Text 26998, 89 rader
Skriven 2006-04-14 10:34:48 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
  Kommentar till text 26975 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
Hello FRANK.

14 Apr 06 09:36, you wrote to me:

FS|> -=> Quoting Robert Couture to Frank Scheidt <=-

FS|> It was in reference to the fact that *I* played an active role in
FS|> WWII as a soldier ... and that *I*, being there, was very aware
FS|> of what went on during WWII ...

Not according to your own words though.

RC>> And there are very good reasons for this.  A few weeks of
RC>> front-line combat would be equivalent to several months (if not
RC>> longer) of airplane repairs in term of strees and life expectancy
RC>> issues.

FS|> True ... but you're evading the issue, namely relative activities
FS|> which won the war.  I worked six days per week.  That's about 300
FS|> days per year.  The average combat troops didn't do that much
FS|> toward winning the war.  And don't twist what I say:  Combat
FS|> troops were in danger hence deserve much credit for that, but
FS|> we're talking about *total* time spend "working" to win the war.
FS|> *Try* to be objective and not emotional WRT this.

Amount of hours worked is irrelevent.  And if you think that soldiers had all
this time off, you are certainly not thinking logically.  There were weeks and
weeks of combat stress on soldiers.  Even those that were "off duty"  It is not
like firlow was State-side.

FS|>> Much of their "off" time is either spent in training (which is
FS|>> non-productive by definition) or just waiting around.

FS|> It isn't contributing directly to winning the war.  It's merely
FS|> preparing them for *future* endeavors.

It most certainly is so.  Troops spent weeks training for some missions.  They
did so to learn techniques and tactics that would help them in the theatre of
combat.

RC>> Of course.  But I think you glorify yourself a bit too much.

FS|> I don't glorify myself at all.  I merely followed orders -- as
FS|> does the typical combat soldier.

Sure you do.  You glorify that your job did more to win the war than the
front-line soldiers.  It is patently false and egotistcal to make such a claim.
 You may have played am important part ... but living and working State-side
was rather cushy compared to the people in the war zone.

FS|> That's because you aren't looking at it *objectively*.  You see
FS|> the soldier during those short periods of combat being in far
FS|> more danger than *I* was and stop thinking objectively.  Don't
FS|> let *emotion* rule!

What does objectivity have to do with it?  You brought in the emotions by
making a statement that glorified you as being more important that the
front-line soldiers.

RC>> The front line soldier risked far more every day than you did
RC>> back in the U.S. fixing broken aircraft.

FS|> True ... so?

So?  Come on now, you fixed a few broken training craft -- so?  It is not like
you were repairing battle damaged aircraft that needed to be back out fighting
the war in a few hours while dodging enemy bombs.

FS|> It doesn't seem to be *I* who cannot accept facts.  I am being
FS|> objective while emotion seems to rule your comments.

That you think your job was more important than those at the front-lines when
clearly you're wrong proves that you cannot acept the facts.

RC>> I don't think anyone here would agree with your statement that
RC>> you did more to win the war than the frontline soldiers.  While I
RC>> agree your part was important, it does not qualify as more than
RC>> the what the soldier did every day.

FS|> Think about it ... *then* reply ...

I did ... you played a role ... but that role was moot were it not for the
combat soldiers that did the *real* role that neded to be done.  Drive the Axis
back.

Robert

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
 * Origin: RuneKeep * Linux Hub 2000 (1:229/2000)