in the time it took you to write this, you could've listened to the primary source and done it correctly. And there is a correct way of doing this: QUOTE THE PRIMARY SOURCE.

colloquialisms, interpretations, assumptions, implications. spare us. yes, people talk like this IRL. People do a lot of stupid things IRL. Why is this justification to continue? Shouldn't you rise above?

I'll clarify my last statement because I realize it can be difficult to understand:

People almost never talk about a something that is either completely subjective or completely objective. Yet people who feel their position is weak will often blur the lines between the two. They'll take an interpretation of something and express it as fact and then say "well obviously, this part of my statement is an opinion." Of course, their interpretation-turned-faux fact very conveniently supports their position. There are many examples in this sub but here's a recent one. This user took his interpretation of the maps/data (i.e. all towers have the same range. even thought the poster did not say that), then used that interpretation to attack his preconceived notion that the maps were meant to deceive. His interpretation (which was not disclosed as an interpretation) was very convenient for his argument. Of course, that was not you or your post and I don't expect you to answer for that person's conduct. It is simply meant as an example of how convenient assumptions tend to be to the person making the assumption.

Educated and well spoken people tend to differentiate between facts and opinions in their conversation instead of seeing it as a cumbersome activity. And if it is not clear, they usually don't object to someone pointing out the ambiguity in their statements.