No, I did not purposefully misinterpret you. I interpreted what you wrote in a logical way based on how you wrote it:
"The female models are really not my taste, very unattractive in my opinion, they look Indians or gipsies (gipsies have originally moved from India)."
You wrote this in one sentence, and it is pretty logical to assume that the last clause of the sentence is to be interpreted as connected to the first two clauses. In other words, your claim that the female models look like Indian or Roma seems in this sentence to be connected to the two former clauses where you state that the models are not in your taste and unattractive in your opinion.
Therefore, it is not my interpretation that is wrong. Rather, given the explanation given by you, it is the way you write that was faulty. However, since in your response you show a somewhat higher capability in constructing sentences, I can only assume that your previous entry was a temporary lapse.
You then move on trying to attribute to me what you think was attributed to you:
"If you think all Indians girls look like that, maybe you have a strong racist bias towards Indians and you should look for them on Google. If you think all Indians look the same, that is really racist"
Of course, nowhere in my post am I making any claim of any sort about the looks of Indian girls. I guess one could spend time trying to pinpoint where in the taxonomies of argumentative fallacies or psychological defense mechanisms your reasoning would be most at home, but I'll refrain, since I feel comfortable most reasonable readers will be able recognize the obvious for themselves.
At least you finally managed to make clear that your feelings about these individual CGI models was not meant to be interpreted as about Indian or Roma girls.
