The language with which anonymous disputants complain of misprisions has declined sadly. From 1839:
To persevere, against all remonstrance, in the repetition of a misstatement injurious to an opponent, and to do this so coolly as to use almost his own words in imputing to him the very opposite of what he has said, is at least a convenient, if not an honourable nor yet a formidable policy.
I was proofing Unitarianism defended because it is my default to work on the oldest unfinished project -- a default I flee from, often, because they're almost always dull political tracts with foreign inclusions in non-Latin-1 alphabets. On the other hand, one does get these constants of human nature in their prolix forms.
The particular argument is over what our theological reaction to the incomprehensible should be, and both sides use the unsounded sea as a figure for the incomprehensible; the author is angry that `his' metaphor has been interpreted in a different way. As one to whom theology is like Star Trek physics, I take this as evidence that metaphors are only useful in explaining things to people who don't actually disagree with you to start with.
Two pages later there is huffy accusation that Unitarians are being compared to Mahometans, bar bar misleading attribution bar bar outdated source. Really nothing changes:
"nothing new under the sun," of this description, for our modern days. Hildebrand himself, yes, GREGORY THE SEVENTH, like our poor selves, was suspected of a leaning to "Islamism,"...
Completely by the by: When proofing, as when reading modern PDFs in Skim or so forth, I often spend time fiddling the zoom and side-scrolling until only the actual text block is displayed. Am I the only person who bothers? Would 'Fit to non-background-color' be that much harder than 'Fit to page size'? (For Distributed Proofreading scans of foxed, marked-up books it might be, but even there it would work *sometimes*.)
So wrote clew in Philosophy.