Well, yeah, Dataman did distort in the sense that he pretended Patterson was an example of a "professional evolutionist" who admits that "there exists ... no transitional forms". Patterson says that transitional forms cannot be identified (in what he would apparently consider a sufficiently rigorous or acceptable manner) which is not the same as claiming that they don't exist. (Dataman's claim was silly and hyperbolic from the start. Obviously an evolutionist must assert the existence of transitionals.)
But I still do not think that the quote seriously misrepresents Patterson, the exculpatory context provided on the Talk.Origins page not withstanding.
Dataman, you may consider me more fair, but I should say that I don't see that I disagree in substance with your other critics, or with the Talk.Origins page. It's not so much that I'm being easy on you, as I am being a bit harder on Patterson!