I'll make the same comment, Jim. In fact I am making the same comments on Raggy's other thread (as yet incomplete, I wanted a break from writing it, lo & behold, I find this instead, oh geeeez… :-/ ). You are often intemperate & aggressive, just as much as those you so vehemently oppose. Uncomfortable? Oh, yes. Do you never stop to consider how uncomfortable you make the 'arguments' (your word) for those who would simply like to discuss, and maybe learn something from others?

You, just as much as those you argue with, make such discussions more flame & heat than light. Unlike some of those you flame, you are certainly capable of better. But you don't do it. Your bias is bloody obvious. The the period between the beginning of the 20th century and the end of WW1 was one of mass slaughter - all related directly to profiteering and Imperial expansion. - rubbish! And I will quite happily (& civilly) debate the matter with you. I doubt I'll change your mind, but it'll be a fun debate, and maybe others, like Raggy, might learn about a period they don't much about.

It's not a question of "setting bounds"; it's knowing that default bounds are there & deciding whether or not it's a good idea to step beyond them. I certainly will step beyond bounds if I feel it's justified. You often leave me with the impression that you've no idea that there are bounds, or that you don't care & think that anything you choose to say, by definition, is 'relevant' however you decide to say it. You know I'm not trying to slate you, Jim, but something to think about, maybe?

Why should Raggy have felt the need to start another thread to persuade you to leave his other one alone? There's another something you really should think about.