Bill Qualls brought this action below against Philip Boren for assault and battery allegedly occurring outside a Fayetteville tavern in January, 1982. Each blamed the other for provoking the fight. The jury settled that issue by awarding Qualls $6,458.02 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. Boren has appealed. We affirm the judgment.
For reversal, Boren insists the trial court improperly denied him the right to impeach Qualls by showing he had stated under oath he had never been arrested or convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor, when in fact he had been arrested twice for rape and once for theft of property and had been convicted of careless driving. Specifically, Boren contends *67that in interrogatories he asked Qualls if he had ever been “arrested and/or convicted” of a felony and the answer was “no.” The answers were signed by Qualls’ attorney, but were verified by Qualls as being true. Additionally, Boren points to Qualls’ affidavit, attached to a motion in limine, stating he had never been “convicted of any crime, either felony, misdemeanor or an act involving dishonesty or false statement.”
The admissibility in general of felony arrests and misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes need not be examined, as Boren concedes that under Unif. R. Evid. Rule 609 the trial court’s exclusion of these matters would ordinarily be correct1. However, he submits they became admissible for impeachment when Qualls denied their existence under oath. Boren offers no authority to support his argument on this point, he simply asserts that he should have been permitted to show that Qualls swore he had never been arrested, when in fact he had three felony arrests and a misdemeanor conviction.
We can eliminate part of the problem by observing that the affidavit gives no support to Boren’s position. It does not mention arrests, it merely states that Qualls has never been convicted of a felony, which Boren does not dispute, or of “a misdemeanor or an act involving dishonesty or false statement.” Boren argues that Qualls has a misdemeanor conviction for careless driving and hence, his affidavit is false. But that alleged offense was never proffered and we have said a number of times a proffer is essential. Jones v. State, 283 Ark. 308, 675 S.W.2d 825 (1984); Farrell v. State, 269 Ark. 361, 601 S.W.2d 835 (1980); Marion v. State, 267 Ark. 345, 590 S.W.2d 288 (1979); Duncan v. State, 263 Ark. 242, 565 S.W.2d 1 (1978).
With the affidavit aside, all that remains is the single interrogatory, “[p]lease state whether you have ever been arrested and/or convicted of any crimes.” The answer was *68“no.” As we have said, the answers were signed by Qualls’ attorney, but their truth was verified by Qualls on a separate form.
It is obvious this problem has arisen because the interrogatory employed an imprecise term, “and/or,” when precision was called for. The phrase has been so soundly criticized as to have been driven almost entirely from current usage. At best it has been labelled “equivocal,” “obscure” and “meaningless,” at worst “slovenly,” “improper” and “a linguistic abomination.” (See cases cited in Words and Phrases, Perm. Ed., pages 640 to 647). It has no place in modern practice, least of all in discovery interrogatories. A list of condemnors includes a number of our own cases. Spears v. State, 264 Ark. 83, 568 S.W.2d 492 (1978); Heath v. Westark Poultry Processing Corp., 259 Ark. 141, 531 S.W.2d 953 (1976); Guerin v. State, 209 Ark. 1082, 193 S.W. 2d 997 (1946).
The short of the matter is the phrase may be interpreted as either conjunctive or disjunctive, and it is plain Qualls, no doubt advised to do so, chose the conjunctive use so as to interpret the interrogatory as, “have you ever been arrested and convicted of any crime,” to which he could truthfully say, “no.” The record confirms our view: when asked in-chambers if he recalled answering the interrogatory, he said, “And/or, yes sir2.”
We do not suggest discovery should be treated as a game of cat and mouse, or that one litigant should be rewarded by the artful avoidance of truthful answers to proper questions. But that is not the issue before us. Our task is to determine whether (as best we can with no abstract of relevant in-chambers proceedings) the evidence of false swearing was so clear the trial court abused its discretion by excluding it for impeachment purposes. We think not under all the circumstances.
Unif. R. Evid. 608(b) speaks to the issue to this extent: it empowers the trial judge in his discretion to permit *69specific instances of conduct to be inquired into on cross-examination for purposes of attacking credibility, provided those matters are probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Whether the ruling in this instance was based on a belief Qualls answered the interrogatory truthfully, albeit technically, or that the alleged arrests had no bearing on truthfulness, or that prejudice outweighed probative value, or even that the proof of the alleged arrests was questionable, cannot be determined without going to the record. In the end we cannot say the trial judge erred in refusing it for impeachment purposes.
Next, appellant contends he should have been permitted under Unif. R. Evid Rule 404 to show the rapes as evidence of violent character. But Rule 404 deals with character evidence, proved not by specific instances of conduct, as here proposed, but by reputation or opinion, as provided in Rule 405. Moreover, the Rule states that character evidence is not generally admissible to prove that one acted in conformity with such character on a particular occasion. In Pursley v. Price, 283 Ark. 33, 670 S.W.2d 448 (1984), we said Rule 404 did not permit the introduction of evidence that Pursley had a tendency for violence when drinking, but the proof became admissible because Pursley opened the door by first offering proof he was not of a violent nature. See also Adams v. State, 93 Ark. 260, 124 S.W. 766 (1910).
Another point is the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Robert Dow, a Fayetteville neurologist, to testify that dental, hospital and x-ray services were reasonable and necessarily incurred by Qualls as a result of the fight. After establishing Dr. Dow’s medical experience, counsel for appellee submitted his qualifications as an expert, and he testified concerning Qualls’ complaints from the trauma. He said he was generally familiar with the cost of x-ray’s and dental work in the Fayetteville area and we are unable to say the trial court abused its discretion in permitting him to express an opinion on these matters. See Dildine v. Clark Equipment Co., 282 Ark. 130, 666 S.W.2d 692 (1984).
*70Appellant also maintains the trial court should have granted a motion for mistrial on the ground that a defense witness was intimidated by Qualls’ attorney. The witness was with Boren when he and Qualls fought and supported Boren’s version of the incident. He testified at an in-chambers hearing on the motion that he was an employee of Qualls’ attorney, William Storey, who was surprised to see him at the trial. The witness said at first he thought he was being intimidated and his job might be in danger. He later said Storey had not tried to prevent him from testifying and had said he would not hold it against him. In the end, the witness said he was not intimidated and would testify only to the truth. There is no suggestion he did otherwise. We find no basis to overturn the trial judge’s denial of a mistrial. Back v. Duncan, 246 Ark. 494, 438 S.W.2d 690 (1969).
The final point is that there is no evidence to support submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury. No objection to the punitive damage instruction appears in the abstract, but aside from that, it can hardly be questioned that punitive damages are recoverable by one who suffers injury as a result of blows intentionally inflicted. See Ray Dodge, Inc. v. Moore, 251 Ark. 1036, 479 S.W.2d 518 (1972).
In response to the dissenting view, we do not go to the record to reverse. First National Bank of Brinkley, Ark. v. Frey, 282 Ark. 339, 668 S.W.2d 533 (1984); Routen v. Van Dyse, 240 Ark. 825, 402 S.W.2d 411 (1966); Tenbrook v. Daisy Mfg. Co., 238 Ark. 532, 383 S.W.2d 101 (1964).
The judgment is affirmed.
Hickman, J., concurs.
Hubbell, C.J., and Dudley, J., dissent.