VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Steve|DATE|1377869302|CONTENT|People [of faith and of no faith] are sometimes nice. People [of faith and of no faith] are sometimes nasty. People [of faith and of no faith] start wars. People [of faith and of no faith] fight against injustice. People [of faith and of no faith] can be partial to a biscuit.

The six words in brackets in those sentences define the same thing as the first word “people”. It is an exhaustive clause; nothing is excluded from it, so it adds nothing to the content of the sentence, like saying “red things and things that aren’t red”. Except there is a sense in which it tells us something – that sense being when I say something that sounds inclusive in order to show that I do not believe one little bit. If I say that people who play cricket, and indeed those who don’t play cricket, are fair, sporting and generous people, it is clear that I am only talking about cricket players, and that I consider footballers to be less than human. Because if I genuinely think that the cricket / not cricket or the faith / not faith distinction is meaningless, why add it in? Why not just say &quot;people&quot;?|IP-ADDRESS|10.0.119.108, 217.36.222.79|MODERATIONFLAG|