> On Apr 15, 8:41pm, Phillip Lenhardt wrote:
> > Subject: Re: movement bug
> <responding to Ben Van Cauwenberghe>
> >
> > Of course your message does not address a more interesting issue therein
> > revealed. Khamath's force was small and obviously on a limited mission
> > (ghazi does not include the occupying of lands). Sir Codric's force is
> > manifestly not small and completely out of scale as a response to
> > Khamath's ghazi. I (and others I am sure) would love to know why you think
> > Sir Codric's wholesale invasion a reasonable response to Khamath's limited
> > raids. I would call it an excuse if it wasn't for the fact that Sir Codric
> > has kept his usually uncivil tongue in his head lately.
> >
> > Aliestar Tanstagi
>
> If someone attacks me, the rules he places upon himself do not apply
> to my response. If some fellow walks up to me in a bar and starts
> swinging at me and states that he is following the "Marquis de
> Queensberry" rules, I'll have no qualms with kicking him in the
> nuts. If he starts hostilities, it's his problem if he chooses to
> limit himself. Now, if I agree to follow the same rules, then I am
> honor bound to do so. But *he* doesn't get to set *my* rules of
> engagement.
>
> Just my opinion.
Would you also chop him in the throat? Burn down his house? Cut off his
arm? Rape his wife?
Remember also that in most countries, the law frowns upon using more force
than necessary. Especially when it is done intentionally. I fondly hope
that here in Olympia we too can establish reasonable limits to
retaliation. If not, we're courting anarchy.
Aliestar Tanstagi