> Of course my point was that they shouldn't be used in isolation - re-read my original comment, which states: "Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he

> Of course my point was that they shouldn't be used in isolation - re-read my original comment, which states: "Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he is wrong." Those responses are evidence for why it may be wrong. But in isolation they are needlessly terse. Lack of evidence is not the problem, lack of accompanying explanation of why they are evidence, and how they apply, is. > Though had I known you'd nitpick, I would have said: "Furnish evidence or a solid argument for why he is wrong in addition to it." And then it would be much clearer, not because I'm nitpicking, but because it's ambiguous otherwise, and open to the interpretation I came to. Since that's not what you intended, it's better to eliminate that misinterpretation. The bottom line is that clarity is not a matter of intent, but of interpretation by others. At least one person (me) thought you were unclear, and I suspect others did as well. You can complain that they are nitpicking, or accept that you were misinterpreted, and expressing yourself differently might have avoided the problem. Only you can control that, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to blame other people if they aren't being purposefully obtuse (and I promise I'm not).