What? You get to imagine some bad argument that would make it most convenient for you, and then demand that I defend that argument, as if it were one that I wanted to make? This is what I'm responsible for? Dealing with someone who resorts to strawmanning the person/idea at the other end when challenged?
It's not a direct consequence of anything that was said. It's a possible implication - in the conversational sense of implication, not the logical sense - but those get to be disclaimed.
FWIW, I certainly didn't read his comment that way, and in light of his explicit denial that that's what he intended maybe you should reconsider whether there are alternate interpretations available.
Are you reading some of the other comment threads he's participating in? It seems like he's taking this whole thing very personally, and it's hard to pin down exactly what he's trying to say when he won't calm down.
He wants me to call him, as if escalating this will be worth it...
He didn't even answer your very reasonable question above. Don't you wonder why that is?
It's literally not my stance. And I've literally said that it's not my stance—in a comment (that should have never been necessary to begin with) meant to remove all doubt. And you know this.
To continue saying otherwise (explicitly, even) is a case of outright intellectual dishonesty.