I mean what I say, sir. I do not believe my language was an exaggeration, nor did I believe it too fancy for you to comprehend.
What the OP has said, and what you implied in your first post, is incongruent with what you say now. The accusations made are that they are hardline anti-custom move. This is not so. Nor should any think so. To misinterpret their language lies in the fault of those with an agenda, mostly. Perhaps not you, or perhaps not OP, but somewhere down the line someone heard what they wanted to hear, and twisted the words to suit their agenda, either deliberately or unconsciously. Those are the ones primarily to blame, since they have induced scandal, the occasioning of others to wrongdoing.
So far, I have not seen evidence of any language which has any reasonable interpretation that could mean the things that they are accused of thinking. As I have been watching for hours on end the past few days, I can corroborate this lack of evidence with my own testimony that they have not said such things, and they have spoken many disclaimers.