What are you trying to say here?? Why would I need to point out that it was just an introduction when none of them even referenced it, never mind mistook it for a direct comparison to Gay's situation?

The context, I presume, is a reference to the main body of the article where I talk at length about the discourse surrounding Gay's ouster. The people who said "good point" or who renewed their subscriptions very obviously didn't need me to "correct" them about a mistake they gave no indication that they were making. I'm pretty sure you already understand that though.