The answer provided by this poster, dated from 2014 (and last edited in 2015) is based on evidence provided by citing Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls that was then interpreted to say that what the OP was trying to do was not possible.
The issue is that in 2016, directly addressing exactly the subject that OP was dealing with, Crawford issued a ruling that directly contradicted the rulings that this answer had inferred from context clues. As a result, the top result that shows up in Google searches for this topic, and thus the result that represents this site's opinion on the subject, directly contradicts the official ruling and the rules that players are expected to follow. In essence, that answer is providing false information to players who find it.
What's the appropriate way to handle this? I don't want to punish the person who wrote that answer: they answered it as best as they could given the information that was available at the time, it's not their fault that newer information contradicted them. But conversely, the top result for this query for our site is providing false information. That seems like something that should be fixed.