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?
> 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.
Feeling misinterpreted can be very personal. That said, in both my initial reading and my re-reading you come off worse than he does.
> He wants me to call him, as if escalating this will be worth it...
Sometimes text-conversation-on-the-internet escalates when neither party intends it, and switching to other modalities can be valuable. That said, it's not at all clear to me that it's a good idea here compared to dropping 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.