We get Rickless' interpretation by beginning with a statement of the TMA such as in Annas' elegant paragraph, quoted in an earlier post, and then adding some additional claims, which I include in italics:
When we consider a number of large things, we notice that they all share a common feature, that of being large, and we take this to be the form; the form is the one item in virtue of which all the large things are large. But then we go on to consider a second group of large things: the original large things and the form itself. And now it seems that they share a common feature, requiring a form in turn to be the one item in virtue of which they are all large. But once introduced, this line of thought leads to the conclusion that if we have even one form, we have infinitely many (30). But each form in this infinite series is large; it therefore participates in every form above it. But anything that participates in many forms is therefore itself many; and any form that participates in an infinity of forms is infinite in number. So each form in this infinite sequence is infinite in number. Thus, each form of large, which is one, is infinite. ("Each of your forms will no longer be one, but unlimited in multitude.”) This is a contradiction, because whatever is infinite is not one.
The interpretation gets a conclusion that seems to coincide very closely with the stated conclusion of the TMA. But, again, what do we say about this? I have my concerns. What are yours?