How many of you would have more fun without sky cancer? UPDATED No arty game...

The_Chieftain:   My lords and ladies, I would submit to the Honourable Member that perchance he should deign to read some of my other postings on this matter in order to ascertain some modicum of understanding of my personal opinion of the subject at hand, namely the function and effect of artillery. I believe the Honourable Member will even find that I have touched upon this opinion on this very august thread amongst others, and there are but nine pages to review, should he devote his attentions to doing so instead of applying himself to the functionality of the font size adjustment system.   However, speaking less like a politician, I don't really care if you lost your mother to cancer and aren't offended by the term. I don't much feel like expressing to the world how my family members have died, my own opinion on the offensiveness or not, I'm keeping to myself. (Though I have in the past expressed an opinion that offense should only be taken if it was intended; I am also not known for being particularly sensitive). Some people (see http://forum.worldof...7#entry8105947 , for an example), have also been touched by cancer and -do- seem to take some offense at the usage of the term. It seems it can be a bit of a touchy subject. If you, who lost your mother to cancer, wish to argue whether or not it is reasonable to be offended by the usage of the term to the other chap who lost his wife to cancer, and apparently disagree with, go ahead and argue it out by PM. It's not relevant to me, beyond my opinion that it makes the running of the forum a bit more twitchy. More importantly, however, it's un-necessary. If you don't like artillery, well and good. Getting on the epithet bandwagon achieves no rational goal, and is merely an appeal to emotion, coming at the risk of (as another member PMd me this morning), adding toxicity to the community. It does nothing good, doesn't strengthen an argument, doesn't add to discussion, and comes at the risks of needlessly irking others, and in my opinion, undermining the user's standing. So why do it?   

The_Chieftain:   It is a pity that your team was not as effective at removing the enemy's support as their team apparently was at removing yours. I'm sure the Tier 9s, who doubtless rejoiced in their team's victory, were particularly happy that the various sacrifices which apparently had been made by their team to result in the state of affairs which presented, allowed their team to win as a result. Obviously from your description it is impossible to determine quite how you ended up in that position, but if you were indeed in an apparently advantageous position, is it possible that this obtained by the sacrifices made by yet others on the enemy team who apparently protected their support? Or by a single focus of your team on the direct fire battle and ignoring of the enemy's indirect support? Regardless of how well you, as an individual, had played, would you be willing to conceed the possibility, nay, probability, that your -team- deserved to lose, and the result was merely that which your team deserved?