I'm not ignoring it, it simply doesn't say that.

It doesn't say "The character must also be a spellcaster with spell lots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce."? So much better. What was your argument again?

You are interpreting rather than reading.

No. I'm very much reading. One sentence, one context. Context established that it's for spells the item can produce.

Why is it odd to think that only spellcasters can create magic items?

I have not said that it's odd. I have just said that's not what the rule says.

I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that only spellcasters can "play...period" unless by "play" you mean 'make magic items.' I'm having trouble making sense of the following sentences, but I'm guessing that you are saying that I am arguing that only spell-casters can make mage items. If so, yes, that is exactly what the rules say. Not sure how you can justify a different interpretation.

Because the rules say that you need to be spellcaster to cast spells. It's the exact same relationship between playing and casting spells, as with crafting and casting spells. You only need the ability when making use of it, which for crafting specifically states is for when an item produces a spell, and for playing, when you want to cast a spell.

"To start, a character must have a formula that describes the construction of the item. The character must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must be able to cast any spells that the item can produce. Moreover, the character must meet a level minimum determined by the item's rarity, as shown in ..." I could keep going but there really isn't a point. Nothing else alters or contradicts that text. What is unclear about "The character must also be a spellcaster"? Sure, there is an "and" after it, but it only further restricts the requirements, it doesn't open them up. Again, that's just grammar. The following sentence starts with "Moreover," again, it's another restriction.

Yes that and adds another restriction, for the effect that comes after that, which is "be able to cast any spells that the item can produce"

Lots of other posts have noted this as well. Others have misread this as well, but it's pretty darn clear as far as grammar and thus RAW interpretations go. Same for the Horsecasting argument which I'm thinking you could not have actually read or you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't have) made the comment about that above. That author is a professional with degrees in composition and explains the synatax and semantics better than I could. This is an issue of reading comprehension at this point. And frankly, this is now so far off topic that I can't justify continuing the discussion.

Except it's not missread as the rule is written on the link you gave. The spell has a target of self. The horse duplicates spells that has a target of self. Hence the horse duplicates the spell. The INTENT may be that it's for defensive spells only, that's not how it's written. It's likely an oversight as I said, but RAW does allow it. It would have been a simple matter of saying spells that only effect self rather than target self, but it does say target self which covers that spell as well.

Also, no. Whoever wrote that site is NOT a professional with degrees in composition or even anything related to language. I'm sorry, but he's not. Anyone with even a basic degree within the field of languages would know the first rule of drop caps. Who ever told you he has degrees in that field, lied. You might want to read his own "about us" page, where he makes no mention of any degrees, instead he's quite clear that he's essentially a journalist, and as you should be aware, journalists are not trained in language which should be clear to you by simply opening up any newspaper anywhere. I'd also point out, that even if we assume that your claim of his degrees were true, it would still be another fallacy called argument from authority. I'm sorry but I really must ask you again to stop using fallacies.