'Nothing in any way "aggressive" about Nigel"s completely innocuous first sentence, M - which I wouldn't be sure would be equally true of that comment.'
.,,.
Well, if not exactly 'aggressive', Kevin, it was surely peculiarly otiose. By citing Wikipedia, I was clearly not calling on it as the primary authority chronologically; so what was the point of Nigel's pointing out that the usage under consideration was older than its being defined in Wikipedia? Of course it was ~~ & who had suggested otherwise? So why make the point at all? If not intended contentiously, how was it intended?

~M~