Nicholas J. Corkigian wrote:
> Huh. I'm a little surprised by this. It sounds like it was a conscious
> effort to not include that area in the original SCA rules rather than a
> simple oversight. I would've thought that area of the legs is a much more
> likely target than say the back of the head.
Agreed, but OTOH the back of the head is somewhat more vulnerable to
anything that does get to it, with potentially worse consequences in the
most extreme cases.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5400 (20100826) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.