I'm not dismissing his statement but it's just lacking
First, he stated the "timeline theory" where the newer the uni, the better the uni so I pointed out his reasoning
Secondly, the reason why I stated that they have a "long history" is because they are renowned for having a great specialised course for many many years up till now
Thirdly, about uni of Bologna, several factors are key (other than history/time) to make a uni "the best". It's my fault for not completing the statement "a long history of teaching finance, economics, law, etc. (their specialised courses)". But no writer would be able to say "uni of Bologna has a long history of teaching THESE COURSES" because there's nothing to "boast/glorify" about as of now. I'll rather say "uni of Bologna has a long history of culture??" if i wanna force fit "long history" into a sentence
In conclusion, I got downvoted to hell because I didn't complete my original comment thus, him replying with that "shallow" comment and me replying with that "angry" comment.
Again it's my fault for not completing the sentence. And point out anything if my logic is wrong (we're all here to learn by interaction). On the surface OP does make but when you dig deep, maybe not
Cheers