People would find this particular post, without being aware of the rest of the thread or trying to understand the context.
I said, "If someone just read that post." You are right, that it was unlikely, but I stated it as a presupposition of what followed.
That they'd only read half of it, or at least misunderstand the first half.
My statement stands true for that entire post. Without the context of the thread, my point was that it could be misunderstood.
That they'd be unaware that this is not how the NAF communicates.
That they'd not really understand the concept of a discussion forum.
That they'd not be aware that I'm not a NAF spokesperson (or NAF anything else for that matter).
That they'd be assuming that I was, for no reason.
I said "quoting" NAF, not speaking for NAF. Anyone can quote official NAF communiques in a discussion forum.
That they'd assume that this was an official ruling, in spite of it not being repeated anywhere or being printed in any NAF document.
Official NAF statements are sometimes hard to find and not all statements on the website are always current. This thread is easier to find than assuming every reader knows everything on the NAF site.
One of your requirements I included in my original statement, one was the conclusion of my original statement, four do not actually apply, and the last is a feasible scenario.
I don't even need to resort to "some people are just dumb."
I take it that the subtext here is that you're worried that me suggesting what a wording could sound like is dangerously misleading.
No subtext, just being snarky.