And, having checked back, I rejoin also that I didn't claim my interpretation as a fact as you assert, but used the words "What is implicit in the use of the word 'might'" ==

'implicit' surely demonstrating that I was just offering what I saw as a likely explanation, not asserting any sort of "fact" --

['present it as if it were fact, which is what you did', were your words -- >b>no, I repeat, I didn't; I said it was 'implicit', which is surely speculative rather than assertive.]