umm.... ok, I'll go over your breakdown set by set

Reset 1: war with laf -- obvious, needs no explanation, we agre there

Reset 2: You didn't offensively hit anyone, you helped an ally which does not go against my theory. TIE hitting Collab (while they were netting, I think) may have been fighter vs netter.... depending on how you classify either alliance, I think that war could go either way.

Reset 3: Carryover from the previous war, I'll give you a point for that I guess since it does have somewhat of a reason and the fist isn't a PURE netting alliance, although they are closer than many.

Reset 4: Carry over from the previous set -- and LCN made it clear that they were only FS'ing imag because imag was going to FS LCN. It was no secret that imag was planning to hit LCN the next round. This would be a wash, but it would be a "point for me" if LCN hadn't had the foresight to see that imag was going to continue this war.

Reset 5: you defended an ally again -- that's not part of my argument

So I think overall, you are trying to change the conversation. My argument is, and always has been, that fighters are not willing to challenge fighters to the kind of wars they used to, and instead bring war to netters. Your comments above show that clearly iMag has not pre-emptively FS'ed a war alliance at all in EE, but they did FS a netter. So I think that is 1 points for my theory, 0 against it.... maybe 1 against, depending on how you consider it.

You're also only looking at EE, where as I was talking about the general trend that started with the end of the SLIT vs RAGE wars, which were the last real "coalition" wars that weren't netter vs fighter. I don't see a single time that iMag has FS'ed or been FS'ed by a war alliance (ie both alliances are NOT at war, and the war begins when one alliance FS's another. All of your counter-points involved other alliances, maybe of which fall in line wit my argument of the fighter vs netter plight)


So in closing, I don't think you're actually attacking my argument, you're trying to create a different one -- that imag doesn't always blindside netting alliances, which I think is fair. I have never made that assertion. But they certainly don't go after fighting alliances when they have to make a choice of who to fight.

My core argument is that fighters are not hitting other fighters when they 'need a war' or are 'looking for a war'. They pact them and leave netters open to hit. Look at imag's wars you posted -- the catalyst which started all of them (whether it be the same set of the previous one, and regardless of whether imag was involved in the start of the war) is a fighter attacking a netter, possibly while netting.

Your signature is becoming more accurate the more you post on these threads :p