jimmy, let me parse this for you.

"as a ------------------ weapon ---------------------------- of
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((war)))))))))))))))))) )))))))))), the biggest
crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

jimmy, that statement means if the damned thing is useless beyond 30 feet it
ain't a weapon of war. therefore, its [effective] range [as a weapon of war]
is 30 feet.

jimmy, let me explain this another way. An M-14 can pitch a round something
like 3,000 yards, yet its [effective] range is about 500 yards. Getting hit by
an M-14 round at 500 yards is going to cause some problems, while getting hit
by an M-14 round at 3,000 yards is likely to merely **** you off.

Jim Richardson
Date: 10/16/2004 12:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 16 Oct 2004 01:18:58 GMT,
JAXAshby wrote:
In either case, the range
was certainly not limited to 30 ft.


the term used was "net effective range", not "net total range". what the
military calls "killing radius".


The term you used, was range, you claimed

"as a weapon of war, the biggest crossbows ever had a range of about 30
feet"

Which is utter ********.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
They may call it 'ant and roach spray' but it sure does a
number on birds if you spray them with it long enough.