I object to the meaning of a premise being changed. For example consider this deduction:
Premise A) Banks are safe places to keep your money.
Premise B) The place by the side of the creek is a bank.
Conclusion: It is safe to keep your money by the creek.
Obviously this argument is fallacious. The problem is that we use the term "bank" to mean more than one thing. But if we were more objective we may have said:
Premise A-prime) Everything that could be called a bank, whether a financial institution or side of a creek is a safe place to keep your money.
Now in this case, premise A-prime is the one actually used to make the syllogism's conclusion valid. However we would not be able to get many people to accept this premise. Thus if we are devious, we could propose A and than imply A-prime to form our syllogism.
You have made this mistake a couple of times that I have pointed out, and I have spelled out the specifics already. I'm sorry that being wrong about what you are selling is hard to accept. Nobody likes it, including when it happens to me. Which is why I understand that you are resistant to accept this correction.