RE: mauls

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

I am _not_ being argumentative.    ;-)

Well, okay, perhaps a little, but my continuation of the post was not
_just_ for argument's sake.  If Wright had left out that last statement
regarding the maul's usage (or lack thereof) on the battlefield, I would
not have had any issue.  As I said, I am now fine with the damage for
a maul being d8.  However, I was under the impression that we, as a
group, would try to stop the tossing out of outlandish remarks (and that
one was clearly outlandish).  My post was in opposition to that remark,
nothing else.  Sorry, Wright, if I didn't spatter my original most with
many smiley's so that it was obvious that I was being (or, at least,
trying to be) light-hearted.  Too early in the morning, I suppose.

Also, I thought that we had decided that the list was here for discussing
our various opinions on the topics at hand.  If all my posts are to be seen
as argumentative just because I happen to disagree with the way another
is interpreting something, I wonder at just how open-minded we really are.

Hmmm?

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Preston Wiley [SMTP: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.    ;-)
> 
>  
> 
>