Text 26975, 94 rader
Skriven 2006-04-14 09:36:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROBERT COUTURE
Ärende: Canadian "Skills"
=========================
-=> Quoting Robert Couture to Frank Scheidt <=-

 RC>> No.  You intimated that you were in Europe.  You back tracked
 RC>> when called out on it.
 
 FS|> I made no such "intimation" ... none ... the readers
 FS|> misinterpreted what I had said -- possibly they did it
 FS|> *deliberately* ...

 RC> Did you not use the words "I was there?"  Was that not in reference to
 RC> the Euopeans and their state of bravery?

It was in reference to the fact that *I* played an active role in 
WWII as a soldier ... and that *I*, being there, was very aware 
of what went on during WWII ...
 
 RC>> I have *never* smeared you.  So, what was it that you did and why
 RC>> do you think you did more to win the war than a front line
 RC>> combatant?  To make such a statement in this light will cause the
 RC>> smearing upon yourself.  Many veterans would decry you less than
 RC>> honest to make such a claim without backing it up.
 
 FS|> That's a fair question.  Thank you.  FYI combat troops are seldom
 FS|> "on the front lines" for more than a few weeks at a stretch --
 FS|> exceptions exist of course.

 RC> And there are very good reasons for this.  A few weeks of front-line
 RC> combat would be equivalent to several months (if not longer) of
 RC> airplane repairs in term of strees and life expectancy issues.
 
True ... but you're evading the issue, namely relative activities 
which won the war.  I worked six days per week.  That's about 300 
days per year.  The average combat troops didn't do that much 
toward winning the war.  And don't twist what I say:  Combat 
troops were in danger hence deserve much credit for that, but 
we're talking about *total* time spend "working" to win the war.  
*Try* to be objective and not emotional WRT this.

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

 RC> Combat training is not productive?  Give your head a shake man. 
 RC> Improved skills and fitness drastically improves the person -- which,
 RC> in turn, improves the survival rate.  That is one of the reasons that
 RC> veteran soldiers have a better chance of survival than some greenhorn
 RC> fresh in from boot camp. 

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

 FS|> I, OTOH, maintained combat aircraft six days
 FS|> each week.  Without such combat aircraft, of course, the war
 FS|> could have lasted an additional year.

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

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

 RC> To say
 RC> that your efforst "did more to win the war" than the front line soldier
 RC> is ludicrous. 

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

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

True ... so?
 
 FS|> OK, now let's see if you can respond without smearing ... [sigh]
 FS|> ...

 RC> No smearing.  Stating facts ... if you cannot accept the facts, that
 RC> would not be my problem.

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

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

Think about it ... *then* reply ...

... Famous last words:  "Try it, Coppers!  Just TRY it!"

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)