RE: mauls

[Preston Wiley <quotha@laf.cioe.com>]

I think we are using two different definitions of 'battle' here.

I think Wright is using the definition meaning 'a hostile meeting of
opposing military forces in the course of a war' where Lyle is using the
definition meaning 'an open clash between two opposing groups (or
individuals).' I don't understand why we have to argue about everything
everyone says. I am pretty sure that Lyle knew what Wright meant in his
statement and his post was just for arguements sake. If you have something
useful to say, say it. We don't need to hear about our little spelling
errors or the fact that there may be two definitions of a word and you
want to use a different definition then the one another person is talking
about. There is enough useful mail on this list that we don't need to
clutter it with pointless arguing. Obviously, if a maul was not used at
all to fight anyone ever, there would be no point in even giving it a
damage value.

				-Preston



> So, you agree, then, that at least with regard to the peasants (i.e., the
> conscripted troops of the middle ages), mauls _did_, in fact, see "battlefield
> use out side of the movie Braveheart."  That's all I was getting at, Wright.
> Don't get your bowels in an uproar.  As I said, I can deal with the damage
> you specified for the maul, I just couldn't deal with your crazy statement
> that mauls were _never_ actually used in battle.  I believe your very words
> in fact support my refuting comments. Thank you.    ;-)
> 
>  
> 
>