I mean, even your statement was true, you don't have strong proof to say under this background, Xun must think like what you stated in proof 4and 5 , meaning your proofs themselves don't have interactions and your first 3 proofs have very few things to do to prove your point: .whether Xun really surport Han and why , if the answer to the first question is yes.

Second, when you got to proof 4 & 5 to prove Xun surport Han and even like to die for this belief, you didn't show any strong proof to prove he really thought like this. You made assumptions and git conclusion under them, but you failed, at least so far, to prove your assumptions first. ( you may think your first 3 statements about the background are enough to prove your assumptions, however, as I stated above, I don't think you really made that.)

Some other logic problems also exist in details you stated, but I think It's ok and no need to go through all if them, since this is not a thesis and you have done a great job alrueady. But, you may really like to think about those logic problems regarding to the construction of your article.

At the end, I have to say that I didn't mean to be impolite at all, and please don't take it personally. I just wanna point out why I cannot be persuaded by your statement. However, In fact your great job and your attitude deserve lots of praises.

P.S. I apologize for having no access to type Chinese right now.

Wait, why are you speaking English? Are you my friend Ker?
We don't know what exactly Xun was thinking – nobody does. All we have are his deeds - and my speculations are based on these deeds. Xun has worked towards Cao’s goal in the earlier years, but has firmly stood against him later. My theory is an attempt to rationalize these contradictions.
All theories are speculations. How could any Historian infallibly prove anything? That kind of perfection belongs to no social sciences or humanity. Only mathematicians focus on pure logic. I’m not a professional and my goal was not perfection. I only want it to be reasonable and logical.
In this sense, I don’t see why my arguments are illogical. I lay out the background to support the theory, and from records, we know that Xun believed in classical Confucianism. Given that, my deductions focus on what a Confucian would think under that circumstance. Now if there’s anything illogical, I’d be glad to know. Please give me a counterexample or point out the impossibility in my theory. But requiring me to definitively link the background and Xun’s thoughts is completely out of the reach of my knowledge and imagination. I believe no historian could claim to have done that.

So, the first problem is that you take these assumption as given, but people may even agree with these basis your later statement based on.

A wrong spelling above: disagree, instead of agree

Second. You said Xun was a Confucianism, I agree. Then you made another assumption that once he was a Confucianism, he must think like that, under the background you gave. The logical problems here are: 1, even you can price the background was like what you stated, you can not prove Xun also thought like this. He may think Han was not popular any more and Cao was righteous, from historical events you can not conclude this was absolutely not tire, although It may be wrong.

2, even Xun's opinions about the background was like yours, you still can not conclude he, as a Confucianism, must stand against Cao and even would like to die for doing this. Being a Confucianism is a possible reason, but I think you simplified the fact. He wad also an impotent politician, and he may be influenced by his political standing when he made decisions.

Third, when you tried to conclude the background of that period, I think you also made some logical problems. But they are detailed, so I did not mention. If you like, I will try to do so when I get access to type Chinese.

My earlier reply could answer these questions as well. But let me summarize it: when a mathematician proves anything correct, he has to prove it correct under any circumstance. When a historian proves something reasonable, he only need to show that it is reasonable under a (ya, I mean "one") reasonable circumstance. In this sense, a historian cannot be surely correct, because he has only limited means to probe into the past, and he has to rely on assumptions about "facts". Of course Xun doesn't "have to" think like this (or that), yet it is reasonable for him to think this way - that's all I need to prove, and that's all I want to prove. I don't need historical records to definitively support my theory. I only need it to NOT contradict it.
I'd be glad to hear about your opinion on the logical problems of the background. I hope they are constructive. BTW, Xun is a "impotent politician"? What do you mean by that?

刚才在上课（原谅我吧教授><），用的手机没有中文输入法，所以用了英文。现在可以了，就详细回应姑娘吧。一段一段来:)

原来是小绸呀~~我把你误认为了我某澳籍华人朋友，该朋友中文不大灵光，虽然能读能说，但论证事情总是换说英文~~失礼了~~

那个，我不得不很不礼貌地捂脸纠正一下姑娘，“小绸的陆离”中心词是“陆离”，就好像年年鸟的中心词是鸟。再次捂脸。
好我继续认真回