No doubt; people make up additional meanings to words all the time. My usage happens to be the meaning you'll find in a dictionary that the word has had for hundreds of years.
Looking at what sinister and evil mean to others shows how that word may not have been what you meant.
I used the word sinister because that is exactly the meaning I intended. From the first definition in your link "threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous".
Then again, my complaining about your ability to communicate opens the door to your complaints about my attempts at humor.
When I use a word intending the meaning expressed in a dictionary, and you claim some other unrelated meaning ("satanic"), I would suggest to you that I am not the one lacking in communications skills. But perhaps I simply lack an appropriate appreciation of your non sequitur humor; if you or someone else found your post funny, then I suppose it served its purpose and I'm glad I could contribute to making your day a bit brighter.
At the Fed, he stopped publishing M3. The only logical reasons for doing that are all sinister.
The first part was obviously false, since Bernanke was not Chairman and only served as a member of the Board of Governors, so the decision was not his alone.
In the second part you commit a false dilemma by insisting there is no other possible cause except for the sinister.
Somehow you are still arguing that the reader should know which meaning you are using for "sinister". Why? Because you weren't wrong all around in your post? Do you really believe that the only "logical" reason to cease publishing M3 is "sinister"? That there is absolutely no other logical choice?
If the only logical option is evil, why would this preclude a satanic quality? After all, Satan would have us choose evil over good 10 out of 10 times.