ehhh..The_woods_man said:Ok here I'm going to say: no offence to other soldiers, I have the up most respect for each of you, but SAS are SAS for a reason, they are better at their job than you.
At the same time, the majority of soldiers who try to get into special forces...don't. If five people don't get in, and one person does, isn't it reasonable to assume that the one who does would be the best at doing what was needed of them in that instance?BallPtPenTheif said:ehhh..The_woods_man said:Ok here I'm going to say: no offence to other soldiers, I have the up most respect for each of you, but SAS are SAS for a reason, they are better at their job than you.
i know this is straying off topic, but this is a commonly held missconception by all specialized divisions of the armed forces. one is not necessarily better than the other, they just serve different purposes.
Black Hawk Down demonstrated this well, where the Rangers and the Delta Force each thought one was better than the other. in truth, Rangers are better suited for fire support and holding positions where as Delta Force is better at dynamic entry and reconessance.
like i said, sorry for straying off topic, just my 10 cents
That reminds me of a thread I saw the other day, but I can't find it right now. I'm sure it's on the forum somewhere, unless I dreamed it. Someone was talking about suspension of disbelief, where you'd play along with things in a game that seem a bit unlikely for the sake of your overall enjoyment. Not in a stupid way, just so that you actually enjoy the game.sammyfreak said:The fact that everyone was escorting me never really disturbed me or broke immersion. But rather if you kept your pace up and spent most of your time moving the battles had very suitable pace to them.
Has Gigantor invented Gonzo Reviewing?L.B. Jeffries said:Good stuff, always ecstatic to read a review that actually analyzes the experience itself rather than stick with one particular aspect.
this is true. the specialized skill required for certain divisions can be more difficult to master. however, there are still tasks that "grunts" are better suited for. for example, if you have to police an Iraqi suburb, you wouldn't have a bunch of Delta Force guys checking IDs. beyond the waste of resources, the training that Delta Force receives isn't condusive to safe civil discourse. one could even argue that typical army training isn't suited for safe civil discourse, but between the choices available they would be the best option.Gigantor said:At the same time, the majority of soldiers who try to get into special forces...don't. If five people don't get in, and one person does, isn't it reasonable to assume that the one who does would be the best at doing what was needed of them in that instance?
Maybe it's just that the SAS are best at what the SAS do, and other soldiers are best at what they do: specialisation, like.
I thought the gimmick of Gonzo was putting yourself into the review and having that be the chief topic.nilcypher said:Has Gigantor invented Gonzo Reviewing?L.B. Jeffries said:Good stuff, always ecstatic to read a review that actually analyzes the experience itself rather than stick with one particular aspect.
yep specialisation like how the SAS specialize in weapons, infiltration, demolitions, sharpshooting and killing every enemy with a chargrin expression and two bullets in the head and cheast and the American Marines specialize in getting shot, friendly fire, and pushing the WRONG big red button...Gigantor said:At the same time, the majority of soldiers who try to get into special forces...don't. If five people don't get in, and one person does, isn't it reasonable to assume that the one who does would be the best at doing what was needed of them in that instance?BallPtPenTheif said:ehhh..The_woods_man said:Ok here I'm going to say: no offence to other soldiers, I have the up most respect for each of you, but SAS are SAS for a reason, they are better at their job than you.
i know this is straying off topic, but this is a commonly held missconception by all specialized divisions of the armed forces. one is not necessarily better than the other, they just serve different purposes.
Black Hawk Down demonstrated this well, where the Rangers and the Delta Force each thought one was better than the other. in truth, Rangers are better suited for fire support and holding positions where as Delta Force is better at dynamic entry and reconessance.
like i said, sorry for straying off topic, just my 10 cents
Maybe it's just that the SAS are best at what the SAS do, and other soldiers are best at what they do: specialisation, like.
My extensive research on the subject- yes, I looked at the Wikipedia page- has led to think that when a lot of people say Gonzo reviewing, they really mean something which admits its own subjectivity, and doesn't try to get away from it. The journalist can have a physical presence in the piece, but the point is that however hard he or she tries, they cannot remove themselves from it entirely. Or somesuch bollocks.nil said:I was under the impression that the essence of Gonzo Journalism was discussing your feelings about an event or experience, rather than trying to analyse it objectively. But you could be right, as most of my knowledge on the subject comes from the internet.
Thanks. Believe it or not, reluctant complements are my favourite type. They feel hard-earned.limasol said:Ok review, i reached the line graph and thought that it was going to be crap, however your opinions on hubris/western world/weapons are interesting.
Shucks.the_tralfalmadorian said:simply brilliant. best review i've read on this site.
Thanks. I'm thinking of making dodgily drawn MS Paint doodles a regular staple of my reviews, so it's certainly something I'll be working on.Mel said:Pictures flatter your style superbly; especially when you do dodgy diagrams or graphs to demonstrate a point.
Always.sammyfreak said:Send Gin