Writing is always primarily of benefit to myself--and hence of any benefit to anyone else....would you cook a meal you wouldn't eat yourself but wish others did? Writing that is geared towards explicitly benefiting others (at the cost of not benefiting our own selves) is shallow, useless and fake.
My point is that your posts read like you have a chip on your shoulder and are working that out in your writing, and that comes through so strongly that it overwhelms any other message you may be trying to communicate. The original post, for instance, isn't off-putting because it's contrarian, but because it reads like the contrarianism is mainly in service of presenting yourself as cleverer than three well-regarded historical figures, plus the author of the article—which, even if that's true, who cares? That's what I meant by the post seeming like it was more for you than for anyone else.
You seemed surprised enough at the reaction to your original post that I thought you might like to know what about it probably "touched quite a few nerves", is all.
It certainly only appears like I am "self-promoting" but I was not aware of that until you pointed it out....Which, even so, I don't care whether someone cares or not about it.
There are a number of "well-regarded" figures in history--Columbus is one, the Americans even celebrate a day in his name--who should be condemned in fact...
My comment is of service to the intelligent reader and its main purport is: it's ok to find fault with the seemingly intelligent "well-regarded historical figures" if they do not match your objectively-finetuned assessment of what it means to be intelligent.
