This was an interesting discussion when I read about it long ago.
I don't think it's obvious that Marilyn's interpretation is the correct one. Two possible interpretations could be equally valid.
In law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" that says descriptive clauses modify the nearest antecedent noun.
Under this interpretation "which has a goat" modifies the exemplary door "say #3". Same as saying host opens a door, for example door #3 containing a goat. It could have been say door #2 containing a car.
Marilyn's interpretation is that "which has a goat" modifies "host opens another door." Same as saying the door opened by the host always has a goat.
Language is inherently ambiguous. I don't think either interpretation is unreasonable...
> Not only is Marilyn's interpretation grammatically valid
I would consider both interpretations equally valid. If anything, in law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" (phrase/clause modifies nearest antecedent noun) so that the hater's interpretation could be more correct if based only on this rule.
This language is ambiguous: "host ... opens another door, say #3, which has a goat."
The two options are Marilyn's interpretation of the door always containing a goat (invariant version), or that one door he opens (say #3) just happens to contain a goat (hater's version) but it could have contained a car.
As suggested by someone below, a much clearer formation could have said "host opens a door with a goat, say door #3" to avoid this particular ambiguity.
There's also the issue of usage of "which" signifying a non-restrictive non-essential clause.
Basically there is ZERO accountability to making batshit insane predictions. So one is much better off as an alarmist than as a skeptic -- alarmism draws attention/funding.
But we did get an interesting movie out of the fake population bomb hysteria: Soylent Green.
The 10°C higher average temperature during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a great counter example to the alarmist view. I have not seen a very persuasive argument for why it's different now. If anything, there's video clip of Schrag (Harvard climate scientist) admitting that 10°C is perfectly fine, but that it's the rate of change that's alarming. I disagree with this too, because the story of humanity is the story of migration and adaptation (out of Africa, bronze age collapse, population bottlenecks, etc.) -- and these have nothing to do with man-made climate change.
Don't worry, i'm opinionated and give equal opportunity commenting to most everything.
This deceptive faux environmentalism just rubs me the wrong way. People are more persuaded by emotions (dead whales) than by the data and facts (nuke asia if you want to stop the majority of ocean garbage).
Fishing gear killed the whale. Coca-cola has nothing to do with it.
If you want to rid the ocean of the vast majority of its trash, station a person to monitor each fishing boat, and permenently plug up all the rivers in asia that empty into the oceans. The vast majority of ocean garbage comes from asian rivers and fishing boats.
I don't think it's obvious that Marilyn's interpretation is the correct one. Two possible interpretations could be equally valid.
In law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" that says descriptive clauses modify the nearest antecedent noun.
Under this interpretation "which has a goat" modifies the exemplary door "say #3". Same as saying host opens a door, for example door #3 containing a goat. It could have been say door #2 containing a car.
Marilyn's interpretation is that "which has a goat" modifies "host opens another door." Same as saying the door opened by the host always has a goat.
Language is inherently ambiguous. I don't think either interpretation is unreasonable...