gwern, I was under the impression that this is a rationalist site, dedicated to the idea that people are fallible creatures, and should not act with the conviction that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I have done more than my fair share to resolve this misunderstanding. I have politely asked for clarification. I have even gone to the trouble of asking a third party to read the posts, and this third party agrees that the sentence "Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies' long-term goals." is confusing. Now, the question is: are you willing to act like an adult, or are you going to just have a temper tantrum because someone doesn't understand you? Are you willing to go to the same effort that I have, and get your own third party (fourth party, I suppose) to read the sentence, and see whether they understand it? There are all sorts of ambiguities in your sentence, such as whether it is intended to be parsed as "(the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA) which meant the threats were bluffs" or "the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking (it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs)". Note that the latter is grammatically incorrect, in that the "which" should be a "that". And no, it's not being a Grammar Nazi to point out grammatical errors that affect readability. If you can't have a calm, rational, and civil conversation about this, then I can only conclude that it you are not a rationalist.