My apologies -- only for brevity, and not to distort, I simply combined two of your related thoughts into one -- but you have every right to object, since your words are your property. But since you don't like my paraphrasing, I'm satisfied that your original quote that I object to, untouched and in entirety, still is obviously fallacious on its own -- I'll provide it here for readers:

"...This act* may in fact (depending on the tire type, wheel width, and other factors) not even change the contact patch measurably...."

( * the asterisk is admittedly mine, but only because I can't imagine that you will object to my just indicating, for readers, that your word "act" in that statement simply refers to a prior phrase, "...increasing the pressure in a typical tire from 25 to 50 psi...")

But actually, you are also guilty of distortion of my statements. You wrote, "...I know what the term "tire pressure" means, and it has absolutely nothing to do with dividing the weight on the tire by the contact patch area...." I NEVER (capitalized for emphasis, but not shouting) stated that, mainly because it implies the wrong independent and dependent variables (cause and effect) in this function. I did say, instead, that the area (the "effect") can be estimated as the weight divided by the pressure (these being the "causes"). Mathematically, these may be algebraicly interchangeable, but there's a whole lot of difference in their implications -- I never intended, nor wrote, that the pressure will change by altering, e.g., the area of the contact patch (not in the real world, anyway).