Actually towards the end he points out what everybody else has missed. You are not trying to convince the anti hunt forum, you are trying to keep the people in the middle who are of no fixed opinion to either stay that way or to come over to your side.
Too simple examples.
I go out to kill animals,
Or
I remove the animals that eat the food that people want to eat.
How about;
Your a txxt and don't know what your talking about
Compared to
I disagree with your opinion.
Lastly.
English soldiers have invaded Afganistan
Or
English Soldiers have gone to Afganistan to assist the government keep the peace.
Those are very simplistic statements and of course the subject is very complex. But the way these sentences are perceived by the less informed makes all the difference. All you have to do is look at things like face book. Statements come out from organisations designed to inflame a situation but it is the way that they are said, leaving out specific information often designed to get loads of people to cry foul.
Lastly consider the statements.
Thousands of animals needlessly slaughtered for sport.
Or
Farmers assisted in their efforts to feed burgeoning population growth with the assistance of sporting organisations.
Which knocks your hobby and which supports it? It is all in a word and how a journalist puts a slant on it.
And that is why I believe he is right. Comments such as "they can go and jog" are presumably designed to make the thread more interesting or put it another way, just bloody stupid.
.it is all in how you phrase it.
I didn't insult him in public, I too think that's wrong, you don't do your washing in public. I did however happen to mention my dislike of them later, that was enough to put me on the hit list. 
