Perhaps your too simple minded then.... His assertion that while you go through this transition you will have less troops is undoubtedly true and your defense of said statement is moronic yes. However how you interpret the facts is not contingent on the facts themselves.
Making a dishonest argument for legitimate reasons imo is wrong. Even if I agreed with you 100% on the direction that Cats is headed I would not so blatantly abuse facts as you do. And would still point out your error in judgment. You guys can most certainly use this situation to make Cats stronger than it has ever been or it can kill you. My disagreement with your stupid assertion does not mean I lean one way or the other. Nor could any logical extrapolation of my posts lead to such a conclusion. So no I have not contradicted myself in anyway.
Edit:
I find it sad you have to use the attack that I am "flaming" you, such is normally the case of an intlectually weak argument. Though given your argument so far, you do have an intellectually weak argument. Mind you since you seem unable to grasp this concept your inability to come up with a good explanation as to why the opposition is wrong is in no way an endorsement of the opposition.
It was a simple confusion between you two. I apologized for it. I don't know why you then followed up by claiming I'm "simple minded," "moronic," "abusing the facts," and "intellectually weak."
I plainly stated that Adzdev had a good argument. I then pointed out that it doesn't apply to our situation.
Now I find myself unsure of what you mean when you are saying that I have a weak argument, and that I'm being dishonest. I have no reason to lie at all. If I did, it would only weaken my position and cast a bad light on my tribe.
I'll state my argument in the plainest way I can come up with. Hopefully that'll clear up any confusion.
Adzdev said that we are losing troops on two accounts. We lose the troops in the accounts that go inactive, and that we lose troops in our own accounts in clearing those inactive villages.
Both points are void, because we usually managed to acquire the sitting (Herman and Slacker being the exceptions since they purposely deleted to spite us). That way we can clear the villages out and noble them without losing troops. So that voids one of Adzdev's points. We don't use up our own troops nobling the inactive villages.
However that still leaves the inactive accounts troops being lost, right? Again, we found a solution to that.
We look around for a target we'd normally hit. So for this, let's use myself, MK (who we all know has quit by this point), and Adzdev (just to please my childish sense of humor).
Ok, so say I wish to clear and noble one of Adzdev's villages. Normally I'd have to launch from one of my villages to Adzdev's. Instead, I have a sitter in our tribe send an attack from one of MK's villages, and I can follow it with a noble train. So now we've used troops from an inactive account on a target that we normally would have had to use our own troops on. So now we've cleared out the inactive village while still putting the troops to use rather than just moving them out and wasting.
So now I'm hoping you can clarify your position as I have no idea about how Adzdev's argument applies to us or to how I'm being dishonest in my argument.
