Honestly it doesn’t seem pernickety to evaluate the article on its claims. The system is presented as “universal”, and the opening sentence asks us to enumerate the qualities of a perfect system that would work for everyone.
I'd argue it's not pernickety to highlight the underhandedness of branding something as a "universal system" if that system applies to an indeterminable but likely small percentage of readers.
Comments
Stop being so pernickety of course it's meant subjective and not for everyone. There just isn't a system for everyone.
Honestly it doesn’t seem pernickety to evaluate the article on its claims. The system is presented as “universal”, and the opening sentence asks us to enumerate the qualities of a perfect system that would work for everyone.
Oh, come on. One should readily be able to understand that the author's goals are obviously technically aspirational despite being rhetorically lofty.
I'd argue it's not pernickety to highlight the underhandedness of branding something as a "universal system" if that system applies to an indeterminable but likely small percentage of readers.