I do find it contradictory that the Japanese rules (territory scoring) are rooted in the objective to control territory whereas Chinese rules (area scoring) originate from the spirit of capturing your opponent and creating a stronger fighting position.

Though I can't remember who it was, someone when I first began playing Go mentioned something about the difference in the "Chinese framework game" vs the "Japanese style of attack and defense." I remember that these two ideas made perfect sense to me and since then, I've always recognized the structure of my games as being more one way or the other. I personally prefer the "Japanese style" which involves a lot of intricate, contact fighting and usually involves a lot of dead stones from both sides. Compare this to a "Chinese approach" where players emphasize creating safe structures and often build large moyos in an attempt to take more open territory. It may or may not be accurate to credit these countries with the different approaches, especially since I've never done extensive research on professional games from said countries in order to contrast. I do find it contradictory that the Japanese rules (territory scoring) are rooted in the objective to control territory whereas Chinese rules (area scoring) originate from the spirit of capturing your opponent and creating a stronger fighting position.

I don't find this to be true at all. The type of scoring doesn't have anything to do with one's style of play.

where as area scoring is about getting your stones on the board and your opponents off.

No it isn't.
Its also about surrounding territory. It just counted differently (algebraically its exactly the same).

If you can't understand what I'm saying than just disregard the point altogether. ... But you are in fact wrong

Here's a mindblower (was for me): the objective of the game can be summed up as "the winner is the one to capture the most stones." believe it...

Well, I'd really like to understand what you're saying, because then I could help correct where I believe *you're* wrong

Higher level players are probably laughing at us both right now

This isn't true at all -- many times, players never capture any stones at all.
The objective of the game is to control more area of the board (territory + stones) than your opponent. Which, in a way, can be summarized as "the one with the most stones on the board wins" (which is almost like the opposite of your summary). We're sorta saying the same thing differently, but there's a subtle but important difference, I believe.

The game is never about capturing. Capturing is the least efficient method to gain control of the board.

No doubt, we could find plenty of example games where the one with the most captures, actually lost the game. (probably more so in the lower ranks).

You can't tell me this is a "inferior" way to think because you are no Go master (nor is anyone living, imo).

Just to clarify, do you mean that you are not willing to learn from other people since they are not perfect?

You must bifurcate the scoring method used from the actual rules of game play.

You can play the same game of Go that you know and love simply by stating three things: The liberty rule(s), the ko rule and the basic objective of capture the most stones to win so long as you mention that passing is illegal.

What your suggesting is true: that many, many strong players have throughout the ages demonstrated that the most effective way to build a stronger position than your opponent is to place emphesis on un-played areas of the board in attempt to make use of them later.... But I'm still not convinced. I often have games, depending on how my opponent plays, where I don't make a single move with the intention of making territory directly. Rather, my moves are aimed at challenging the infrastructure being developed by my opponent and granting limited mobility. You can't tell me this is a "inferior" way to think ...[(unintended) insult deleted].

(during that period that never gets played out because of the scoring method used which allows players to agree on the result long before the game has ended)

Ok, I think I see what's going on here... I think you're confusing strategy (method) with objective (goal)

These aren't the same at all. You can aim at attacking without trying to take territory, as a strategy, but that doesn't change the overall goal (objective), of trying to control a larger sphere of influence on the board.

I think your suggested strategy is a perfectly fine one. Its just not the main objective of the game.

(during that period that never gets played out because of the scoring method used which allows players to agree on the result long before the game has ended)

the scoring method has no bearing on whether or not surrounded stones should be played out to capture or not.

Remember though that using a scoring method is simply another strategy

On the contrary, I'm claiming that the statement "Go is about making territory" is subjective.

It is not subjective. Objectively, at the end of the game, whoever has the most territory wins. There are many *strategies* for achieving this