[MR] News from afar

[Velsthe1 at aol.com]

Forwarded from Calonlist, with many good points to ponder:

In a message dated 4/18/2001 2:15:17 PM Central Daylight Time,

rdeaver2 at HOME.COM writes:

>He may be a whiner, but he's right of course.  If this 
>was only about safety, we would have required eye 
>protection long ago, at least in the woods.  A lawyer 
>could probably weave for a judge great conspiracies >against human rights out of this unabashed truth:

There is a big difference.

In the woods, we have the choice of where we go, and how fast.  I can run into the brush, or go through slowly and carefully, or go around it. Or I can even sit out the woods battle (one battle at most wars.)  If I get a stick in my eye, it is no-one elses fault.  No tree is trying to thwack me.

On the other hand an archer is actively shooting a stick at his opponent. His opponent may well not even know he exists when it comes sailing out of the air.  Once fired it is out of anyones control, but when it bounces back knock first at someone, or punctures its head as it hits, or lands sticking up between bodies waiting for someone to fall on it, the "danger"come
directly from someones actions other than the target.

Tasselo got a stick in his eye at Lilies a few years ago rushing at me in a woods battle.  I feel bad, but in the end  the decision to charge through a branch was his.  I'd feel a hell of a lot worse if I had shot the stick at him.

>woods.  A lawyer could probably weave for a judge 
>great conspiracies against human rights out of this 
>unabashed truth:

Really. Hmmm.  Well which court case would you rather defend.

A)Your Honor, Mathurin allowed the plaintiff to run through the woods without goggles.

B)Your Honor, Mathurin fired an arrow at the plaintiff.  No.. No..  It was not a real arrow...  Yes, it was 1/4" shaft..  Yes, all their other safety rules
require every offensive item to be 5 times that diameter.  ah....

I know which one I'd choose. :)

   Fernando