I was talking about my comment only; I make no claim that army1987's paraphrase of nshepperd's comment is likewise accurate.

the obviously correct statement he actually made

The statement he actually made --taken literally and ignoring the poor example komponisto had chosen, as the “someone like” makes clear that it was intended to be just an example-- is that the word he would use for “someone who cares not at all how they fit into or are perceived by human society, except as instrumental to gaining whatever (non-human-relationship-based) thrill or fix they are after” is “fictional”. How is that “obviously correct”?

This intent does not make the paraphrase correct

(I'm not sure if I'm mistaken about the following interpretation and you instead mean that this particular intent doesn't make the paraphrase (of komponisto's comment) correct; in that case I'm not following what you are saying at all.)

I expect the intended meaning of "correct" was correspondence with intended meaning. In this sense, the intent is relevant, and it seems that the paraphrase does correspond to the intended meaning as described by komponisto in grandparent.

Army1987 put words in nsheppard's mouth that are probably wrong rather than the obviously correct statement he actually made.

The grandparent is talking only about army1987's paraphrase of komponisto's comment, not about the paraphrase of nsheppard's comment (which I agree is better described as "uncharitable"), so I'm not seeing the relevance of this statement in a reply to grandparent. (Disagree with some connotations of "obviously correct" in the quote, as the case is not that clear overall, even as it is pretty clear in one sense.)