interesting point scode, i didn't see it that way. but that is another angle and is a valid and reasonable one. again this depends on how people define "at war".

i always assumed if one is attacking another, they are at war even if the other side doesn't hit back. so what you are saying is if someone wars you and you never hit back, you aren't at war with them? interesting idea though nontheless....

well there are more reasons why this is done, but kj won't post the rest of the logs i was trying to refer to, so this is why :D