1) Medved posted that quote.
2) Various people called him on the known dishonesty of creationist quote salads, especially quotes of Gould who once had to spend a lot of time defending his Punk-Eek against "Neo-Darwinists."
3) I linked and excerpted Gould's long article in which he lays out in detail what he believes about transitional fossils (citing several examples, including reptiles-to-mammals and the hominid series) and repudiates such insidiously abusive quote-mining as you and medved do.
4) You told me that I in my quoting misrepresented Gould's article.
5) Challenged on that, you repeated Step 1.
Note that you might have accused Gould of repenting and recanting in one lying article just to hit back at the creationists riding on his coattails, but you were too dumb to parse your own statements. You accused me of misrepresenting Gould, when his article totally repudiates your position and your attempts to hijack his life's work. (Punk-Eek is not creationism.)
I never said it was, I said the opposite. That is why I call him a whore of evolution. The point is in spite of all your sophistry and semantics that the quotation is true, that the quotation expresses Gould's beliefs about paleontology when he made them and now. Let's review what he, one of your icons of evolution, said: the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution.