[Harold Saxon]

History is pretty much semantics, yes.

Incorrect. History is the study of the human past, specifically sequential analysis and cause-and-effect determinant analysis. Rarely should it devolve into petty semantic arguments.

I'm not the one denying that the IR is an epistemological invention,

I have not denied that, though I will concede that I partially misunderstood what you had meant by "epistemological concept" at first, hence my immediate response. Rather, I stated that it is as much so as any era, and should not be singled out. Analyzing it in context to other eras is of great historical importance - indeed, it is essential.

suggesting that the IR 'implemented this' and 'advanced that'.

Semantics. The subtext was that these things were implemented and advanced during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution not being a person, I obviously don't believe that it magically invented these things.

[MB.]

Incorrect. History is the study of the human past, specifically sequential analysis and cause-and-effect determinant analysis. Rarely should it devolve into petty semantic arguments.

There is nothing petty or devolutionary about semantic discourse in historical study. Are you a positivist?

I have not denied that [the IR is an epistemological device]. Rather, I stated that it is as much so as any era, and should not be singled out.

[the IR] is no more an epistemological device than the Renaissance or Enlightenment.

All of these epistemologies should be 'singled out' and studied as you just acknowledged:

Analyzing it in context to other eras is of great historical importance - indeed, it is essential.

So it seems that you're actively contradicting yourself now.

The subtext was that these things were implemented and advanced during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution not being a person, I obviously don't believe that it magically invented these things.

You should stop using those words if you want to be taken seriously as a historian. You claim that you 'obviously' don't consider the IR a historical agent but from reading your posts and the language you have been using that you indeed consider the IR an agent or force is the only conclusion I am able to arrive at.

[Harold Saxon]

There is nothing petty or devolutionary about semantic discourse in historical study. Are you a positivist?

I am not a positivist, but everything about semantic discourse is petty (with an exception, of course, for the field of linguistics). Argumentation over mere definitions, wording, and phrasing gets one nowhere, as language is constantly in flux. No individual person holds the same exact definitions as another individual person, or uses language in the same manner as another person.

All of these epistemologies should be 'singled out' and studied as you just acknowledged:

Studying them is not singling them out. They must be considered in relation to other eras, for eras are not static things.

So it seems that you're actively contradicting yourself now.

Patently untrue. I have repeatedly stressed that eras cannot be viewed as closed or static. Rather, they are fluid and exist only in relation to other eras. There is no clearly-defined split between the Renaissance and the beginning of the Early Modern era, for instance. In fact, I have no idea as to how you would even begin to think that I have contradicted myself. Nothing I have said indicates anything other than a belief in the fluidity of eras and their usefulness only as narrative tools.

You should stop using those words if you want to be taken seriously as a historian. You claim that you 'obviously' don't consider the IR a historical agent but from reading your posts and the language you have been using that you indeed consider the IR an agent or force is the only conclusion I am able to arrive at.

As I have said, that is purely a semantic and subjective argument. Surely you recognize that language usage is not always literal in nature? Take, for example, "the Industrial Revolution's advancements." Does this imply a literal belief that a person named Industrial Revolution invented things? No, of course not. Rather, it is externalization, referring in a different manner to the advancements that took place during the era commonly known as "the Industrial Revolution."