Talk:Huntsmen/@comment-25110963-20160511231655/@comment-25936766-20160512002903

Actually, let me just follow with that example, to explain what I truly meant to his overly-simplistic mind.

By what I said, if someone was talking about Hitler, and I disagreed with them and said so, I would be accusing them of being wrong on something. Like if he said "Hitler loved dogs, so dogs are evil" (PS: Hitler did in fact love dogs). Doesn't mean one must disagree on everything. People can agree and disagree in the same conversation.

Following it, during the argument, I would not request them to give evidence unless they do it first. Arguments first and only unless otherwise is requested.

That's all I meant. How could you not understand something so simple?

PS: I see AC posted something. I'll read it in a few mins.