You're confusing the paragraph defining source code with clause 2b), which comes two paragraphs earlier:
" b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,"
The above is wholly sufficient to eliminate the paper copy loophole.
I told you originalism was bad exegetics. It promotes muddled thinking. Primarily, it encourages one to sublimate one's own views into the minds of historical personages and pretend there is no difference.
If you think the U.S. courts of law are bound, through either law or tradition, to treat RMS as an oracle, you are mistaken. They are entirely within their discretion to accept him as an expert on the intended meaning of the GNU GPL--or not--and to give his pronouncements as little or as much weight as they please.