> The degree of indignation you're expressing here at this ancillary snippet...seems to be in itself rather cringe.
I am not expressing "indignation" -- I don't think the author was unfair to me. I'm not even remotely upset. I just think it was a silly and unnecessary inclusion (in your words: "ancillary") that detracts from the piece.
"Indignation" was a poor choice of wording, then -- I take it back.
Still - it does seem to be such a trifling fault with the article that it seems strange that it would be seen as worth devoting the time and energy to call out. When I come across minor hiccups like this (either in something I'm reading, or when someone is giving a talk) I usually just say to myself:
"Mmm -- but was it in good faith at least? Not too preachy / overbearing? Yes? Then let's move on ..."
I am not expressing "indignation" -- I don't think the author was unfair to me. I'm not even remotely upset. I just think it was a silly and unnecessary inclusion (in your words: "ancillary") that detracts from the piece.