I assume you are referring to me here in that last part, so I suppose I should clarify things.
I agree there are a few problems with the current system, but I don’t agree this course of action is the correct one. I would have much preferred taking a few names on a case-by-case basis and left the vast majority alone. If it was fully up to me, I probably would have changed Bachman’s Sparrow and Scott’s Oriole and left the rest as is, but I certainly would have been willing to evaluate a few others.
As for “twisting your arguments”. if that’s not what you were trying to say then I legitimately don’t understand what you were trying to say.