that there are fans for each and (b) that they will read the paragraph VERY differently. Yet, both of us are fans of both. It seems that according to your definition we have a bit of a contradiction. Gruber never hints at the possiblity of a third way to read the paragraph -- or even the fact that each individual would read that paragraph and draw different conclusions based on a variety of factors -- being a "fan" not necessarily being the dominant one.

It's only a contradiction if you force a narrow interpretation.

If I read a paragraph, for example, that takes an issue from each gender's perspective, I know that they're painting with broad strokes and that they probably know about hermaphrodites but just didn't mention it.

I don't think someone needs to acknowledge chimeras every time they write something that assumes a person has one set of DNA.

Sure, it's fun to be Pedantic Man - the superhero whose power is that of being willfully obtuse - but I can read that paragraph and still think he's captured the two aspects of myself that are actively debating about the relative merits of the two platforms. And most people do develop brand loyalties. You and I are somewhat exceptional. I'll be the chimera; you be the hermaphrodite.

I get the sense that you'll say anything to prop up your hate, though. Go on ahead without me.

Chimeras and hermaphrodites? You win. :-)