Hi gurus again!

This is a name of an article "Not often wrong, but wrong never the less", the article is about diplotmatic relations amoung asian countries.

Does it mean "not often wrong, but wrong entirely" <-- as 'never the less' sort of sound like 'no less', it could be 'not often wrong, but no less (than wrong)'.

Or case 2, "not often wrong, but wrong *nevertheless", so that means it just wrong, sort of telling-you-so kind of wrong. He broke down 'nevertheless' seperate to escape the grammar mistake by placing 'nevertheless' next to 'but'. In additonal note I don't find the article name particularly meaningful, never the less*.

Which one I got was right? Thanks in advance.
I think that it was a separation of the single word 'nevertheless' (which can certainly follow 'but' on occasion) in order to create the double suggestion: seldom wrong but indeed wrong and seldom wrong but more and more wrong.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hi MM:

I can't see a sequencial logic behind your sample, shouldn't 'seldom' and 'indeed' fall on two different catergories? 'seldom' means not often, it deals with time, or frequency; 'indeed' means absolutely, it deals with amount, or capacity. How do you see 'indeed' as contradiction of 'seldom'?
Thanks for answering this.
Your sequential logic is not necessarily another man's logic. No contradiction: not often wrong, but certainly wrong in this case.
Regardless of the fact that he is not often wrong, this is one of those rare occasions where he is wrong. In true English style, 'why use two words when ten will do'.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Not often wrong stands on its own as a statement of fact. The author is indicating that in general the relationships are good. This is a classic use of a double negative to make a positive. Not wrong = right.

The second section but wrong never the less counters the first statment of fact. Having asserted in the first part that the relationships are mostly right, the author then clarifes by stating that in this case the relationships are actually wrong.

Simple really