[Cougar]

Assail, on Jun 10 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

Deteriorated yet further? Are you one of those uninformed Brits who likes to think of the US military as baby killers as well?

I like how you've tried to turn this into Britain vs US thing.

No I like to think of the US military as having deteriorating in quality since the 1940s. Rates of friendly fire alone, compared to the sophistication of the systems available etc would be one factor in this judgement.

Baby killers? Hardly. It's not Vietnam.

Why is there a smiley at the end of such an antagonistic post, seems odd. Makes it difficult to understand if you mean what you type.

**POP THE MOD HAT ON** Doesn't seem right to derail a perfectly good Goodkind bash for this though. Sorry to everyone else, who just want's to slate the objectivist lunatic

[Trull's son]

My apologies for bringing up Donaldson. I enjoyed Goodkind's first couple books, back when i was new to the genre. But I started with that and Wheel of Time, and felt they both started out fairly well. Then, at about the fourth book in both series, they began their descent into oblivion (aka, my trash can). I now cannot stand traditional romantic fantasy (I am referring to the romantic litterary characteristics, but romance is just as terrible). Seriously, as much as I enjoy the description of waterfalls that somehow represent metaphorically the inert beauty of the land, I could do without. Maybe its time to move away from fantasy, and take up smoking pot. (hell, maybe if we all read Soul of the Fire stoned out of our mind's, the chicken fiasco will make more sense...)

[Illuyankas]

I don't think you need to apologise, hell, I really only jumped in because I'd wanted to do one of those 'read the first letter of each sentence' things for a while and this was a good opportunity. There is a Donaldson thread somewhere around here if you'd like to comment there.

[Assail]

Cougar, on Jun 10 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

Assail, on Jun 10 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

Deteriorated yet further? Are you one of those uninformed Brits who likes to think of the US military as baby killers as well?

I like how you've tried to turn this into Britain vs US thing.

No I like to think of the US military as having deteriorating in quality since the 1940s. Rates of friendly fire alone, compared to the sophistication of the systems available etc would be one factor in this judgement.

Baby killers? Hardly. It's not Vietnam.

Why is there a smiley at the end of such an antagonistic post, seems odd. Makes it difficult to understand if you mean what you type.

**POP THE MOD HAT ON** Doesn't seem right to derail a perfectly good Goodkind bash for this though. Sorry to everyone else, who just want's to slate the objectivist lunatic

I didn't make it into a Britain vs US thing, you did by insulting the U.S. military Either or, I brought up your nationality because earlier this day we had some crazy ass British guy come into the recruiting office sounding off about how the U.S. military, and specifically the USMC are a bunch of baby killing automatons.

When you're firing bullets, it doesn't matter how sophisticated your technology is, there is always a margin of error. To say that the U.S. military has deteriorated because of said margin of error seems like an ignorant factor of your aforementioned judgment.

Lol, yes, because Vietnam was all about going in and murdering babies.

I meant to put a '', but it seems I hit the wrong key. It was more or less intended to that I was having a chuckle at what you said, believing it to be one of those 'antagonistic because it might be funny' remarks. Seems I was wrong.

You are correct though, perhaps we could continue this discussion in discussion forums or in PM? I just don't know how we would title it in the discussion forums. Help me out here!

[MTS]

How about "Condition of the U.S. Military in today's world, baby killing automatons vs. saviours of democracy"

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 10 June 2009 - 11:49 PM

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Jun 10 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

How about "Condition of the U.S. Military in today's world, baby killing automatons vs. saviours of democracy"

Oh yes, you're oh so funny Mappo lol.

[MTS]

Hey, it fits. You're defending the Corps from baby killing accusations and poor form, and Cougar's challenging you. It's perfect!

By the way, Vietnam wasn't about baby killing, it was about preventing the Communist domino-effect and removing the Viet Cong, among other things. That doesn't mean baby killing didn't happen. Ive read some horrific accounts where such things happened, like the My Lai massacre. So you can't completely absolve the military from blame there.

I wonder what Goodkind would say about that...

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 10 June 2009 - 11:58 PM

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Jun 10 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Hey, it fits. You're defending the Corps from baby killing accusations and poor form, and Cougar's challenging you. It's perfect!

By the way, Vietnam wasn't about baby killing, it was about preventing the Communist domino-effect and removing the Viet Cong, among other things. That doesn't mean baby killing didn't happen. Ive read some horrific accounts where such things happened, like the My Lai massacre. So you can't completely absolve the military from blame there.

I wonder what Goodkind would say about that...

I'm not saying you can absolve the military, but you need to take into account the mind sets of the average soldier in Vietnam. Months on end without seeing your foe but rustles in the leaves and bullets out of nowhere. Knowing that in each village you patrol through there is Viet Cong, masquerading as normal Vietnamese villagers. Walking through dense jungle and forest, falling into traps, watching your friends and comrades being blown and shot to pieces, on top of being drugged up so as to escape the things they had to witness. This leads to an individual who is on the verge of breakdown, or has indeed broken down and mentally cannot truly know what they're doing. I'm not proclaiming innocence, I'm just saying that back then in the conditions that soldiers were in, it can be seen how it wasn't exactly their fault how they came to be in the frame of mind needed to kill babies.

You can't judge a small part of a military operation as mainstream either, which people tend to do.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Illuyankas, on Jun 10 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Really, RLY, I think there's at least one similarity betweent the two authors.
A couple more might be present but I'm really not familiar enough with either series to comment.
Perhaps you could go through the Covenant books and point out the differences?
Especially the scene in the first book that puts so many people off the series.

So every author who has ever had a rape in their book, regardless of the context and intentions of having that happen in their story, are all the same? Come on Illy, you're better than that.

Yes, there is a rape in the Covenant books. Yes, Goodkind also has rape in his. Comparing the two based off of this is as ridiculous as saying that Goodkind and SE both have people get killed with swords, so they must be the same. Or wait, a better analogy than that, it's like saying that because SE also has rape in his books, he is also on the same level as Goodkind. Rubbish.

@Trull's son, no need to apologize, I wasn't really yelling. Going back and looking, my post looks angry and dickish, which was not my intention. It was meant in a lighthearted "Oh no he didn't" mock-angry tone. My fault for not being clear.

~RLY, chronically misunderstood due to underuse of emoticons

This post has been edited by Raymond Luxury Yacht: 11 June 2009 - 02:38 AM

[Assail]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Jun 10 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Illuyankas, on Jun 10 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Really, RLY, I think there's at least one similarity betweent the two authors.
A couple more might be present but I'm really not familiar enough with either series to comment.
Perhaps you could go through the Covenant books and point out the differences?
Especially the scene in the first book that puts so many people off the series.

So every author who has ever had a rape in their book, regardless of the context and intentions of having that happen in their story, are all the same? Come on Illy, you're better than that.

Yes, there is a rape in the Covenant books. Yes, Goodkind also has rape in his. Comparing the two based off of this is as ridiculous as saying that Goodkind and SE both have people get killed with swords, so they must be the same. Or wait, a better analogy than that, it's like saying that because SE also has rape in his books, he is also on the same level as Goodkind. Rubbish.

@Trull's son, no need to apologize, I wasn't really yelling. Going back and looking, my post looks angry and dickish, which was not my intention. It was meant in a lighthearted "Oh no he didn't" mock-angry tone. My fault for not being clear.

~RLY, chronically misunderstood due to underuse of emoticons

I think you missed his point.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Assail, on Jun 10 2009, 07:39 PM, said:

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Jun 10 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Illuyankas, on Jun 10 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Really, RLY, I think there's at least one similarity betweent the two authors.
A couple more might be present but I'm really not familiar enough with either series to comment.
Perhaps you could go through the Covenant books and point out the differences?
Especially the scene in the first book that puts so many people off the series.

So every author who has ever had a rape in their book, regardless of the context and intentions of having that happen in their story, are all the same? Come on Illy, you're better than that.

Yes, there is a rape in the Covenant books. Yes, Goodkind also has rape in his. Comparing the two based off of this is as ridiculous as saying that Goodkind and SE both have people get killed with swords, so they must be the same. Or wait, a better analogy than that, it's like saying that because SE also has rape in his books, he is also on the same level as Goodkind. Rubbish.

@Trull's son, no need to apologize, I wasn't really yelling. Going back and looking, my post looks angry and dickish, which was not my intention. It was meant in a lighthearted "Oh no he didn't" mock-angry tone. My fault for not being clear.

~RLY, chronically misunderstood due to underuse of emoticons

I think you missed his point.

I see what you did there.

[Assail]

Inside jokes just make me feel so cozy and warm! Haha

[RodeoRanch]

Goodkind threads go all sorts of places.

[Cougar]

Assail, on Jun 11 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

When you're firing bullets, it doesn't matter how sophisticated your technology is, there is always a margin of error. To say that the U.S. military has deteriorated because of said margin of error seems like an ignorant factor of your aforementioned judgment.

Lol, yes, because Vietnam was all about going in and murdering babies.

There is oodles of literature discussing the relative effectiveness of various military organisiations, the standard of recruits. The effectiveness of said recruits in comparison to the levels of technology and the psychological effects of the use of modern tactics and weaponry/technological advances which limits the responibility of the users.

Baby Killers was a common insult associated with the soldiers returning from the Vietnam war and marks a noticeable change in the language used towards soliders (compared to vets of Korea and WW2) It's deliberately emotive and designed to produce a response, it's especially interesting when you consider the USAAF and the RAF probably killed a hell of a lot more babies in WW2 and yet are regarded as heroes. I could go on about the social significance of this phrase but there are those who have done it more justice than I can here. Assail as you were so eager to disparage my correct use of Vietnam as a reference point for the phrase can I suggest you start your research with that. If you believe that there were not significant civilian casualites during the vietnam war I'd be interested to see the source material. As it stands the bulk of literature and archive material points towards many instances of reprisals against civilians.

If you feel you have something interesting to discuss regarding this then I'd welcome an informed discussion, but, putting my mod hat on, this thread isn't the place and I won't derail it by responding any further.

Oh, and keep the insults out. Calling something ignorant because you don't agree with it is very poor.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 11 June 2009 - 08:11 AM

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Jun 11 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

Hey, it fits. You're defending the Corps from baby killing accusations and poor form, and Cougar's challenging you. It's perfect!

By the way, Vietnam wasn't about baby killing, it was about preventing the Communist domino-effect and removing the Viet Cong, among other things. That doesn't mean baby killing didn't happen. Ive read some horrific accounts where such things happened, like the My Lai massacre. So you can't completely absolve the military from blame there.

I wonder what Goodkind would say about that...

The Shearded Vulture would probably say that it was OK, since the people/characters who did it were the good guys, and the GOOD guys can never to anything BAD.

“You want to kill a baby? You’re a good guy, you say? Well, then go right ahead. We must all make sacrifices for the GOOD cause.”



Grimhilde, the Bringer Back of Things on Topic

Wait…..what?

[Wry]

Cougar, on Jun 11 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

Assail, on Jun 11 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

When you're firing bullets, it doesn't matter how sophisticated your technology is, there is always a margin of error. To say that the U.S. military has deteriorated because of said margin of error seems like an ignorant factor of your aforementioned judgment.

Lol, yes, because Vietnam was all about going in and murdering babies.

There is oodles of literature discussing the relative effectiveness of various military organisiations, the standard of recruits. The effectiveness of said recruits in comparison to the levels of technology and the psychological effects of the use of modern tactics and weaponry/technological advances which limits the responibility of the users.

Baby Killers was a common insult associated with the soldiers returning from the Vietnam war and marks a noticeable change in the language used towards soliders (compared to vets of Korea and WW2) It's deliberately emotive and designed to produce a response, it's especially interesting when you consider the USAAF and the RAF probably killed a hell of a lot more babies in WW2 and yet are regarded as heroes. I could go on about the social significance of this phrase but there are those who have done it more justice than I can here. Assail as you were so eager to disparage my correct use of Vietnam as a reference point for the phrase can I suggest you start your research with that. If you believe that there were not significant civilian casualites during the vietnam war I'd be interested to see the source material. As it stands the bulk of literature and archive material points towards many instances of reprisals against civilians.

If you feel you have something interesting to discuss regarding this then I'd welcome an informed discussion, but, putting my mod hat on, this thread isn't the place and I won't derail it by responding any further.

Oh, and keep the insults out. Calling something ignorant because you don't agree with it is very poor.

You know you do this a lot. Get into an argument where the last post is your long rebuttal and then finish by saying this is not the place to argue the point. Often with a not so subtle mention of modship. Bit of a cheap trick really - "here's why i'm right, and you can't reply"

Would be more respectable to say "say on topic" without having to get the last word in, no?

[Assail]

Wry, on Jun 11 2009, 07:03 AM, said:

Cougar, on Jun 11 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

Assail, on Jun 11 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

When you're firing bullets, it doesn't matter how sophisticated your technology is, there is always a margin of error. To say that the U.S. military has deteriorated because of said margin of error seems like an ignorant factor of your aforementioned judgment.

Lol, yes, because Vietnam was all about going in and murdering babies.

There is oodles of literature discussing the relative effectiveness of various military organisiations, the standard of recruits. The effectiveness of said recruits in comparison to the levels of technology and the psychological effects of the use of modern tactics and weaponry/technological advances which limits the responibility of the users.

Baby Killers was a common insult associated with the soldiers returning from the Vietnam war and marks a noticeable change in the language used towards soliders (compared to vets of Korea and WW2) It's deliberately emotive and designed to produce a response, it's especially interesting when you consider the USAAF and the RAF probably killed a hell of a lot more babies in WW2 and yet are regarded as heroes. I could go on about the social significance of this phrase but there are those who have done it more justice than I can here. Assail as you were so eager to disparage my correct use of Vietnam as a reference point for the phrase can I suggest you start your research with that. If you believe that there were not significant civilian casualites during the vietnam war I'd be interested to see the source material. As it stands the bulk of literature and archive material points towards many instances of reprisals against civilians.

If you feel you have something interesting to discuss regarding this then I'd welcome an informed discussion, but, putting my mod hat on, this thread isn't the place and I won't derail it by responding any further.

Oh, and keep the insults out. Calling something ignorant because you don't agree with it is very poor.

You know you do this a lot. Get into an argument where the last post is your long rebuttal and then finish by saying this is not the place to argue the point. Often with a not so subtle mention of modship. Bit of a cheap trick really - "here's why i'm right, and you can't reply"

Would be more respectable to say "say on topic" without having to get the last word in, no?

Edited out: Sorry, thought you were talking to me Wry

@Cougar No insult intended, it's just my view that associating Vietnam with baby killing is like saying every Iraqi or Iranian is a terrorist, which is unarguably an ignorant statement.

I'll stop now!

Rodeo is correct though, Goodkind threads tend to go all sorts of places

Come, bash Goodkind away now, I will fend you all off

This post has been edited by Assail: 11 June 2009 - 04:39 PM

[MTS]

He was talking about Cougar, not you lol.

Fend us off? You have no hope. The tide of Goodkind hate on these boards is like a refreshing breeze that slowly builds into a hurricane that blows all opposition away with it's righteous fury.

Bye bye Fluffy

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on Jun 11 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

He was talking about Cougar, not you lol.

Fend us off? You have no hope. The tide of Goodkind hate on these boards is like a refreshing breeze that slowly builds into a hurricane that blows all opposition away with it's righteous fury.

Bye bye Fluffy

Thanks for catching that, reading fail on my part lol. Hell no, I'm still here aren't I? There is no way I'm leaving permanently

[Grief]

Assail, on Jun 11 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

I'm leaving permanently

You had my hopes up there.

Then I read the rest of the post.