Phil does this a lot, usually in ways which present me with the dilemma of spending a lot of time correcting him, or letting others pick up a poor idea of what my positions are (because people have a poor ability to discount this kind of evidence). I've said as much to Phil, and he apparently thinks it's fine to go on doing this - that it's good for him to force me to correct him, even though others don't make similar misinterpretations. Whether or not this is done from conscious malice doesn't change the fact that it's a behavior that forces me to expend resources or suffer a penalty, which is game-theoretically a hostile act.

So, to discourage this unpleasant behavior, it seems to me that rather than scratching his itch for his benefit (encouraging repetition), I should make some reply which encourages him not to do it again.

I would like to just reply: "Phil Goetz repeatedly misinterprets what I'm saying in an attempt to force me to correct him, which I consider very annoying behavior and have asked him to stop." If that's not what Phil intends.... well, see how it feels to be misinterpreted, Phil? Unfortunately this comes too close to lying for my tastes, so I'll have to figure out some similar standard reply. Maybe even a standard comment to link to each time he does this.