I'm sure they would ignore it like how the Department of Defense ignored your other letter
I never wrote to the DoD. I wrote to Lawrence Livermore, and it wasn't a letter. Get your facts straight or don't bother trying to come off as witty.
By the way, I believe your sarcasm detector is broken. The only international body this forum is recommendable to is the World Court for high probability of future war crimes.
And, since I'm feeling nice and hostile now:
I'll be happy to take up the point with you Symphony, however, our debate won't change either of our opinions, and will spam a thread.
Alright, lets go then.
Name me a single example of a country that has won reality. There aren't any. So "winning" isn't a real phenomenon. Countries don't "play to win" they "play to survive and be strong." Maybe you equate those things, but I'd say they're rather quite different. Nobody sets out to lose because it makes for an interesting story in real life. Nations, whatever stage they're in, try and succeed. They fail because their attempts are misguided, poorly executed, stopped, and so on. So unless you want to set a benchmark of "win" as "attempt to succeed," the argument bears no weight. I don't think most players set out to lose in their mimicking of geopolitics either. They set out to do as best they can, or maybe to have fun--usually synonymous. So again, unless you want to label "achieving better circumstances" as "playing to win," I say few people do it.
You want to disprove it? Name some names. The "play to win" argument is always very snide and disapproving of certain hitherto unnamed people, and I frankly think it's a bunch of snobby crap in that capacity by those who think they're better. So name me some incidents already. I've been waiting two years to hear actual cases.
Name me a single example of a country in a NES which has "won" other than being handed some pointless little award by the Moderator. You can't. Why? Because the proponents of the "play to win" theory have, as pointed out earlier, never defined what winning
is. Don't you dare pull a Bill Clinton on me right now either. "Win" is nothing but subjective and relative to a given player
unless it is that stupid little award. Your camp has never, not once, not a
single damn time, defined an alternate definition for "win." I have asked for it at least a dozen times. Yet somehow I've never gotten it. So I am forced to assume the above.
So if the only really acceptable definition of "playing to win" is "playing to get the moderator's 'u r teh weenar!11' comment at the end of the game" I can say rather quite definitively that an exceptionally small number of people ever bother to try and do that. And I still defy you to display the chutzpah to name their names.
Any other definition of "win" in that construction is equating "win" with "succeed" which is just a loving stupid argument since that's what everyone wants to do. So unless you can make a case on the above, or somehow outflank me right now with some superb argument,
I hold that the "play to win" argument is completely ********, because it either describes what is a basic function of all carbon-based lifeforms, or a number of incidents which could be counted on a single hand, if that.
Which one is it? I don't guess it really matters, because neither case deserves such the scale of adherence and derision displayed by its proponents over such a duration of time as this stupid argument has enjoyed.
I will shut up about it now 
