As humans, when we want to do something that to us makes perfect sense, and due to the fact we are inherently biased towards desires, it affects how we read things.
In the rules, it states how you can take control of an allies territory. That fact that I read it as “a way” you can take it, and not “the only way you can take it” is either a logical misread, a legitimate interpretation, or according to you it seems, an assinine take on the rules. Before I put up this post, I looked for clarifications within the rules, and misread the Dutch East Indies. As I pointed out earlier, which I hoped I did clearly, the “exception” label in that rule clearly shows it is in fact an exception, making my take that it could be possibly allowed wrong. And that clarification is what I was thankful for.
Lastly, to a degree, in these kind of forums, playful banter, reasonable put downs regarding others use of thier logic can be enteraining to a degree. But I expect that those who are official moderaters refrain from structuring thier sentences in a manner that could make those asking a question or promoting a point of view from feeling unintelligent. Kriegmund, even though I kind of shoot back in the same manner, considering you are someone I am acutally going to rely on to help clarify rules, I guess I don’t feel comfortable with that kind of back and forth banter with you.
I have seen some other posts by official moderators who have that kind of back and forth banter with those pushing ideas or arguing a point of view regarding the rules, and it turns into extreme statements that restate the other persons ideas into ludicrous thoughts.
I hope I am not being overly sensitive, but I just realized that if I have an idea that is wrong, or have seriously misread something, you are someone I would rely on to take the time to explain the rules, its proper widely excepted interpretation, and maybe even the pages where the interpretation comes from.