We Few

"Eric Peterson" <epeterso1.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:tz54e.894365$8l.613445@pd7tw1no...
 > Mud wrote:
  >> At last it's here. coldfire
  >>
 >
 > Already finished it

And really enjoyed it
don't pock with a McClintock, really really don't.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:50:59 GMT, "Tom Chizek" <tchizek DeleteThis @ameritech.net>
wrote:

 >
 >"Eric Peterson" <epeterso1 DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote in message
 >news:tz54e.894365$8l.613445@pd7tw1no...
  >> Mud wrote:
   >>> At last it's here. coldfire
   >>>
  >>
  >> Already finished it
 >
 >And really enjoyed it
 >don't pock with a McClintock, really really don't.
 >

I enjoyed it, but less than the others in the series. The change from
Marine to Naval was a little jarring.
--David Salmansohn--

Change "nospam" to my first name and .org to .com to reply<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

 >
 > I enjoyed it, but less than the others in the series. The change from
 > Marine to Naval was a little jarring.
 > --David Salmansohn--
 >
 > Change "nospam" to my first name and .org to .com to reply

Well, I was kind of expecting some kind of change. I did not see how he
could keep up the "March X" pattern of the series. I though the naval
aspects were fairly well done, they had to go into a bit more detail about
the ships than really fit this far into a series, but given the focus prior
to this book I thought it worked well.

<spoiler space>
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

I especially liked the fighter/cruiser/carrier distinction, I found it a
more believable set of vessels than the Honorverse full range of starships
matching exactly the full range of ship types from the early 20th century.
Having fighters that are capable of taking out capital ships under ambush
conditions and carriers that have large numbers of both cruisers and
fighters is very cool - I saw quite a bit of David Weber's writing in the
navel sequences, just as I can see John's writing in the HTH combat
sequences - they read quite a bit like the Legacy of the Aldenata series -
especially Hymn Before Battle.
I also liked the political sequences, especially Rodger needing to be
restrained - there was a good point early in the book that Rodger had "grown
up" on Marduk where he learned that the right answer to a failed negotiation
is to kill the people you are negotiating with - then when he got back to
Earth his advisors kept having to restrain him from killing, oh the Prime
Minister (although frankly the PM is a bit of a sleaze and I suspect Rodger
will have to whack him eventually).

Just some thoughts!
Tom.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:40:54 +0000, Tom Chizek wrote:


 > I especially liked the fighter/cruiser/carrier distinction, I found it a
 > more believable set of vessels than the Honorverse full range of starships
 > matching exactly the full range of ship types from the early 20th century.
 > Having fighters that are capable of taking out capital ships under ambush
 > conditions and carriers that have large numbers of both cruisers and
 > fighters is very cool - I saw quite a bit of David Weber's writing in the
 > navel sequences, just as I can see John's writing in the HTH combat
 > sequences - they read quite a bit like the Legacy of the Aldenata series -
 > especially Hymn Before Battle.
 > I also liked the political sequences, especially Rodger needing to be
 > restrained - there was a good point early in the book that Rodger had "grown
 > up" on Marduk where he learned that the right answer to a failed negotiation
 > is to kill the people you are negotiating with - then when he got back to
 > Earth his advisors kept having to restrain him from killing, oh the Prime
 > Minister (although frankly the PM is a bit of a sleaze and I suspect Rodger
 > will have to whack him eventually).

I liked the book. I wish in the end he had slaughtered the bad guys
though. I think he'd be more interesting being a darker character.
Eventually after unifying the Empire again after a bloody civil war and
his becoming a tyrant he could be eliminated and his and Nimashet's child
could become ruler. I like harsh endings to series. Enough with the
sappy nice endings.

The humor in the takeover of the palace was great though. I love morbid
humor.

coldfire<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

Mud wrote:
 > I liked the book. I wish in the end he had slaughtered the bad guys
 > though. I think he'd be more interesting being a darker character.
 > Eventually after unifying the Empire again after a bloody civil war and
 > his becoming a tyrant he could be eliminated and his and Nimashet's child
 > could become ruler. I like harsh endings to series. Enough with the
 > sappy nice endings.
 >
 > The humor in the takeover of the palace was great though. I love morbid
 > humor.
 >
 > coldfire

Remember, in the intro he was called "Roger the Tyrant" and some other
crap like that. I wouldn't see it at all out of character for him to,
er, go a bit overboard during the civil war.

And he stand a good chance of going psychotic, I think. O.o I mean, he
can't just go around killing his opponents, but that's his first instinct...

Andrew L.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Andrew L Lannon
<all_games.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote back on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:43:13 -0500 in
alt.books.david-weber :
 >Mud wrote:
  >> I liked the book. I wish in the end he had slaughtered the bad guys
  >> though. I think he'd be more interesting being a darker character.
  >> Eventually after unifying the Empire again after a bloody civil war and
  >> his becoming a tyrant he could be eliminated and his and Nimashet's child
  >> could become ruler. I like harsh endings to series. Enough with the
  >> sappy nice endings.
  >>
  >> The humor in the takeover of the palace was great though. I love morbid
  >> humor.
  >>
  >> coldfire
 >
 >Remember, in the intro he was called "Roger the Tyrant" and some other
 >crap like that. I wouldn't see it at all out of character for him to,
 >er, go a bit overboard during the civil war.

  Remember, Roger has just come through a rather... "unique" ...
political education. And being roger, he is less inclined towards ...
suffering fools. He seems to be a throwback to Matlida (Iirc. The first
McClintock.), and well, one, how does the old saying go? "McClintockae,
non copularii?"

 >And he stand a good chance of going psychotic, I think. O.o I mean, he
 >can't just go around killing his opponents, but that's his first instinct...

  It worked before. but getting the blood stains out of the furnishings
is more of a problem.

 >Andrew L.

--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

pyotr filipivich wrote:

  > It worked before. but getting the blood stains out of the furnishings
 > is more of a problem.

Blood stains can be painted over. Bone fragments embedded in the ceiling
are a pain to sand down or pick out.

Though, someone might be able to get him to pound them flat with his
head <G>.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Offbreed
<offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote back on Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:48:15 -0700 in
alt.books.david-weber :
 >pyotr filipivich wrote:
 >
   >> It worked before. but getting the blood stains out of the furnishings
  >> is more of a problem.
 >
 >Blood stains can be painted over. Bone fragments embedded in the ceiling
 >are a pain to sand down or pick out.
 >
 >Though, someone might be able to get him to pound them flat with his
 >head <G>.

  See what happens when people assume?

  Everyone "assumed" Roger was getting the schooling he needed nobody
ever sat down and _asked_ him if he knew about certain events in his and
the Emperoress' past, and the political ramifications thereof.
  So of course, lacking those tiddlybits of information, of course it is
no wonder that Roger should lack the finesse of those who schooling was ..
ah .. "more complete".

tschus
pyotr




--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

BreadStick Assassin wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 25 May 2005 01:07:41 GMT, pyotr filipivich
><phamp.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>The stats above are a little misleading. Nobody has ever been in
>continuous combat for sixty days. AFAIK, there has never been a
>firefight lasting sixty days. Being in a combat zone and being in
>combat are two different things. Being in a combat zone is far more
>stressful, but you tend to live longer. Being in a firefight is less
>stressful because (hopefully) your training kicks in and everything
>goes on automatic. But you have far better odds being killed in
>combat than simply being in a combat zone. As for the insanity part,
>all infantrymen are insane, recce troops doubly so. (guess what I
>did:))
>

This is rather interseting.

I can see where it's more stressful to be "in a combat zone" than in actual
combat. As you say, in combat, you are
probably in automatic and not actually thinking all that much, whereas just
being in the general area, you probably
have time to think about all the dangers in the area and start absorbing it
into your psyche.

Given this, I guess I can see why it is probably more stressful for our
troops serving in Iraq as "occupation" duty,
than it may have been during the actual drive on Bagdahd.
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:30:25 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>
>BreadStick Assassin wrote in message ...
>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 01:07:41 GMT, pyotr filipivich
>><phamp.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>The stats above are a little misleading. Nobody has ever been in
>>continuous combat for sixty days. AFAIK, there has never been a
>>firefight lasting sixty days. Being in a combat zone and being in
>>combat are two different things. Being in a combat zone is far more
>>stressful, but you tend to live longer. Being in a firefight is less
>>stressful because (hopefully) your training kicks in and everything
>>goes on automatic. But you have far better odds being killed in
>>combat than simply being in a combat zone. As for the insanity part,
>>all infantrymen are insane, recce troops doubly so. (guess what I
>>did:))
>>
>
>This is rather interseting.
>
>I can see where it's more stressful to be "in a combat zone" than in actual
>combat. As you say, in combat, you are
>probably in automatic and not actually thinking all that much, whereas just
>being in the general area, you probably
>have time to think about all the dangers in the area and start absorbing it
>into your psyche.
>
>Given this, I guess I can see why it is probably more stressful for our
>troops serving in Iraq as "occupation" duty,
>than it may have been during the actual drive on Bagdahd.
>

That having been said, you also have to take into account the change
in 'mental' toughness of previous generations compared to today.
Remember that most of the troops who fought in WWII grew up in the
Depression era, which means they were already used to living hard.
Today, most of the kids in Iraq grew up with different standards. I'd
guess we'd see more 'psychological' casualties today than back then.
And when you factor media into everything...it's hard to maintain
focus when half of your country's media is telling you that you're
doing the wrong thing. That just adds to all the other worrisome
details about being in a combat zone.
And I don't care what anybody says, that country is not pacificied.
Pacificed countries don't produce casualties on a daily basis.

This message brought to you by
The BreadStick Assassin
"Before anyone does anything else, has anyone seen my finger?"
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

Let the record show that BreadStick Assassin
<breadstick.assassin.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote back on Wed, 25 May 2005 10:01:23
-0400 in alt.books.david-weber :
>On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:30:25 -0400, "Fred Burton"
><fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>BreadStick Assassin wrote in message ...
>>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 01:07:41 GMT, pyotr filipivich
>>><phamp.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The stats above are a little misleading. Nobody has ever been in
>>>continuous combat for sixty days. AFAIK, there has never been a
>>>firefight lasting sixty days. Being in a combat zone and being in
>>>combat are two different things. Being in a combat zone is far more
>>>stressful, but you tend to live longer. Being in a firefight is less
>>>stressful because (hopefully) your training kicks in and everything
>>>goes on automatic. But you have far better odds being killed in
>>>combat than simply being in a combat zone. As for the insanity part,
>>>all infantrymen are insane, recce troops doubly so. (guess what I
>>>did:))
>>>
>>
>>This is rather interseting.
>>
>>I can see where it's more stressful to be "in a combat zone" than in actual
>>combat. As you say, in combat, you are
>>probably in automatic and not actually thinking all that much, whereas just
>>being in the general area, you probably
>>have time to think about all the dangers in the area and start absorbing it
>>into your psyche.
>>
>>Given this, I guess I can see why it is probably more stressful for our
>>troops serving in Iraq as "occupation" duty,
>>than it may have been during the actual drive on Bagdahd.
>>
>
>That having been said, you also have to take into account the change
>in 'mental' toughness of previous generations compared to today.

Oh I think you will find that there is still a solid core of the
mentally tough in this army. Some who entered did so to find out if they
have what it takes, and have found it. Others, joined as a way out of a
bad situation, and find that "this" is an opportunity to "Return to the
community". I recall an article about a Sargent who had been a gang
memeber before joining up, and now, "just like the bad old days, only I'm
one of the good guys." The street smarts transferred from the barrio to
Baghdad.

>Remember that most of the troops who fought in WWII grew up in the
>Depression era, which means they were already used to living hard.

Pfft. What the "rich" went through in their daily lives most of us
would consider "hard". No automatic transmission in the car, no CDs, no
TV, heck few typewriters, even. Middle management had it "easy", they only
worked five and a half days, rather than a straight six.

>Today, most of the kids in Iraq grew up with different standards. I'd
>guess we'd see more 'psychological' casualties today than back then.
>And when you factor media into everything...it's hard to maintain
>focus when half of your country's media is telling you that you're
>doing the wrong thing. That just adds to all the other worrisome
>details about being in a combat zone.

After a while, one begins to recognize that "We Support the Reporters"
is just as true as their claims of "We Support the Troops."

>And I don't care what anybody says, that country is not pacificied.
>Pacificed countries don't produce casualties on a daily basis.

That's like saying that the United States is a dangerous place, because
of the murder rate in Detroit is so high.
--
pyotr filipivich
TV NEWS: Yesterday's newspaper read to the illiterate.
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: We Few 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: We Few