sionnach: You’re right, we shouldn’t. Also, thanks for not letting that stop you. (My vote is skewism, but I just made it up.)
Edit I think it’s technically a faulty parallelism, but I agree that it’s a special case that works by superimposing two grammatically-correct constructions. (I’m tempted to apply the word superposition, but again I’d be inventing terminology.)
ruzuzu: I think that’s an excellent idea (setting up camp until we get list comments back part, I mean, not the being haunted. Not that the being haunted thing isn’t good question—it is. I’m just not saying that anyone should go out of her way to be so haunted. I mean, it was only the former, not the latter, to which I was referring. You know what I mean. Goosnargh).
I don't see why we couldn't set up a temporary camp here.
I hate to say it, 'zuzu, but I think you may be suffering from Stockholm syndrome. We could do any number of things, but my point is, we should not be forced to go to ridiculous lengths to do things that were once straightforward. Have you ever read the book "Ella Minnow Pea"? It's a good metaphor for recent experience on this site.
Based on my own most recent experience of the phenomenon you describe, the phrase "adulterous friend" comes to mind. He said he was gone away on a trip, but in fact he was cavorting with his wife's (former) best friend.
My question was whether or not there is a word for this kind of construction:
"the French ability to, and tolerance for, bullshit, is absurdly high", in which a faux-parallel structure is imposed, despite "bullshit" being used as both verb and noun in the given example.
I don't see why we couldn't set up a temporary camp here. I've been wondering if there's a word for being haunted by people who are still alive--like when your friend goes on a trip and you think you've see them in a crowd.