I did nothing of the kind.
I stated that it was odd that cultures all over the world had references to a flood. I should have been clearer a WORLDWIDE flood;
I understood you just fine. That's what I took to you to mean when you used the phrase "the flood" (as opposed to "a flood") in the first sentence of your post, and this post of yours now confirms that I understood you correctly.
not a "local" flood as you wish to believe in.
It's not a matter of what I (or you) "wish" to "believe in".
It's a matter of the flood stories from various cultures describing events differing more from each other than you implied.
You said that it was "odd" how cultures around the world have references to "the flood" (i.e. Noah's flood). I replied by pointing out that those various stories appear to be refering to historically memorable floods local to their own cultures, instead of matching up well enough for them all to be pointing clearly to the same single event.
I also pointed out that when you said "it happened just as stated", that this begs the question, as stated *where*, since the various flood stories from around the world differ so much in their details. Which one do you consider canonical, and why do you choose that one over any of the many available variations?
I also pointed out that if you're refering to any story of a supposedly worldwide flood, that the mountains (in some cases literally) of available evidence raises major problems for that scenario.
Nowhere did I "twist your words" or engage in "wishing" to believe (or not believe) anything.