I said you don't know much history and you argue for the sake of arguing.

I beat you too it. I said years ago that I know little about the subject in hand. I do not believe I argue for the sake of arguing but, even if it was so, I do not believe there is anything wrong with that. However, my arguments have consistently been ones that challenge the rigid assertions made by some people and, so far, I have managed to get at least one to dilute their statements. I consider that a win/win situation.