Ad hominem only applies if you have no rebuttal otherwise, when you include a personal jab in with a well thought out response, this is known as a "burn".

You do realize that XP increases progressively? As in, each new level takes more to reach than the last? Because if you did, you would realize that your level loss continues to go down as you increase in level, and particularly so after 99. To simplify; if you are level 90 in a skill, you will lose fewer levels than if you are level 80.

I'm talking strictly in terms of loss, not in terms of what it would take to gain it back. You seem to miss out on this nuance, which is strange considering you're well educated enough to know the phrase "ad hominem" (though you used it incorrectly).

In terms of attack having more utility, I will reiterate what I said before; until a very high attack is reached (70+), you don't need any strength to wield the melee weapons. Granted, at this point you will need to start training str to increase damage, but its far better to be able to wield the highest level standard weapons (swords, maces, scimitars) and hit relatively low numbers for that weapon, than it would be to hit the highest damage possible with low level weapons because of high strength but low attack.

Your argument fails spectacularly at this point "it is only better to protect it if it is higher than your strength". By assuming that attack is already higher, you have based your argument on a conclusion, not a premise (circular reasoning), and more over, one which is contradictory to your argument. If someone has already trained attack to a higher level than strength, it would be obvious that they believe it to be of higher value.

You have failed utterly at applying and utilizing logic, and your strategy is improper for the mode which we are discussing. Good day sir.