| From: | Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: A WildCat, a Navy SEAL, and a Tir mage go into a bar... |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:17:40 -0600 |
>
> At 09:44 AM 7/18/97 -0400, Victor wrote:
>
> > If the Tir mage is also a former spook, works just as well. Not all
> >spec forces teams love and share a 'warm, fuzzy feeling' for each other,
> >BUT most are professional enough to work together to get the job done.
>
> LOL! You got a choice between working with a group of people that you've
> known for a long time (fellow ex-SEALs, let's say) and working with a guy
> who you don't know, is sure he knows the best way to do things (and it isn't
> your way, it's some damned fluffy elf way), and you're going to choose the
> latter because you're pretty sure he's "professional"? You think the elf
is
> going to take orders from you when he knows the right way? You think the
> Wildcat is going to listen to either of you? And let's not forget that
> since the moment all of them were born, they were taught that the others are
> "bad". Realistically, there's too much bad blood there.
>
> Take two fire teams with members of equal rank. One team comes from Israel,
> the other from Iran. How well are these two groups going to get along?
> Realism, it stares us in the face every day...
The phrase you're looking for here is "inter-service rivalry". It happens
everywhere, not just in the military. Not only do people in the Army
make fun of the Army Air Corps (US Air Force - see US History), but it
happens in police forces as well. The local police dept doesn't want
the FBI nosing in on it's case, for example.
> >And who knows, after working with their opposite numbers for awhile,
> >they may just develop a grudging respect for one another. This would go
> >a long way to laying down more lasting links between the trio, than to
> >simply lump them all together as types that should get along and say,
> >you're a team.
>
> Which is exactly what you're doing, lumping them together under the banner
> of "professionalism" (without really knowing what the term means) and then
> applying the BS patch "have worked together, now possess grudging respect".
> That smells, Vic. Bad.
I agree. Just because two people are profesional does not mean that they
will ignore any differences or personal feelings when they need to get
something done together. My itty-bitty Websters defines "professional"
as "referring to a profession; expert" and "professionalism" as
"expertise/skill". We always tend to attach more traits to these words
than the definitions have. Professionalism has always been a sore point
with me and some of my friends when it comes to playing SR in certain
scenarios.
> > Military, and spec forces in particular, are trained in a certain
> >discipline that most amateur shadowrunners have no wish to emulate.
> >[Look at Argent from Nigel Findley's books. He ran a team of
> >Shadowrunners that was almost totally composed of ex-military, and they
> >functioned like a well oiled machine. I'd say more, but then I'd need
> >spoilers :-].
>
> If you truly were a member of the armed forces, Vic, you'd know that easily
> 90% or more of the people in there have no idea what professionalism is...
> those that do are often squashed by the boot of rank and service time...
:) True. Very few of the higher ranking officers and NCO's are actually
worthy of the praise some people seem to think they deserve. Heck, I thought
that the Army was doing pretty good, with regards all of these sex scandals
popping up, until the SMA got pointed at a couple weeks ago. Very few
people in the military are actually worthy of the title "professional". Ever
heard of the phrase "F*ck up, move up"?
> > Only a civilian would make an assumption like that these three
> >would have no reason to stick together as BS! [And NO, I'm NOT bashing
> >civilians; I'm one right now, and enjoy it quite fine, thank you!] I
> >suggest you take a look at the Shadowrun Military Page, and talk to a
> >few of those guys over there, so's you get a better idea what you're
> >meandering about.
Even expert military folks will respect a civilian who shows expertise
in their field. Just because they aren't in the same service doesn't mean
that they won't work with each other. But, there is a certain level of
responsibility, and the way that a person acts, that people in any service
expect from professionals in that service. If any of the expected actions
are not taen that that person drops a few notches in the observers view.
> Heh. I was military, Vic. My father was also in the military. I've seen
> the great military machine in motion. Professional it isn't. I'll gladly
> debate this with anyone, complete with numerous facts, should they really
> wish to get into such a conversation with me. One can assume that the
> military is run the best way possible by the best people possible at all
> times and that everyone gets along and that everyone works together and that
> everyone is happy and that nobody ever violates another person's rights or
> dislikes/distrusts/despises/attacks them because of race, religion, or sex,
> but it doesn't work that way. You'd have to be extremely naive to believe that.
One example to prove topcat's point: my tank platoon in Germany received a
shiny new 2LT, straight out of the Air Force Academy! How did this happen?
We never found out. You thought Army trained officers couldn't read maps?
The first thing this guy did was lead us across a couple of farmers fields
near the Hof border causing about DM250,000 worth of damage because
he couldn't read the road signs. Then, on the same border mission, he
proceeded to direct his tank into taking 9 feet of siding off of the
side of a house that was pretty close to the road. This does not fit
the definition of professional. There was no way we wanted anything to
do with this guy.
--
|
Mike Loseke | You never know how fluffy poodles are,
mike@*******.com | until you step in one.
|
