The Midgard Digest V1 #9

From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison)

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0000

The Midgard Digest       Tuesday, 27 February 1996     Volume 01 : Number 009

Welcome to the Midgard Digest, the place to discuss all the myriad
aspects of life in the World of Midgard with its other denizens.

In this issue:

+   Re[2]: MID: A few questions for the next Midgard Report
+   MID: City and Road Destruction
+   MID: City and Road Destruction
+   Re: MID: City and Road Destruction
+   Re: MID: Midgard History
+   MID: Destruction
+   Re[2]: MID: City and Road Destruction
+   Re: MID: Destruction
+   MID: Road Destruction
+   MID: Merk Verk

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the midgard-list
or midgard-digest mailing lists.

For additional information on Midgard, check out the Official Midgard
Home Page at http://www.comland.com/~pbm/midgard/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 12:45:55 CDT
Subject: Re[2]: MID: A few questions for the next Midgard Report

Well spoken, Fear.

Todeskampf
                                Great Destroyer

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: MID: A few questions for the next Midgard Report
Author:  "Michael A. Barnhart" <Michael.Barnhart@internetMCI.COM> at INTERNET
Date:    2/24/96 6:58 PM

- -- [ From: Michael A. Barnhart * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --

Todeskampf is essentially correct. But is it not so much that the Gift has
no will for war. We have no need for it. We protect our interests through
conventional means where necessary, of course. We are rather more effective
in protecting our interests through unconventional means.
 Feareredden, Speaker of the Gift

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 15:56:47 CDT
Subject: MID: City and Road Destruction

Hi guys:

There currently aren't any rigid rules on city and road destruction,
     so I'm opening up a thread on it.

One way to handle destroying an object would be to charge 10% to 30%
     of the construction mancycles of the object for its destruction.

Example: A road through a sector required 1,000 mancycles.  To destroy
     the same road would cost from 100 to 300 mancycles.

My opinion is that it should take only about 10% of the time to
     destroy something as it took to build it.  If you want to recover the
     materials that were used to build the object (only about half of the
     materials should be recoverable, of course), then it would take you
     30% of the object's construction mancycles.

Of course, some things (like objects made mostly out of wood, which
     would include heliograph stations, cities that had walls below a
     certain level, etc.) might require only a few well-placed fires to
     destroy.

From a programming standpoint, there's the problem of keeping track of
     what sectors had roads/heliograph stations/cities in them; it's
     easier, for example, to repair a heliograph station than to build one
     from scratch, so it should also be easier to repair a "destroyed" road
     than it would be to build one from scratch.  I guess Zan could come up
     with a cool icon/graphic for destroyed roads/cities just like he came
     up for one for destroyed heliograph stations. <g>

Destroying just one sector of a road should have a fairly severe
     effect on trade in the region(s) with cities connected to that road in
     some way.  Any thoughts on what these effects should be?

Destroying heliograph stations in a region should affect in some way a
     faction's ability to get orders to regiments/clans in the region with
     the destroyed heliograph stations.  The percentage of heliograph
     stations destroyed in a region might be handled like: every 20% of the
     heliograph stations absent from a region (rounded down to the nearest
     20%) would slow communications to the region by 1 cycle.  Example: a
     region normally has 4 heliograph stations in it.  Someone comes along
     and destroys 2 of them in one cycle.  Communications to that region
     from the "outside" (i.e., the model, the seniors, news of invaders
     approaching, crown/retainer/influence transfers, etc.) would be
     delayed by 2 cycles.  Destroying 3 of the 4 stations would mean a
     delay of 3 cycles.  Destroying all 5 of the stations in the example
     region would mean a delay of 5 cycles.

What do you guys think?  Repairing roads, heliograph stations, or even
     cities might be good tasks to write for beginning clans; it would sure
     keep the Gift construction regiments fully employed...

mike

------------------------------

From: jmorris@ccm.livestock.org.nz
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 11:34:09 nz
Subject: MID: City and Road Destruction

Mike,
        You truly are the master of chaos.  The idea of road destruction
     seems fairly straight forward.  The control on city turns of linked
     cities appears to be a manual effort which would probably be a manual
     effort to unlink them when a road is destroyed.  I wouldn't want that
     effort to cause a slow down in turns, otherwise economic warfare would
     be a useful tool in a war against an opposition faction.  Of all your
     suggestions this seems to be the quickest and easiest to implement,
     but Zan would have to determine that.
        If a road can be destroyed, how do you propose to knock out a
     searoute.  Would an attack on a port be sufficient?  What about the
     ships not in port at the time of the attack?
        The heliograph is a little more complex.  If you go by region, what
     about the cities near an edge of a region, which may have a heliograph
     station very close but in another region.  The slow down of
     communications could slow down the gamemaster's processing of turns if
     done manually and possibly cause lost messages.  This would further
     disadvantage players who only communicate through the game and do not
     use phone, letters, Email or ESP.
        I would like to have a way to show mechanically what specific
     damage has been done to a city's defences during each turn of siege
     and also from cumulative from several turns of siege.  This would
     allow a siege force to put in a battle plan to exploit the specific
     damage done in previous cycles without having to assume that the
     previous turns of siege has reduce the effective tower/wall to a lower
     level.  I would like to have a way that would allow the destruction of
     an enemies defence without flinging fire indiscriminately into a city.
       The main thing is to not slow down the processing of turns to longer
     than one month.
        On the CVR is an item which I assume effects the economy of a city
     that indicates the number of road sectors.  Is that the number of
     sectors within 5 of a city which have a road in it?  If this is the
     case it is not automatically updated.  If it is not the case, how is
     the number of road sectors calculated?  Perhaps when the city leader
     handbook is available there will be more detail on the items which
     effect a city's economy, without giving the actual formula.

Jerre

------------------------------

From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:14:09 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: MID: City and Road Destruction

On Tue, 27 Feb 1996 jmorris@ccm.livestock.org.nz wrote:

>         On the CVR is an item which I assume effects the economy of a city
>      that indicates the number of road sectors.  Is that the number of
>      sectors within 5 of a city which have a road in it?  If this is the
>      case it is not automatically updated.  If it is not the case, how is
>      the number of road sectors calculated?  Perhaps when the city leader
>      handbook is available there will be more detail on the items which
>      effect a city's economy, without giving the actual formula.

I think it's the actual number of roads leading into/out of the city.

------------------------------------------------------------
       * Kerry Harrison | kerry@io.com | http://www.io.com/~kerry *
       ------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 18:09:04 CDT
Subject: Re: MID: Midgard History

Todeskampf responds:

> Much has been said about the Imperials and their policies as of late.
> I have factional emissaries and messengers arriving at unprecedented
> rates while I travel in the field.  Recently, I have been told that
> even the Barbarians are sending messengers, no doubt full of mindless
> prattle and besmerching the Imperials good name.  Rumors are even
> filtering in that the Barbarians trying to pass their diplomats off as
> MV emissaries.  Imagine a Barbarian speaking on behalf of the MV?!  I
> have no doubt that these rumors are just that; then again, the MV's
> actions at Fanglan would suggest.... no, I won't even consider the
> possibility.

One sure way to tell if the emissary was barbarian instead of Merc Verk:
are your wives and daughters wearing bright smiles, and is there a certain
glow about them?  Yes?  Then the emissary was indeed a barbarian in
disguise.

> At any rate, I have continually dispatched responses indicating that the
> Imperials actions are in response to the Legate destruction and MV crimes
> at Fanglan.  We have no need to take cities by force without undue cause
> and are working on a solution which would allow the MV to keep their
> cities; not the work of a someone trying to take over the world?!

Imperials seek to rule the world.  This is a known fact.  Stop denying
this, and stop taking us all for fools.

> I have also noticed in an increase in messengers popping up with
> stories of atrocious acts committed against common folk from many
> factions. It seems there are many factions committed to preserving the
> law and seeing that justice is done.  Any several of these factions have
> publicly or privately ASKED for Imperial intervention!  Now you know
> that the Imperials are sworn to stay out of political matters that
> involve problems between the families and relgions.  But when these
> problems spill into crimes against civilians that threaten the common good
> of ALL factions, the Imperials will take it upon themselves to provide
> law and order when no one else will.  The Imperials care for
> Midgardian civilians as much as any faction (perhaps a little more
> than some factions have shown).

So, the Imperials care not for what happens to soldiers who become
prisoners of war?  You are only concerned with the fate of "innocent"
civilians?  So if we Vikings limit our drawing and quartering to the
enemy soldiers we capture, you will not take offense, just so long as
no civilians are harmed?

> However, under no circumstances will the Imperials become involved
> without written documented proof of the injustices (e.g., CVR's, city
> reports, battle reports, Senior interaction letters with model, etc.).
> Simply screaming "CRIME" and telling your side of the story will not
> suffice. Some factions have been known to "embellish" their stories
> and as such we must rely on reports from local Imperial Magistrates
> and Imperial citizens of high stature.  So for all who send
> communiques either defending their side of the story or telling
> stories of new atrocities, you must provide proof or the Imperials
> WILL NOT intervene.  Written documented proof had been provided for
> the incidents at Fanglan and at Lakehed.

We know what is going to happen.  You have proven to all that you will
come to the defense of only those clans and/or cities that have bowed to
your rule, no matter what "proof" a victim has.  It is fine for a clan to
slaughter a temple full of surrendered soldiers (who were not on friendly
terms with you) and then sacrifice their souls to an "evil" god, but it
is not permissible that harm come to just _one_ easily rebuilt factional
office or civilian in a city that is "loyal" to the Imperials...

> Others claims are being investigated but some may require written
> proof beyond Imperial informants to verify.

The key word here is "some."

> The Imperials are dedicated to maintaining law and order and
> will attempt to check all claims in a timely and fair manner.

Please define the Imperials' version of "law and order."  Even to a
barbarian, law and order would seem to mean coming to the defense of
_anyone_ who asks for aid against a hostile force.  How can you allow one
city to be destroyed in one part of the land and send a legion against
those who threaten another city in another part of the land?  Law and
order?  No.  You are maintaining nothing more than chaos!

> Again, so as to show that we are not above the law, this also includes
> supposed crimes committed by Imperial troops and clans.  These will be
> just as ferociously and fairly pursued as other claims.  This
> administration is sworn to fairplay in all matters.

Yes, yes, yes.  Crimes by _whose_ definition?

> Lastly, on to a matter of interest that I feel needs to be
> addressed in regard to Midgardian History.  The scribes of Midgard have
> carefully and diligently recorded the history of Midgard in their
> precious tomes (see also the Midgard Rulebook).  But they are
> inadequate.  The Empire has existed for thousands of years long
> before recorded Midgardian history.

This is a lie.

> The Empire has a presence all over the world with Midgard representing
> a small piece.

Another lie.  You only have power in your "homeland" and in those areas of
Midgard that allow you to have power.  You have no holdings in Kalmar, none
in Manchuria, and the only evidence of Imperials in the Viking homeland is
regular hills of legionnaire skulls pilled high upon our beaches.

> As such, our scholars have maintained written history long before
> Midgard became inhabited.  Midgardian culture is in but its infancy
> while the Empire is old but still in its prime.  You should know
> then that the Empire laid claim and colonized Midgard thousands of
> years before your "Barbarians" marked the beginning of Midgard culture.

Lies.  We "barbarians," as you call us, were the first born of Midgard.
Our cities were sprawling when the Imperials had nothing more than mud huts
along the river that today flows through their homeland's capital city.
When the Imperials first invaded Midgard, we Vikings were building new
cities on our current homeland.  Had we not left Midgard in the great
migrations after the first disaster from the sky many thousands of years
ago, the Imperials would never have gained a foothold in Midgard.  This you
well know.

> The Barbarians drove out the Imperial colonies, slaughtering tens of
> thousands civilians (we had precious little military forces back then)
> and took the continent for themselves.

I think here you have had a vision of the future--not of the past.

> Hundreds of years later your culture had evolved with the Barbarians
> relegated to their homeland and many new families and religions
> quarreling over the who had the right to lead.

The culture that is Midgard today "evolved" from us.  The inhabitants of
Midgard now are those of us who did not leave the continent after the first
disaster.

> It was at this time that the Imperials returned to RECLAIM their
> rightful lands and avenge the deaths from many generations past.  This
> is where most of recent Midgardian history begins.  As you can see,
> Midgardian scribes were unaware of what occurred hundreds of years
> earlier and thus cannot be faulted for lack of knowledge.  However, all
> of this history is well-scribed in Imperial Libraries back in the
> Homeland.

Can you hear the laughter?  It is for you.  All the world loves a clown.

> Perhaps, some factions would like to arrange to send some envoys to confirm
> this.  I will also try to arrange an exhibit from the Homeland in our
> new museum at Lemlot that further displays these ancient writings for
> all to see.

Envoys, make sure your families are well provided for before you step foot
on Imperial soil, for you will never return.

> So you can see that the Imperials are NOT truly invaders.  We
> came to re-establish our rightful presence.

History is always written by the victor.  You are not yet the victor, Imperial,
so do not feed us your revisionist histories.  We can not stomach them.

> We now share this land with all Midgardian factions but will act as Law
> when any threaten its well-being.

How can you "share" lands that are not rightfully yours?  How can you act as
"Law" when your laws are not Midgard's?

> As a point of interest we do not lay claim to the Barbarian's
> homeland so they are welcome to say but if they land on the coasts
> of the Midgard continent they will be met with extreme prejudice as
> ancient hatreds are renewed.

We have landed on Midgard's coasts now for hundreds of years.  We have yet
to encounter "extreme prejudice."  Nor will we.

> We also do not lay claim to the Southern Continent. So again I say, if
> we are so expansionistic why do we not seek to covet the numerous
> southern continent cities with virtually no defenses?!

Perhaps because you do not have enough able commanders to send with your
numerous armies?  Maybe because many of the cities of Kalmar are being
"conquered" by the Getham?  Perhaps you are afraid of encountering the
several powerful pirate and bandit lords that have carved out small
empires there?

> And as one last point of contention since I'm sure it will come up.
> Just because we don't lay claim to the Barbarian's homeland doesn't
> mean we might not show up unexpectedly and pay our respects.

Well, we enjoy the skull mountains that your young men have already
donated to us in years past.  But some of the skulls _are_ becoming
tarnished.  We could use several thousand new skulls as replacements.

Imperial.  It is nearly over for you.  Will you stay and die with honor or will
you slink back to your masters in the dark of the night?

Todeskampf
                                Great Destroyer
                                Barbarian Lord

------------------------------

From: J1WESCHAN@aol.com
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:04:41 -0500
Subject: MID: Destruction

Destruction of a road segment would be reported to the linked cities within
normal travel turns by ordinary travelers. Such information would include,
possibly, who and how many.
John Chan

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 12:23:18 CDT
Subject: Re[2]: MID: City and Road Destruction

It could mean the number of roads leading out of the city, or, it could mean the
number of other cities that are connected to the city by roads.  Not sure
exactly which.  I know for a fact that it's not the number of actual road
_sectors_ around the city.

mike

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: MID: City and Road Destruction
Author:  Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com> at INTERNET
Date:    2/26/96 5:22 PM

On Tue, 27 Feb 1996 jmorris@ccm.livestock.org.nz wrote:

I think it's the actual number of roads leading into/out of the city.

------------------------------------------------------------
       * Kerry Harrison | kerry@io.com | http://www.io.com/~kerry *
       ------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

From: Mike_Williams@pc.radian.com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 12:37:36 CDT
Subject: Re: MID: Destruction

Well, to date I know of no one who has actually destroyed a road
     sector, so I'm not sure what the reporting rule is.  Logically, of
     course, umpire-controlled travelers would report the road's
     destruction to affected cities within a cycle or two.

Also, logically, player clans moving through the road sector would
     receive a report on the road being "rubbled," and the clan should be
     charged movement points based not on road movement rates but based on
     what terrain the road passes through.  Obviously, destroying a road
     that passed through a mountain sector would cause a lot of problems to
     unsuspecting clans traveling through--they'd have to pay mountain
     movement point rates to get through the sector, plus they wouldn't
     technically be "on the road again" until they passed through the
     _next_ road sector (moving from a sector without a road into a sector
     with a road doesn't mean you get the road's movement benefits...)

What we all really need to concentrate on now is:

1) Do you think road destruction (and city destruction, too) should be
     allowed in the rules?

2) If so, how many mancycles do you think it should take to
     destroy/rubble a road?  Should the terrain the road is built on affect
     the number of mancycles needed to destroy/rubble the road?

3) Can you think of a better way of handling this?  My opinion is to
     charge from 10% to 30% of the mancycles it took to build an object in
     order for it to be destroyed.

What do you guys think?

mike

P.S.: Keep in mind that destroying heliograph stations is already
     allowed in the rules; there's even an order that you can issue to your
     clan to rebuild a destroyed heliograph station...

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: MID: Destruction
Author:  J1WESCHAN@aol.com at INTERNET
Date:    2/26/96 6:28 PM

Destruction of a road segment would be reported to the linked cities within
normal travel turns by ordinary travelers. Such information would include,
possibly, who and how many.
John Chan

------------------------------

From: jmorris@ccm.livestock.org.nz
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 96 08:01:44 nz
Subject: MID: Road Destruction

Mike,
        I have no objections to a ROAD Destruction order.  I do think that
     gathering materials should take more than 30% of the cost to build the
     road.  50% seems better to me.  Would a destroyed road and a destroyed
     road with materials taken require two different icons and two
     different costs to repair?  Or would it be better to have a destroyed
     road icon for the destroyed road and a repair cost and no road icon
     for the destroyed road with materials taken and that would cost the
     same as a new construction?  What does Zan think about this?
                                                Jerre

------------------------------

From: Shiva Wilde <103302.3555@compuserve.com>
Date: 27 Feb 96 14:12:39 EST
Subject: MID: Merk Verk

Greetings Lords,

I knew that when I sent my last message that I would anger some people. I donot regret what I have said, and still stand with it.
I wish to remind people that I am to standing up for the MV. As I stated I support the Boda. I only issued apologizes to the faction,
NOT to the clans that commented the crimes in the city of Fangland. Thoes clans I still wish to be punnished. I have the word of
Hal Mayne that this will happen. And I WILL check to make sure that this happens.

I think that the Imperials are trying to take control of Midgard by saying that they are the only faction that can protect the
citizens of Midgard. As a major faction of the TRUE Midgardians I oppose this. It is true that the OOH did support the Imperials
in the past, but at that time the Imperials were not on a course of world conquest, with midgard as its starting point.
I do wish that the Imperials would tell us the truth in this matter, and not try to stabb us in the back. I to would like better relations
with most factions.
the Barbarians, at least, lets you know that they will attack you to gain some goods and pleasure. Then they leave, and we will rebuild.
This is both bad and good for Midgard. What this does is to allow US to protect US from them. Should we fail, some of our cities will
have to be rebuilt, and some of our citizens will die. So it is up to US to protect our selves. I DO NOT condone the attackes nor do I support them, BUT they do help us to learn how to protect oue selves.
Which is what we need to do.

With the Imperials, they tell you that they want to rebuild ties with us, but then they tell me that if we continue to support
the MV, they will target our cities for attack. EVEN if we do not provoke them?!!???!!???!
If a faction wishes to support another faction during times like this, should the Imperials take that as an act of war?????

The Imperials do not stand for the people of Midgard, They stand for the IMPERIALS. They have even stated that fact. They clam to be
benifactors of Midgard, but then they also clam to be invaders and conquerore. Lord Gov. please tell us which you are!!!!!

It seems that the Imperials nad the Barbarians are the factions that wish the support of the rest of the Midgard factions.
I do support the Barbarians view on how the Imperials looked at the murders of our soliders in Finland.

I wish that the Imperials would let us know what they are going to do. Are they going to attack my cities if I stand up for the Treaty
of Frostmarch, and the Boda? Will they attack the Ring when we retake Finmart? Will they attack you if you do not bow down to them?

I will not allow any further building of Imperial factional buildings to be built in ANY Ring city untill this is cleared up. How about
you?

Again, I know that the responce from the Imps will be harsh. BUT I do not respond to threats from ANY faction.
And the Imperials have threatend the Ring by telling us that should we stand with the MV, which I think I might now do, they will target
our cities. To all the other faction, Are you also going to bow to the Imperials when they threaten you??

I WIIL NOT!!

>From the quill of
Shiva Wilde
Patriarch Ring Religion
of clan
Order of the Hand

- --- Forwarded Message ---

Date:  27-Feb-96 10:07 CST
From:  INTERNET:DShir13@aol.com
Subj:  Merk Verk

Sender: dshir13@aol.com
Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id KAA29805; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:32:07 -0500
From: <DShir13@aol.com>
Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28407; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:32:26 -0500
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:32:26 -0500
Message-ID: <960227103223_432767003@emout10.mail.aol.com>
To: 103302.3555@compuserve.com, Schrader@vaxd.sxu.edu
Subject: Merk Verk

Kurt,

Daimon Yar may be a hot head but I'm not.  I would like to discuss a few
things with you about the situation with the Merk Verk.

I would like to say if your position to stand with the Merk Verk has anything
to do with us supporting the B+F I would like to stat this.  The Imperials
are truly neutral with all factions in Midgard until we are provoked, we do
not do the provoking.  The only exception is with the Barbarians, in which
the are free game.

I do not like the fact that we are fighting the MV becuse it is taking away
our attention away from the Barbarians.  This is why the Toad keeps trying to
put a wedge between us and the rest of Midgard.  If we are fighting everyone
else then they can do what they wish.  Do you think, if we are wiped out they
will leave the rest of MIdgard alone then?  Of course not!  I agree that our
response is harsh, but I would also point out that our course of action is
not set in stone.  Yet the Merk Verk have refused all atempts to resolve this
in a diplomatic fashion.  We must respond in a Harsh manner, this has been
accomplished by our decree, we hae let everyone in Midgard know we will
respond to even the tinniest tampering of Imperial property.  There are a
couple of points that I feel must happen 1) The MV clan incharge must be put
to trial, if indeed he is found notguilty, then the Imperials will send out
an official appology.  If fkound guilty they must pay the an oppropriate
fine.  The Imperials don't even request that we do the trial.  But they are
charged on the fact, that the fire they started destroied, among others, an
Imperial Legate and thousands of civillians.  You may have heard the MV
defense that the Serks allowed the fire burn without trying to stop it.  This
is false, I have read the report and even asked Zan about the possiblities
that the Serks could have stopped the fires.  They could not have.  This is a
fact, don't take my word ask Zan.

The Imperials do understand your feelings about you Troops being butchured
after surrendering, we would feel the same also.  But this is not the 20th
century and that sort of thing happened in Ancient and Medivial times.  When
we were preparring to fight the Boda we expected that they would kill any of
our captured troops.  And the Boda are by no means, more ruthless than the
B+F.  Furthermore until civillians of Midgard are harmed by these actions
then we can not get involved.  Unlike the rest of the factions the majority
of our regiments are proprety of the #0 and can be recalled to the homeland
if we do not abid by his rules.  So if we did take action against the B+F we
would be in violation of our rules, and the treaty of Frostmarch.  I'm sorry
you view this as being inconsitant but I hope it clears things up.  We have
worked on better relations with the Ring I hate to see it trown away on one
hastely though out decree.  Personally I have no love for the B+F, My cousin
was MV for a very long time, and would gladly take action upon them.  Do not
allow the MV spindoctoring and the Barbarian atacks on our honor cloud your
vision.  Reconsider your position before it becomes too late.

If this esculates and you continue to openly back the Merk Verk the Imperials
can not help but consider your Cities as targets.  Since you have nothing to
gain by backing either of us in this it makes no sense for you or any other
faction to back the MV or us in this.  If we really wanted to start a War
with the MV we would have used the Losteen episode to do it.  As for you
backing the Boda, that is what has been done in the past, and is your
Buisness.

David  (not this not in character, Daimon is a warrior not a diplamat)

Distribution:

To: [103302,3555]
    INTERNET:SCHRADER@VAXD.SXU.EDU

------------------------------

End of The Midgard Digest V1 #9
*******************************

To subscribe to The Midgard Digest, send the command:

subscribe midgard-digest

in the body of a message to "majordomo@io.com"

To unsubscribe from The Midgard Digest send the command:

unsubscribe midgard-digest

in the body of a message to "majordomo@io.com"

If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-midgard-list":

subscribe midgard-digest local-mid-list@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "midgard-digest"
in the commands above with "midgard-list".