Brendan and I don't always see eye to eye by any means, but I agree with him on this, too. And you are continuing to metaphorically bang your desk -- in my opinion, of course -- by insisting how powerful and rational your argument is and by invoking your quite impressive academic credentials as, apparently, some sort of defense against an argument you yourself said was no good, then indulging in the mind-reading exercise of gauging the relative fatigue of whoever might be reading this in the forum that, yes, we all remember you own.
It is, of course, your right to see the inclusion of the Lion quotes in the Wikipedia article as making Bix look like a pervert. It is not logical, though, for you to insist that "the authors of that section in the Wikipedia article made the deliberate decision to make Bix look like a pervert."
If the reading of Bix's mind, as you put it, is "psychological claptrap," then so, too, is reading Brendan's to determine his motives for including those quotes while ignoring his cogent arguments for doing so.
Thanks for the discussion, Albert, and for the welcome back.