No I don't "just like to argue" I am trying to get some of you to understand that the differences between a crossbow and a compound bow while different are by no means worse than the differences between a compound bow and a long bow, yet it was ok to let the compound bows into the fold, why not the crossbows?

On the one hand you have two bows (compound and cross) that share almost all of the same hightech gizmos but are shot differently. And on the other you have two bows (compound and long) that are shot the same yet share absolutely none of the same hightech gizmos.

In both examples the two bows compared are complete opposites from each other but two of them can share a season and the other two cannot?

It comes down to this: I feel just because a crossbow is shot differently does not mean it's not a bow, just another FORM of a bow. And I am not alone because the Websters Dictionary thinks the same way I do.