This extravagant
circumlocution seems to be an elaborate way to avoid to the term «subject,» either because he did not wish to contrast it with «subjective aim,» or because he was uncertain just how the subject should now be conceived.
Such
circumlocution seemed necessary, at least early on, in defence of Kline's work.
Not exact matches
Lang
seems to pick on those too polite to accuse him directly of being a liar, but one can readily find
circumlocutions such as CBDunkerson «s «The continuing fictional works of Peter Lang» that amount to the same thing, which I didn't have to search far for: it's in the same thread containing Ronald Brak's comment above.