Now now, don't be obtuse. You were clearly denying flat out just saying the thing and not the aspect of it being termed disingenuous, which you now claim to be a misunderstanding - whether that's to be believed or not. You can squirm your way out of having the obligation to have made the alternative clear all you want, it still stinks of a semantic loophole after the fact, which corroborates with the distinct lack of relevance your point would even make in the context of appraisal were it made purely based on the entity and without consideration of the incarnations' then capabilities. To top it off, you've played the classic tried and true tactic of gunning for the high ground by doubling down on the cries of ad hominem just because someone called you out on your bullsh1t. Ever the slippery snake, Herald.