Saying someone is making a "ridiculous statement" is not something that I read charitably.

Actually what I said is this:

That said, your point does illustrate how silly Tsipursky's position is if taken to its logical conclusion.

So let's see if I have this straight. You use the principle of charity to reinterpret Tsipursky's position so that my statement becomes less reasonable; then you refuse to offer any such charity to my statement based on your general principles. And you don't disclose any of this until pressed onit, instead you just pretend to be responding to my point.

Please stop being so dishonest.

Also, for future reference please tell me what types of statements you refuse to read charitably.