Admittedly, the phrase can be interpreted as you did; but it can also be interpreted as personification of the intellectual process, which is how it was intended. Examples: “the fire burned with fury,” “the sea rose in anger,” etc. The intellection you forwarded was corrupt, false unto itself; but, as I said, I did not have grounds to attribute motive to you, personally. I haven’t expressed it this way before, because I assumed it would further offend you; but it is possible that you were ignorant of the mistake you were making, which I realized at the time. The intellection lacked integrity; but I haven’t the grounds to say the same of you. It could have been an honest mistake on your part, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

If you’re determined to take offense, that's your business. I've already assured you, that is not the way it was intended.

I’m done with this.