At the risk of being too pedantic, that's the point. The incorrect phrasing is often used to mean the original thing, when the incorrect phrasing fundamentally changes the actual meaning of the sentence.

That said, this is a chain of comments that skirts dangerously close to not-contributing IMO, since I'm not sure making cryptic comments that lead readers that don't happen to reach the right context sensitive interpretation to produce more comments asking about it aren't actually worse than a pure non sequitur, from a discussion point of view. Having a clever counter-example (as the GP does) is good. Leaving it unexplained and ambiguous is not.