Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

One of the reasons I chose to get a degree in ancient history was the basic lack
of easy documentation. this allows for interpitation by the author. As a
consumer you evavaluate the merits of the arguments and choose weather or not
to buy the book. In any game system there are assumption made, it can't be
avoided. This particular argument like most about ancient history is one of
personal views and faith in sources that are dubious at best. Its the agnostics
creed, I don't know and you don't know either.
Terry

[Chris Bump]

I agree. This is my theory. I cannot prove it, but you cannot disprove it.
Discussion ends there. Discussion gets more involved when one side says I have
done in depth research and it backs this position. Says someone else, really
what sources? None offered. Frustration.
Chris
>
> From: "Terry Dix" <notalent@...>
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 09:50:33 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well.

I'm new to classical warfare, and no expert.

On the other hand, I'm paid pretty well to write and speak on 17th
and 18th Century warfare, and I suspect I have the largest collection of
period manuals of anyone on this list...

Not a brag. Just trying to establish a little credibility for
those who don't know me.

Further, I run a fairly big reenactment group and routinely hold
commands above my unit, so I have a pretty wide experience of commanding
300-1000 reenactors in 18th C. kit.

Finally, I don't believe, as an historian, in "progress." I'm open
to good arguements about the evolution of human thought, but I'm not at
all convinced that 18th C. armies were any better drilled than Classical
armies. In fact, as a digression, I think a good argement could be made
that the relative hardships of life, which do change from civilization
to civilization, may tend to make soldiers from comfortable backgrounds
more likely to panic and dissolve in adversity, but that's (almost)
another subject.

Pertinent to this one; I've done a good deal of marching with an
18 foot pike. The late 17th century manuals (most of which assume a 16
or even 12 foot pike, I grant) assume that a pikeman can perform every
evolution that a musketeer does. And, in fact, they can. The 17th
Century manual contained in Munroe's autobiography states that the pikes
must be 'erected' between movements. Jokes aside, I see nothing
stopping the owner of a Sarrissa from erecting his pike, facing in any
direction, and facing.

In the 18th C., armies went through an evolution not entirely
dissimiliar from what I see in the 4th C.; things got faster and
lighter, and tactics more fluid. Up until that time, most soldiers and
msot manuals advocated wheeling by various subdivisions as a method of
changeing front. And frankly, and I say this from experience, that's
what we MUST be replicating in Warrior, at least at times. Cavalry does
not easily "face." Almost all bodies changeing front tend to do it by
sub-unit increments wheeling. For example, a close order unit of 6E (2
deep) that faces (only; I'm not talking about the rules, but some gray
area between real life and rules) is now ten men wide and many, many men
deep. The only way it can be an element wide at the end of the facing
is by either wheeling sub-divisions and reforming to a new front, or by
facing and moving incremental sub-divisions up by inclining to form a
new front. Which, by example, NO ONE did in the 18th C.

The 1764 manual offers a number of elegant, and workable, solutions to
change front. Howe's LI manual of 1772 offers yet more. Any change of
front intended to result in a "combat frontage" to the new direction
requires some wheeling by someone at some point. It is possible (and
reenactors all too frequently do this to cut corners) to face the whole
line and march away, but if that "column" had to fight to its front, it
would be chaotic, because, as Chris points out, all of the officers and
seargents and file openers and closers are in the wrong places. I do
this every weekend all summer long; I know whereof I speak.

But Chris, that I agree only strengthens the opposite arguement.
That is to say, if the 18th C. British army could only change direction
by a series of wheels and inclines (in combat) does not deny the fact
that they were quite expert at changeing such directions very quickly.
For example; I can take a line of battalions in close order and "face"
it 180 degrees in about 40 seconds, without clubbing my subdivisions
(that is, in modern parlance, without putting all the officers and NCOs
in the wrong place). Given 2 minutes, I can accomplish the same thing
and keep EVERY man in the same relative position. Turning to flanks is
even easier. But faceing, the kind they taught me in OCS, plays no role.

That all said, it may be that my 18th C. experience has no
relevance to the arguement. But it may be that the Spartans (a pretty
well drilled bunch by all accounts) or the Macedonians could, in fact,
change front, even to the rear, by wheeling incremental subunits exactly
as the British did. Or some utterly different way. And I'll be bold
enough to say that no one really knows.

Finally, I find it funny to be on this side of the arguement,
since usually I'm the one saying to Scott Holder "the Foot Guards at
Guildford Courthouse couldn't do that under fire." But fair is fair.

Ooh, a nail in the military progress coffin... meant to put this in
above. Do we not assume that the Greeks and the Romans marched in step?

The British Army only made cadenced marching a mandatory exercise
in 1754. And they didn't choose a single cadence for the whole army
until 1792. Something tells me they really weren't as well drilled as...

Tee hee.

Nice debate. And Chris, that's all great information, and if I'm
wrong, I'm wrong!

>Chris Cameron
>
>

[Chris Bump]

If you read what I write and don't read into what I write you will
see that the only sarcasm I have directed is at Steve Holliwell who
of course started down the path of sarcasm.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118" <Turnerm@l...>
wrote:
>
> Come on,
> I'm not a FH'men, but even reading your past posts on this subject
> your ARE insulting them and sarcastically poking them in the eye in
> several sentences in each post.
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, <cncbump@v...> wrote:
> > I do not intend to insult you. I prostrate myself before you
with
> regards to your knowledge of history, but you guys do not have a
> corner on the market with regards to the understanding nor
> interpretation of military history. When a question is asked and
you
> take the position of well you believe this and we believe that-
> enough said, then eyebrows are raised. You have no eveidence and
> choose not to answer reasoned questions as to how things that would
> logically occur would be addressed with your theory. You've
admitted
> that you are working on assumptions and thus have only a theory.
> You, Scott, have often taken the position that lack of evidence
> precludes presence in the game. Yet when querried about your
> evidence you shell up. Jon uses his lol, I warned you. Don't try
to
> discuss history with the dirty masses, they'll only draw you in.
> > I have no skin in this game. I am not the one making the claim
> that these issues have all been well considered and decided upon
> based on historical facts. You disagreed with my original post,
but
> the only evidence you offered was a comment about an article you
had
> written, which by the way does not speak to the facing maneuvers of
> the taxeis. I assume when you wrote it you cited some primary
> sources. Is it so much to ask that when someone questions your
> position you simply point them in the direction of those sources?
> That is how this whole trend started. Doug asked for an example.
> The 30k flyover shows a customer asking for a historical example,
FHE
> stating that they are satisfied with the rule as written and then
you
> being insulted when additional questions are asked. I guess that
the
> most significant difference between us is that in the event that
you
> can actually find a source that demonstrates this capability by
pike
> formations, I will simply admit that I am wrong.
> > Chris
> > >
> > > From: "irobot00" <Scott.Holder@f...>
> > > Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:28:23 GMT
> > > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Bump]

Sure,

I need more time to paint. I have not asked you to change a thing.
I have certainly not made any post about what FHE's position is other
than to state what it appears to be when you slam the door on a
discussion. A not uncommon practice of yours. I have made several
points about what your positions have been in the past, which of
course you refute. You always do or you rationalize, even when
confronted by other than the "vocal minority".

I am quite content to receive the same dismissive approach you take
with anyone who offers an opinion contrary to yours. Be it Larry,
Greg, Kelly or some other not immediately at my finger tips. The
difference is that when some one of we offer a contrary point you
demand supporting evidence. When some one of us points out that you
have no evidence to support your position, then we are disruptive.
you have done the research, you know. Although since this discussion
is about Pikes and Alexander's Macedonians in particular you probably
want to avoid using Xenophon as a source you've used in this regard.

"Yes, we are well aware of the discontent in SW Texas. As in the
Army I spent 90% of my time on 10% of my soldiers..."; "With all that
deep historical knowledge..."
Nice. Well you have condesending down to a science. I have made no
claims to the knowledge that I have. You cannot say the same. I
among others have just asked for references for all the work you
claim to have done. When you were doing this research did you not
make notes? I wrote my thesis at the Academy 20 years ago and I can
still remember where I found many of my sources. I wrote my thesis
at the University of Oklahoma 14 years ago and can still remember
where I found my sources, and if enough folks were asking could
provide exact references. You are either completely unwilling or
unable to provide what is asked of you and disruptive as you may
consider these outbursts, the discerning on the site take note.
Chris


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> <<No, your position has not been about what one person thought
capability wise was
> versus another thought. Your position has been that lack of
evidence as to
> one's capability precluded said troop type receiving that
capability. Lack of
> evidence of a given troop type being present in an army precluded
that troop
> type being in the army. >>
>
> No, my position is that I am quite satisfied that the historical
record shows enough evidence of pike facing movements that we have it
correct. Do I have all those books still at my house? No. I turned
them back over to wherever I got them in 2001. Can I quote Xenophon
from my office? No. But it doesn't matter. I don't debate decided
issues. What's the point? But I would appreciate you stopping
trying to speak for us. I will continue to ask you to stop until you
do, or I have to up the ante. I will not let this forum degenerate
at the hands of a vocal few who wish to be disruptive - and
continuing to state our position for us and getting it wrong is
disruptive.
>
> <<For me to change your position on this rule you would
> be asking me to prove a negative.>>
>
> I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything. I am asking you
to stop stating FHE's position for us. I am not going to do it too
many more times...
>
> << You through avoidance and Scott via written word have conceded
that granting
> Macedonian pikes, and for that matter all pikes facing capability
is based on
> assumptions and that you have no data supporting this position.>>
>
> Again, incorrect. I am sorry you do not feel as included as you
would like to have been in the original playtest. But we beat this
horse in 99-01 and we have decided and that is that. I really don't
mind if you debate that here - despite not understanding why someone
would want to. But you need to stop making insulting claims about
our company. We work too hard for too little reward to put up with
it - and we won't.
>
> << There is evidence
> that Roman legionaires fought in loose order formations and yet
because you do
> not feel that accurately represents how you think they should
perform you ignore
> this data and force them to fight in closed order.>>
>
> Actually, again as we have been through this before, we took a very
hard look as to whether or not the historical record on Marian
legionaires showed that they would best be represented by what is
loose order in Warrior. I spent hours and hours on that issue. In
the end, it was not justified. I am sorry you don't like that.
>
> << I can assure
> you of frustration among at least one geographic faction of your
customers as to
> how you manage this process.>>
>
> Yes, we are well aware of the discontent in SW Texas. As in the
Army I spent 90% of my time on 10% of my soldiers, we spend a
ridiculous amount of effort trying to placate and keep a small vocal
minority in a specific geographic region, that try as we might,
continues to poke us in the eye.
> Maybe another game system would suit your needs? Maybe you should
look into getting together and designing your own? With all that
deep historical knowledge, I am sure you could come up with something
that satisfies your view of ancient and medieval history and you
wouldn't have to worry about all the mistakes you think we are making.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm a quiet member of this group, but have always found the FHE staff to be
helpful, friendly, & open to suggestions made in a non-abrasive manner.
However the tone you've egged on in this discussion has been very ugly &
unprofessional. I'm also sad that others have played into the gambit. I
politely ask you to please change tactics to something more helpful and less
seeming the words of a spiteful saboteur. There are those of us who are
interested in the game rather than just selfishly tearing it down to push
another game. Your reply makes it clear that you refuse to end the
discussion, but must continue to beat up on everyone here & continue to
harangue the same point over & over again. Your point was not blindly
rejected as you allege but rather they asked for documentation rather than
opinion. That is a sign of respect that you seem to have missed. This
discussion has devolved to the point it makes it hard to continue to read
the threads on this group. If that is your wish, then you have succeeded,
but please, this is a forum for those interested in the game. Please,
refrain as a courtesy to those of us who want to learn the nuances of the
game.

Thank you,

Sven Lugar
VikingJarl@...

-----Original Message-----
From: cncbump [mailto:cncbump@...]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 4:13 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees


Sure,

I need more time to paint. I have not asked you to change a thing.
I have certainly not made any post about what FHE's position is other
than to state what it appears to be when you slam the door on a
discussion. A not uncommon practice of yours. I have made several
points about what your positions have been in the past, which of
course you refute. You always do or you rationalize, even when
confronted by other than the "vocal minority".

I am quite content to receive the same dismissive approach you take
with anyone who offers an opinion contrary to yours. Be it Larry,
Greg, Kelly or some other not immediately at my finger tips. The
difference is that when some one of we offer a contrary point you
demand supporting evidence. When some one of us points out that you
have no evidence to support your position, then we are disruptive.
you have done the research, you know. Although since this discussion
is about Pikes and Alexander's Macedonians in particular you probably
want to avoid using Xenophon as a source you've used in this regard.

"Yes, we are well aware of the discontent in SW Texas. As in the
Army I spent 90% of my time on 10% of my soldiers..."; "With all that
deep historical knowledge..."
Nice. Well you have condesending down to a science. I have made no
claims to the knowledge that I have. You cannot say the same. I
among others have just asked for references for all the work you
claim to have done. When you were doing this research did you not
make notes? I wrote my thesis at the Academy 20 years ago and I can
still remember where I found many of my sources. I wrote my thesis
at the University of Oklahoma 14 years ago and can still remember
where I found my sources, and if enough folks were asking could
provide exact references. You are either completely unwilling or
unable to provide what is asked of you and disruptive as you may
consider these outbursts, the discerning on the site take note.
Chris


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
>
>
> <<No, your position has not been about what one person thought
capability wise was
> versus another thought. Your position has been that lack of
evidence as to
> one's capability precluded said troop type receiving that
capability. Lack of
> evidence of a given troop type being present in an army precluded
that troop
> type being in the army. >>
>
> No, my position is that I am quite satisfied that the historical
record shows enough evidence of pike facing movements that we have it
correct. Do I have all those books still at my house? No. I turned
them back over to wherever I got them in 2001. Can I quote Xenophon
from my office? No. But it doesn't matter. I don't debate decided
issues. What's the point? But I would appreciate you stopping
trying to speak for us. I will continue to ask you to stop until you
do, or I have to up the ante. I will not let this forum degenerate
at the hands of a vocal few who wish to be disruptive - and
continuing to state our position for us and getting it wrong is
disruptive.
>
> <<For me to change your position on this rule you would
> be asking me to prove a negative.>>
>
> I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything. I am asking you
to stop stating FHE's position for us. I am not going to do it too
many more times...
>
> << You through avoidance and Scott via written word have conceded
that granting
> Macedonian pikes, and for that matter all pikes facing capability
is based on
> assumptions and that you have no data supporting this position.>>
>
> Again, incorrect. I am sorry you do not feel as included as you
would like to have been in the original playtest. But we beat this
horse in 99-01 and we have decided and that is that. I really don't
mind if you debate that here - despite not understanding why someone
would want to. But you need to stop making insulting claims about
our company. We work too hard for too little reward to put up with
it - and we won't.
>
> << There is evidence
> that Roman legionaires fought in loose order formations and yet
because you do
> not feel that accurately represents how you think they should
perform you ignore
> this data and force them to fight in closed order.>>
>
> Actually, again as we have been through this before, we took a very
hard look as to whether or not the historical record on Marian
legionaires showed that they would best be represented by what is
loose order in Warrior. I spent hours and hours on that issue. In
the end, it was not justified. I am sorry you don't like that.
>
> << I can assure
> you of frustration among at least one geographic faction of your
customers as to
> how you manage this process.>>
>
> Yes, we are well aware of the discontent in SW Texas. As in the
Army I spent 90% of my time on 10% of my soldiers, we spend a
ridiculous amount of effort trying to placate and keep a small vocal
minority in a specific geographic region, that try as we might,
continues to poke us in the eye.
> Maybe another game system would suit your needs? Maybe you should
look into getting together and designing your own? With all that
deep historical knowledge, I am sure you could come up with something
that satisfies your view of ancient and medieval history and you
wouldn't have to worry about all the mistakes you think we are making.
>
> J
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links

[joncleaves]

<<I have certainly not made any post about what FHE's position is other
than to state what it appears to be when you slam the door on a
discussion. >>

Again, I am not slamming the door on any discussion. You are free to talk
about pike maneuvers or whatever. All I have done and all I will do is set
the record straight when false claims are made about one of us or FHE as a
whole. You intimated that we did not consider seriously the issue of pike
maneuvering. We did - four years ago. You said that I did not take into
account
personal and re-enactor experience with gear and formations. I very much do
and always have and so do the other FH. You claimed that we knew the pike
rule was 'wrong' but left it in place only because it was too hard to change.
This is false. We think the pike rule is right and aren't going to change it
because there is no need to.
The archival record is there that you have made and continue to make claims
about our procedures or positions that are false. Please stop. Talk about
how screwed up we are on pike maneuvers all you like, but stop making false
claims about how we operate or think. I am not going to ask again.


<<I am quite content to receive the same dismissive approach you take
with anyone who offers an opinion contrary to yours. Be it Larry,
Greg, Kelly or some other not immediately at my finger tips.>>

Interesting. I would have made exactly the same comparisons. The three
people I have had to ban or warn on this list. I find it very important and
relevant that you should choose exactly those three names.

<< The difference is that when some one of we offer a contrary point you
demand supporting evidence.>>

Well, that depends. I made no demands on you for evidence in the case of
pike maneuvering. When I have asked for evidence it has been when someone
wants to have us look at something that is up for review - typically a list
book
we are currently writing. I am not in the habit of asking for evidence with
respect to done deals because they are done deals.

<< When some one of us points out that you
have no evidence to support your position, then we are disruptive. >>

No, I said you were disruptive because you continued to make statements
about one of us or the company that are false. I have not offered any evidence
in this discussion that supports my views on pike maneuvers because there's no
point to it. The information I used in my research is back in the libraries
it came from and has been for years now. This is not a phd, it is a game.
We do not do footnotes for exactly the reasons shown by this thread - no
matter what we might say, someone will take issue with it and try and get us
into
an extended historical round robin. Historians, pro and amateur, make a
sport of this. I read an article in JMH the other day purporting to refute
almost everything Sir Charles Oman said about French column maneuvers in the
Napoleonic wars. Oh, and David Chandler, too. So, should every nap's game
author go out and change their rules? Hell no.

The time to get involved in research as a player is when the paper is blank,
not four years after the rule is published. We have a number of player
volunteers who help us with research. I have made call after call on this list
for those with an interest to assist in ongoing projects. I am sorry you
didn't get involved in the original playtest, because we could have had a nice,
relevant, current discussion about pike maneuvers. But for me, that is water
under the bridge. Again, I don't care if you and someone else talk about it
here until you are blue in the face, but I am not going to drop what I am
doing to go out and recreate the evidence on pikes, almughavars, byzantine
trapezetoi, stirrups or any of the other issues that are long since decided but
some folks just won't let die.

There are other rules sets that are constantly in flux due to constant
tinkering from 'new' opinions or revisionist history, much player-based. Maybe
you'd be happier with one of them. We are not going there. I have a day job
and several other responsibilities, the main current Warrior one of which is
making sure the revised rulebook is done for Historicon. I am just going to
make it and hitting the books on macedonian pike maneuvers to get into it with
you is not on my list of things to do. I'm sorry you don't like that answer
- I really am. I hate having a dissatisfied customer. But I am choosing to
spend my time elsewhere.

<< I wrote my thesis at the Academy 20 years ago and I can
still remember where I found many of my sources.>>

I work a few hundred yards from the US Army's Combined Arms Research
Library. There is virtually no book on military history, theory or science
that I
can't get if I want it - either at the CARL or through library loan. I have
read Xenophon, Arrian, Procopius, Polybius, Caesar, Herodotus, Thucydides,
Delbruck, and lord knows how many primary, secondary and tertiary sources on
whatever you might please. As another FH pointed out to me today, it is, in
fact, insulting for someone out there to imply that we have not hit the books.
No, I didn't keep a ton of notes. This isn't a phd, I don't have to prove
anything to anyone. I learned long ago from one of my game design mentors that
publishing notes in a game was a recipe for disaster - and having watched
him make that mistake I do not intend to repeat it.

<<I wrote my thesis
at the University of Oklahoma 14 years ago and can still remember
where I found my sources, and if enough folks were asking could
provide exact references.>>

Cool. I am not asking. If others do, lay it on them.

<< You are either completely unwilling or
unable to provide what is asked of you>>

In this case, unwilling.

Jon




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Todd Schneider]

They cannot dispprove.

They own the rules set.

Therefore they get to choose.

Now, I know how dense I can be, buteven thats not a
difficult concept to work around.

Todd
--- cncbump@... wrote:
---------------------------------
I agree. This is my theory. I cannot prove it, but
you cannot disprove it. Discussion ends there.
Discussion gets more involved when one side says I
have done in depth research and it backs this
position. Says someone else, really what sources?
None offered. Frustration.
Chris
>
> From: "Terry Dix" <notalent@...>
> Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 09:50:33 GMT
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

[Steve Hollowell]

Now I feel dirty.

cncbump <cncbump@...> wrote:


If you read what I write and don't read into what I write you will
see that the only sarcasm I have directed is at Steve Holliwell who
of course started down the path of sarcasm.
Chris

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "turner1118"
wrote:
>
> Come on,
> I'm not a FH'men, but even reading your past posts on this subject
> your ARE insulting them and sarcastically poking them in the eye in
> several sentences in each post.
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> > I do not intend to insult you. I prostrate myself before you
with
> regards to your knowledge of history, but you guys do not have a
> corner on the market with regards to the understanding nor
> interpretation of military history. When a question is asked and
you
> take the position of well you believe this and we believe that-
> enough said, then eyebrows are raised. You have no eveidence and
> choose not to answer reasoned questions as to how things that would
> logically occur would be addressed with your theory. You've
admitted
> that you are working on assumptions and thus have only a theory.
> You, Scott, have often taken the position that lack of evidence
> precludes presence in the game. Yet when querried about your
> evidence you shell up. Jon uses his lol, I warned you. Don't try
to
> discuss history with the dirty masses, they'll only draw you in.
> > I have no skin in this game. I am not the one making the claim
> that these issues have all been well considered and decided upon
> based on historical facts. You disagreed with my original post,
but
> the only evidence you offered was a comment about an article you
had
> written, which by the way does not speak to the facing maneuvers of
> the taxeis. I assume when you wrote it you cited some primary
> sources. Is it so much to ask that when someone questions your
> position you simply point them in the direction of those sources?
> That is how this whole trend started. Doug asked for an example.
> The 30k flyover shows a customer asking for a historical example,
FHE
> stating that they are satisfied with the rule as written and then
you
> being insulted when additional questions are asked. I guess that
the
> most significant difference between us is that in the event that
you
> can actually find a source that demonstrates this capability by
pike
> formations, I will simply admit that I am wrong.
> > Chris
> > >
> > > From: "irobot00"
> > > Date: 2005/03/23 Wed PM 07:28:23 GMT
> > > To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Pikes Turning 90 degrees
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Kelly Wilkinson]

I would be quite happy if you both would leave me out of this discussion. I have
decided long ago that if I'm not happy with what is done to one of my lists I
choose to play, I have numerous options available to me (in the way of different
lists to use). I realize that fighting city hall is a waste of time and just
want to get along with all parties involved. Besides, Todd is right, FHE own the
rules and like it or not, will do what they think is best. Don't take that
statement for anything negative about ownership. Sure, I don't always
understand every point of minutia in this engine (spelling?) and I will ask
questions as that is what this forum is for. Expect a bunch more as I spend too
much time thinking about rules and lists. I know it's hard to drop a point
that one feels is valid, but it becomes polarizing after a while and can cause
bad feelings. Let's try to get along, okay? As Jon often says, "Boys, go to your
rooms."

kw


JonCleaves@... wrote:
<<I am quite content to receive the same dismissive approach you take
with anyone who offers an opinion contrary to yours. Be it Larry,
Greg, Kelly or some other not immediately at my finger tips.>>

Interesting. I would have made exactly the same comparisons. The three
people I have had to ban or warn on this list. I find it very important and
relevant that you should choose exactly those three names.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]