What is this statement saying?

[KaiserDave]

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"

[KaiserDave]

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"

'

My bad, I have a problem getting the two mixed up

It's fine everybody does. My frustration is far from directed at you, but the fact that the terms have become conflated.

[KaiserDave]

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"

Wrong again; that's original intent, a very rare form of originalism. Most originalists rely on "original understanding."

Well...it's still "originalism" and many people observe that form of originalism, including I believe our very own MarkD. So....not wrong, just not a comprehensive answer. I'm still right in what I was indicated to was textualism.

So, no.