>>>Would it have been easier to state a single positive (or neutral) than a double negative?
>
>>Nope. It was worded exactly like I intended it.
>
>Are you saying that your double negative was not unnecessary?
Perhaps it was used for "literary effect"? Simpler isn't always better in this case.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
