Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowtk@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Critique Technique
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:28:30 GMT
>>>>>[Snake, if we wanted your critique we would have provided you with
our recon data and analysis. That way, you could see why we did things the
way we did. The *real* Army works that way. Your 20-20 hindsight doesn't
see a lot of details that we knew and you still don't: without that info,
your analysis is irrelevant.

And your technique lacks courtesy, depth of analysis, and insight. Also
ways in which you fail to match the standard required. Two out of ten,
stay behind after class, go hit the handbooks some more.

Go play with Jenna and Gabriel: they're more your league.]<<<<<
-- Lynch <23:32:05/03-12-57>
Message no. 2
From: "Freddy Frypp no more" <JAMES-CUENO@*********.edu>
Subject: Re: Critique Technique
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:04:25 CST
>>>>>['Fraid that's not the way thngs worked in this man's army. Or
at least the one I left seven - eight months back.

The petrified command structure has its collective head rammed so far
up its collective sphincter that it hasn't breathed since the SAIM
Incident.

Don't know what army you belonged to, but I haven't run across a
national army yet where higher command actually looks at all of the
data during an after action critque. They just notice how many dead
bodies you brought back and then tell you that you fucked up by not
following the idiotic plan they sent you because you knew their plan
woulda killed everybody.

Besides, if the team didn't want comments, why did they blow any
chance of keeping the mission clandestine by posting a zillion
different viewpoints of the op on a near-public board?

If ya can't take the heat, pick another LZ, I always say.]<<<<<
-- Snake (11:01:09 / 03-13-57)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Critique Technique, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!