I said in the NT it isn't. I also said, "I don't see how you could understand 'Holy Spirit' as a personal description." The rest of your argument is non sequitur. It would be something like an apposition, "The Holy Spirit, [article] our Counselor and [no article] Comforter." It would not be something like, "the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." May I remind you, if you wish to seek rebuttal of a point, you yourself are under the burden to provide valid examples.Here you said that Holy Spirit could be in a Sharp Rule 1 Construction
My explanations aren't "convoluted," you're just not following the simplicity of the rule, and presenting on a case by case basis, which is not helping your understanding. It seems to me that you you are confusing examples of exceptions with the actual exceptions allowed in the rule itself. There will be hundreds of constructions that fall outside of the rule, and when they do, it's because they are (1) not personal, (2) plural, and (3) not an epithet. There is not a new exception built into the rule every time we see one. I am also not applying it any differently than Sharp states the rule, though you keep saying I do. The word catching on your part is also making things much worse and much harder to get the point across. Also, you could confine your responses to one post, and wait patiently. I can't keep up with 6 at a time. I have a few minutes here and there to read and respond.
I said very simply, if you have trouble with it, English essentially has the same rule which follows essentially the same exceptions. So I'm not sure why you are straining so hard against the Greek to keep your interpretation.