Indeed you did but that has absolutely nothing to do with your misreading. I said, "you misread what was never written nor intended," and indeed you have. How have you misread what I wrote?
I said it is Matt Gaetz who "might be" frustrated", "Rather it might well be Matt Gatez' frustration…."
You distorted this to become not Gaetz' but my frustration: "Not sure what your frustration is with it…." Worse, you then proceeded to compound your distortion by accusing me being "cynical:" To suggest cynical intent by Gaetz… ..". Of course, I made no such suggestion-your suggestion is as misplaced as your distortion.
Having compounded distortion with false accusation, you then asked me to explain myself: "The floor is yours to explain what you "meant".
I am ever willing to defend what I said but I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend what I did not say nor to defend a false proposition advanced by someone else wrongly attributed to me.
Finally, what is "not convincing" (your words) is a mode of argument that first quotes someone but then proceeds to distort and fabricate.
