At about 55%-way down the page http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497:
"Put statements in positive form," they stipulate, in a section that seeks to prevent "not" from being used as "a means of evasion."
"Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs," they insist. (The motivation of this mysterious decree remains unclear to me.)
And then, in the very next sentence, comes a negative passive clause containing three adjectives: "The adjective hasn't been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place."
That's actually not just three strikes, it's four, because in addition to contravening "positive form" and "active voice" and "nouns and verbs," it has a relative clause ("that can pull") removed from what it belongs with (the adjective), which violates another edict: "Keep related words together."
Would the rewritten sentence in active voice be: "One hasn't built the adjective that can pull ..."
What's wrong with the negative form here? Musn't 1 negation be placed somewhere?
Would someone please explain the bolded phrase? I don't perceive anything wrong here; shouldn't the "relative clause ("that can pull")" be (rightly) connected with the noun? How does it make sense if it only belongs with the adjective: "that can pull a weak or inaccurate"?