sentence

If I read this post of yours 10 years ago, I would agree [to] only half of it. Not that I [would mean/meant] to disagree with you but believe it or not, cultural differences are huge.

3 questions:

1. I believe 'to' is needed, am I right?

2. Which choice is correct, would mean or meant?

3. Are there any mistakes?

Thanks in advance!

I think you're right. For some reason, my heart prefers the present tense(unreal)? I know it contradicts with "10 years ago"

It would be fine if without a time in the past, for example,

If I read my daugther's diary, I would intrude her privacy.

Let's say my daughter is 8 years old.

If I'd read my daugther's diary 10 years ago, I would have intruded her privacy

This doesn't make sense to me at all. One thing is she wasn't born ten years ago. Another is I don't see why we want to mention it in the past. Is this not a good example to compare with what I have orginally.?

I've finally figured out why my heart prefers the second conditional to the third. The post didn't exist before today! so how can you read something that did not exist before now?

To me, it sounds like

If I had shaken Bill Clinton's hand 1000 years ago, ...

He wasn't even born at that time.

On contrary, the following is fine with me:

If I had kissed her five years ago, she would have been my wife. (referring to a high school girlfriend)

She was physically available for me to kiss her five years ago but I didn't kiss her.

I agree with you. Thanks Tanit and Yankee. Now, it all makes sense. I think I'm too tired to think. I've done enough damage. I'd better turn in now and when I get up, I'll reread these posts again. Hopefully they will still make sense. Good night! Thanks again!