I think the main issue is that you're putting things into the text that are not there. You're too concerned with being right instead of being valid. No one has said that the Night Lords as a whole are exactly like the Tenth Company. There simply isn't evidence to support that. There is evidence to support the idea that many other companies still feel a deep sense of pride in Curze and a connection to him and, by proxy, he ideals. That is supported by textual evidence. It could simply be that the whole legion is now a bunch of pirates, but they're nostalgic for the days when they felt a sense of purpose under Curze. We could never be certain either way, but it could be as minor as that. We're only certain that much of the Tenth Company feels that way, and other companies at least value seeing their gene-sire again.

Yours isn't an open interpretation. It's simply an interpretation that is different from ours, neither being more valuable than the other. Even then, your language seems to hint that you don't see our interpretation as valid at all. Would you say that is true?

I would say it's less valid then you seem to want to imply it is, not that it's completely invalid.

How would you qualify validity? I think you're conflating validity and being right from a textual perspective. We've made a claim and provided evidence. We can make an argument that is textually supported and logically sound based on the evidence we've compiled. From a rhetorical standpoint, it's pretty solid.

So, on what basis do you claim that it is only partially valid? And, how does the situation change now that we've acknowledged the validity of your perspective, despite disagreeing, but you have claimed that our perspective is only partially valid? You've continually posited that you're in some kind of disadvantaged position, but your viewpoint has been accepted as justified by pretty much everyone.

And I made a claim and provided textual evidence, from Index Astartes. I think my point is being argued from the idea that both points are valid, I think your point is being a rgued that one point is more valid then the other. Not necessarily by you, but by people arguing on the same side as you.

I've already stated quite clearly that your argument is perfectly valid. I have never stated that one was more valid than the other. I'd have to look back over things, but I believe I clearly said that neither of our arguments hold more validity in my view. I disagree with your version, but that doesn't make it less valid.

Again, you're the only person saying your argument is less valid from any perspective. I also believe everyone else has maintained a pretty neutral tone in terms of sticking to interpretive language and not claiming that one side has more weight. The pro-principled Night Lords argument has much more evidence in terms of volume, but it's from a very limited perspective. Your approach has less evidence, but it's a more neutral commentary on the Night Lords instead of a series of novels bent on illustrating certain aspects.

Overall, we simply disagree with you. You're the only one, aside from the one comment early in the discussion, who has made any legitimately negative portrayal of your or your argument. If you have difficulty with such discussion, you might want to avoid them in the future. I don't mean that as an insult, simply a suggestion since a lot of stress can happen if you equate validity with rightness. If you found enough evidence to completely destroy my view of the Night Lords, it wouldn't upset me as a person. Evidence is evidence.

This little quarrel is an accurate depiction of the legion spliting in 2. one group, a psychopathic murderer embodying the Night Haunter. the other holding on to Cruze's justice and purpose.

i see now Curze's schizophrenia is more towards twoface than batman.

I had the same thought. Night Lords definitely embody a dual nature. Curze was two people so his legion should be too.

how about primarch's Curze psyche is more towards Kurtz from J. Conrad books. A madman with a strict sense of justice, that had committed terrible things on the way to the greater goal, that tragically was never achieved.