I honestly think I wasn't breaking the guidelines but I think this case really is up to interpretation, and do I understand where you're coming from. My interpretation of the part I quoted was that the author of the article included that second sentence with the intention of it being interpreted as "...but it should have been mentioned". But you're right, that's my reading, nowhere does it say explicitly that that information should have been mentioned.
In any event, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to troll.
I honestly think I wasn't breaking the guidelines but I think this case really is up to interpretation, and do I understand where you're coming from. My interpretation of the part I quoted was that the author of the article included that second sentence with the intention of it being interpreted as "...but it should have been mentioned". But you're right, that's my reading, nowhere does it say explicitly that that information should have been mentioned.
In any event, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to troll.