Well, I haven't met the author either. But your reading of the article struck me as astonishingly different from what I took away from it. So I don't think having met the author is required.
There seem to be two different questions here. One is, "Did the author intend to write an article that was advocating the views of the Sad Puppies group?" The other is, "Did the author write an article that could be understood as advocating those views, especially by an uninformed reader?" Your original point, "a strong pro-Puppy slant," clearly asserts the first, but this last comment, about what "most of its readers" will or won't understand, shifts the focus to the second. I don't think it makes any point about the first.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-08-26 02:33 pm (UTC)There seem to be two different questions here. One is, "Did the author intend to write an article that was advocating the views of the Sad Puppies group?" The other is, "Did the author write an article that could be understood as advocating those views, especially by an uninformed reader?" Your original point, "a strong pro-Puppy slant," clearly asserts the first, but this last comment, about what "most of its readers" will or won't understand, shifts the focus to the second. I don't think it makes any point about the first.