Via The Gadfly's Buzz, I discovered a discussion of the Austrian philosopher Alexius Meinong the first paragraph of which reads as follows:
Meinong is notorious for his — in the prevailing opinion: bizarre and clearly untenable--view on being and existence. Not only did he argue that there are things that do not exist, but on his view this has as a consequence for example that there is a certain nonexistent entity which can be referred to as ``the present king of France'', and in his theory of objects he actually went so far as to recognize impossible abstract entities like The Round Square. No wonder that this theory as a whole has few adherents today. However, because of Meinong's notoriety, the very distinction between being and existence has come to share the bad reputation of his more extravagant ontological claims and is commonly labeled ``Meinongian'', even though Meinong was neither the first nor the last philosopher to make it. It is really a very old and dignified distinction, which has a tendency to recur in new versions as philosophical positions shift.
I myself have argued strenuously against Meinong in print, but this opening paragraph is just awful. Note first the tendentious tone: "bizarre and clearly untenable," "went so far as," "no wonder," "notoriety."
(show)