Is your son coming to the World Cup in Orlando?



"Tony Sr." <amargio1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mzwWe.161$GQ4.94@fed1read05...
> John my post was about today's people, that includes today's army navy
> etc.
> don't make something big outta this as the truth is the truth.....like it
> or
> not...sorry ;-)our children are the first generation in HISTORY that also
> tells the parent what to DO !! nice very nice...not me cause I would still
> kick them in the seat of pants. hehehaha Just look around you and you will
> see that. re-read what i sent as an OT and address that just for the heck
> of
> it....
> ps tomorrow my son Marcello plays at the tourny here in san diego...div111
> x-ball...they are the best in the division...team name san diego
> aftermath....play paintball and have fun...Jeff BTW is quite a person who
> can easily be a debate captain , not to say you can't but Jeff is also
> good
> honest person who I have proof of what i say. take it easy John and to
> your
> whole family god bless.
> "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MvuWe.85440$xl6.27468@tornado.tampabay.rr.com ...
>> Your assumption that I have a superiority complex is so far off base,
>> it's
>> silly. I was clearly talking about today's military youngsters, not
> myself.
>> I'm 53.
>>
>> Having had a much wider experience than you with military folks I can
>> categorically state that I would hire a recently and honorably discharged
>> veteran than almost anyone else, given similar qualifications. If you had
>> been in the military you would know why.
>>
>> I have misplaced a survey done a few years back, regarding this same
> issue.
>> It was a series of questions asked from managers and human resources
>> professionals. Something like 85% said that Vets make better
>> employees.
>>
>> Maybe in your industry you don't see it, but Vets know what hard work is.
>>
>> Have a good day!
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> P.S.
>>
>> Your web site was down a while ago.
>>
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:OtKdnYk0LKsw9bfeRVn-1A@comcast.com...
>> > "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:jZsWe.85436$xl6.3794@tornado.tampabay.rr.com. ..
>> >> Having worked extensively with troops, I can, without a doubt, state
> that
>> >> yes, as a groop, soldiers have more character, dicipline, dedication,
> and
>> >> maturity than the average guy on the street. I'm talking about the
>> >> male
>> >> troops.
>> >
>> > A recent argument had over the character of soldiers leaves little
>> > doubt
>> > that they are, as a group, subject to the same failings as any other
>> > sector
>> > of the public. Most specifically, their rates of abuse, alcohol,
> spousal,
>> > and child abuse, are all in line with norms for the population as a
> whole.
>> > While I only have seen evidence of those particular things, I would
>> > imagine
>> > that soldiers, as a group, are not terribly different, character wise,
> in
>> > any other respect, from the general population.
>> >
>> >> They have to be High School graduates. they can't have any felonies or
>> >> serious misdemenors on their records. Look at the difference between
> them
>> >> today and the VietNam era draftee.
>> >>
>> >> Any employer worth their salt knows this, Mr. MCSD.
>> >
>> > That a person has no criminal record is no indication of their
> character.
>> > Anyone with a BRAIN knows this, Mr. NotAnMCSD. To say otherwise would
> be
>> > to
>> > think that a person without a criminal record is nothing less than a
>> > saint.
>> > I can only assume that YOU have some skeletons in your closet that you
>> > aren't proud of, regardless of whether or not you have a criminal
> record.
>> >
>> > It sounds to me like you're buying, hook line and sinker, the line
>> > being
>> > touted by the marketing staff in charge of the armed forces public
> service
>> > messages. It also sounds like you actually joined the military, and
> this
>> > is
>> > where the belief was reinforced.
>> >
>> >> After going through basic, advanced, and all the other stuff they go
>> >> through, most any civilian job is easy.
>> >
>> > Ah, there it is! The "I was in the military so I'm better than a
> civvie"
>> > superiority complex. I was wondering when that would show up.
>> >
>> >> Have you even been in the military yourself?
>> >
>> > Nope. I've known enough military people to know that while what you
>> > are
>> > saying is generally accepted as the truth, simple examination of facts
> can
>> > easily show this perception to be nothing more than marketing hype.
> Feel
>> > free to examine the statistics yourself. DOJ keeps pretty decent
> military
>> > crime statistics, and they compare, population wise, to the general
>> > population, across the board.
>> >
>> > I can say this much, I've met all types of military people in my
> lifetime.
>> > And, true to form, the people I meet follow the general population
> trends
>> > almost to the letter. In general, at any given time, in any given
>> > population, you'll find about 80% of them would be considered "by the
>> > book"
>> > law abiding, generally decent people. The other 20% tend to be
>> > "screwed
>> > up
>> > in some way", a variety of ways, but summed up with simply "messed up".
>> >
>> > In the military, this tends to manifest itself in one of two ways. On
> the
>> > one hand, the good ones are shaped by the training. It turns them from
> an
>> > average joe into a solid, responsible, respectable soldier, like you
>> > describe above. On the OTHER hand, the bad ones are deformed by the
>> > training. They drink too much, they get loud, obnoxious, they beat
> their
>> > wives, abuse their children, in that obscenely military way that
> involves
>> > a
>> > HUGE superiority complex, as you displayed above. When that
>> > superiority
>> > complex is used correctly, it can instill respect and command
>> > authority,
>> > it's intended purpose. When used in the negative way, it leads to
>> > violence,
>> > anger, and retribution, often on those least able to fend it off.
>> >
>> > Make no mistake about it, two of my very best friends are ex-military,
> and
>> > both were "shaped", not "deformed" by their training. I have great
>> > respect
>> > for THEM, because of who they are. I do NOT have great respect for
>> > "military folks" just because they were in the military. A person has
> to
>> > EARN respect, it is never just "given" because of their status or
>> > occupation.
>> >
>> > I'll note for the record that I am NOT saying military folks are bad,
> per
>> > se, just that they are human beings, subject to the same problems we
>> > all
>> > have. As such, it's EXTREMELY unfair to make comparison to "kids in
> Iraq"
>> > when talking about kids in general, holding them up as the shining
> beacon
>> > that is what represents the youth of today. They are no better or
>> > worse
>> > than any other kid.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
>> > It's not a god complex when you're always right
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Army: They are getting soft. At least in their basic training. It's a
good thing they've got big numbers and the best equipment on the planet
otherwise a whole shit-load of them would be buying the farm until they got
enough time in the field to harden up.

That i will agree with, there even experimenting with having reserve and
national gaurdsman train for BCT... but it still depends on the unit
and mos there are still good leaders.

as far as hiring, paying minimum and offering commisions on what good an
employee does, i would prefer a CCW holder (someone who passed all
qualifications to carry a concealed weapon) or ex military with a
current top secret clearance. a clean record doesnt make you a better
person or worker, but it means you don't like getting caught and reduces
an employers liability.



Tom Greening wrote:
> I think maybe the points are getting confused here. Are people in the
> military better people? I suppose it depends on your definition of better.
> Are they harder working, better educated (don't laugh, I'll explain), more
> disciplined (THEE single biggest difference), and more respectful? You
> bet. They are still people like everyone else, but when it comes to crunch
> time and time to ""do the job", they are better.
>
> I'd say the vast majority of today's youth are just as capable of displaying
> those qualities but the sad fact is that they don't. In the military you
> either get with the program, or you do the sea-bag drag and head back to the
> block with the rest of your long haired, undisciplined, tree huggin hippy
> freak buddies.
>
> Unless things have changed, in order to be in the military you have to be a
> high school graduate, or at least have a GED. In order to be an officer you
> MUST have a college education. Most civilian management does, but not all.
> Higher echelon management yes, but lower and middle management not
> necessarily so. It's no lie that today's military is better educated as a
> whole than it's ever been. It's not quite the dumping ground it used to be.
>
> I think that is the big difference. In the military there is discipline.
> There is discipline because it is ENFORCED, where for the most part in the
> civilian world it is not. You learn how to take orders, respect authority,
> and do your job in a professional manner....because if you don't, you are
> seriously held accountable for it and all the whining and crying in the
> world isn't going to help you. Some military people truly learn these
> qualities, others exhibit them for no other reason than they HAVE to in
> order to stay out of trouble. They wear it all like a shirt, and discard it
> as soon as they are discharged. Others just can't do it and find themselves
> back on the street on in the brig.
>
> Are the ones that take it to heart better people? Maybe not, but they for
> sure make better citizens and better employees. For the record I AM ex
> military (Marine Corp) and I AM prejudiced in that I think the USMC is the
> single best trained and disciplined branch of the military. With that said,
> I've experienced both extremes in the civilian work force. Ex-military that
> took things to heart, and it transferred into their civilian life/job, and
> the ones who either just did their time and dropped all their training once
> out, or got booted because they couldn't hack it. There are a LOT of
> "Marines" that get booted because they can't hack it. Close to 50% never
> make it through boot camp.
>
>
> You're an intelligent guy Jeff, but you can't make truly informed opinions
> on EVERYTHING just because you've read all the books, or rubbed shoulders
> with some folks that could tell you about this or that. You'd have to work
> with these people on a daily basis in their environment in order to see the
> differences.
>
> Now with THAT said, boy am I going to piss of some military folks! IMNSHO,
> the breakdown of the military from best to worst is as follows.
>
> Marine Corp: Overall the best trained, best disciplined, and most highly
> motivated of any. They contain all aspects of all other branches of the
> service. Ground forces, air forces, and the Navy is our bus drivers. There
> is a reason they are the point men for any nasty ugly ass job that needs
> done. Brainwashed so hard in boot they think they are invincible, but
> dammit, those guys will bust through a door KNOWING there is a good chance
> of getting turned into hamburger on the other side. They trust their
> buddies to back them up and patch them back together when it's all over (god
> bless Corpsman, best thing the Navy produced in a Marine's eye).
>
> Navy: Probably the best trained but not so high on the discipline ladder.
> They're great when doing their jobs. First rate guys and very professional,
> but outside of the job, they get a tad lax.
>
> Air Force: Highly trained, the best of everything when it comes to
> equipment, undisciplined and the biggest bunch of whiners I've ever met in
> my life.
>
> Army: They are getting soft. At least in their basic training. It's a
> good thing they've got big numbers and the best equipment on the planet
> otherwise a whole shit-load of them would be buying the farm until they got
> enough time in the field to harden up.
>
>
> Ok Jeff, go ahead, start ripping.
>
>
>
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:nf2dnV-GL4UsyrfeRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>
>>"John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:YgsWe.85435$xl6.65796@tornado.tampabay.rr.c om...
>>
>>>So, when was the youth up to your expectations? 1960's ? 1950's?
>>>
>>>I'm sorry you're pissed that it's hard to find good help. Maybe a
>>
>>different
>>
>>>attitude or higher wages would help.
>>>
>>>There's a lot of great youth around. Many of them are in Iraq.
>>
>>Dude. No. Don't even fuckin go there.
>>
>
>
>

I have to mention a couple of ongoing jokes here ;-)
They are possibly quite factual though IMHO ;-)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:07:20 GMT, "Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com>
wrote:


>Now with THAT said, boy am I going to piss of some military folks! IMNSHO,
>the breakdown of the military from best to worst is as follows.
>
>Marine Corp: Overall the best trained, best disciplined, and most highly
>motivated of any. They contain all aspects of all other branches of the
>service. Ground forces, air forces, and the Navy is our bus drivers. There
>is a reason they are the point men for any nasty ugly ass job that needs
>done. Brainwashed so hard in boot they think they are invincible, but
>dammit, those guys will bust through a door KNOWING there is a good chance
>of getting turned into hamburger on the other side. They trust their
>buddies to back them up and patch them back together when it's all over (god
>bless Corpsman, best thing the Navy produced in a Marine's eye).

Pre-Programmed Robots taught only reflex/responsive action to given
situations. Brains have been placed in Jars for possible collection
upon retirement. When you mention the Navy with the marines remember
that the Navy normally provides their subsistence as in food,
transportation and equipment supplies. Yes the Marines have "Recon"
or "Force Recon" that have singular objectives one way in to one
thing/objective and then one way out. They are definitely there when
there is something that might end up in a sacrificial involvement. Go
for it "Jar-Heads" ;-)

>Navy: Probably the best trained but not so high on the discipline ladder.
>They're great when doing their jobs. First rate guys and very professional,
>but outside of the job, they get a tad lax.

Slow , Lax and fat cruising around on their big yachts since they
could not afford one themselves. They even get paid extra with the
sea pay and all. Each ship is like a floating city. It takes a
consortium of brains and equipment to get them where they need to go.
They do have underwater demo teams known as "SEALS" and they tend to
be singularly objective minded for special situations. Hey do not
shoot at my yacht we have a bunch of boats here that will shoot back.
Hey "Squids" :-)

>Air Force: Highly trained, the best of everything when it comes to
>equipment, undisciplined and the biggest bunch of whiners I've ever met in
>my life.

Yes you got that right but they do it right. The government approves
their budget and they get their planes and equipment. But after that
they get another budget for their bases and living quarters. When
they have to live on a military base the get additional pay for
substandard living(yes, you heard right). They truly have the best of
all in both worlds. Not to mention they do not get dirty. I mean
most of their equipment needs a target laser lighted or marked for
accurate deployment. Hey Army Hey Marines (In that order) and then
the Army gets stuck with protecting them and their fields during any
conflict. If the Army was not around they would truly be in trouble
in any confrontation. They have it made. Hey "Fly-Boys"

>Army: They are getting soft. At least in their basic training. It's a
>good thing they've got big numbers and the best equipment on the planet
>otherwise a whole shit-load of them would be buying the farm until they got
>enough time in the field to harden up.
>

Yes indeed, they are getting soft. Basic Training is just that and
nothing but Basic Training (aka "BT") there is no longer any Basic
Combat Training" (aka "BCT"). You can not actually get physically
hurt or stressed out nowadays and Drill Sergeants are not allowed to
offend especially with the new stress awareness and coed situations.

Their budget includes their equipment and personnel accommodations.
They are stuck with what they have and make the best of it. I believe
they do have a larger air force (more flying contraptions) than the
actual Air Force. They also have Delta Force, Pathfinders, Special
Forces, Rangers, Airborne and Recon, Infantry, etc.. The Army is one
entity that can be Self supporting and assistance providing to all
branches of military..

By the way the Army was and has been the first forces in almost all
conflicts despite what you may of heard. For example in Vietnam the
9th Infantry was the first in and last out. They originated the river
patrols (yes, in patrol boats) as well as the first recons. Now (as a
Marine) when you mention first in are you talking about
company/battalion (not smaller) size or larger? I will answer that
for you yes. ;-)

Now have fun ;-)

>Ok Jeff, go ahead, start ripping.
>
>
>
>"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:nf2dnV-GL4UsyrfeRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>> "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:YgsWe.85435$xl6.65796@tornado.tampabay.rr.com ...
>> > So, when was the youth up to your expectations? 1960's ? 1950's?
>> >
>> > I'm sorry you're pissed that it's hard to find good help. Maybe a
>> different
>> > attitude or higher wages would help.
>> >
>> > There's a lot of great youth around. Many of them are in Iraq.
>>
>> Dude. No. Don't even fuckin go there.
>>
>

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:10:56 GMT, "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I totally agree with your opinion of the Marines. You even see it in the
>ads. They recruit out of pride and the expectation of hard work.

>The Army throws money at the recruits.
I suppose you are talking about bonuses for choices made for their
evident potential abilities?
> In a classroom environement, Army folks do better on tests.

> However, when it comes to the rough and tumble of field
>duty, Marines are far superior to Army folks.

As a general rule they are programmed to do just that the rough and
tumble mud wrestling. No potential abilities needed there. ;-)

> I know, I've trained them and trained with them.

Wait a second you were what branch teaching Marines ?

>BAck in 1976, when I was a young 2nd LT attending Officer's Basic Field
>Artillery Course, we had a bunch of Marines in our class. They has 6 months
>of hard field training before even taking the basic course!

Now that is messed up. A "Butter Bar" comparing conditioning of
several months of glorified infantry training for "Jar Heads" to the
conditioning of much less time (basic is 6-8 weeks and then what
possibly another 8 weeks advanced) for "Army". There has to be some
fallacy there. :-)

>Air Force personnel are the softest. They expect their tour of duty to be
>like a civilian job.
>
>Just my opinion.
>
No doubt about that :-) They even have civilian people to bus their
tables in the mess halls/cafeterias. I hear now that some bases even
have cleaning service once a week for barracks (that is not a
definite). I have had the chance with construction to help build some
Air Force Barracks for the lower enlisted and up. They are in fact
very nice.

There is no question on his point and never has and I challenge any
young kid to say it is otherwise because they can not prove it.
Statistics alone prove John to be correct.

We just took it onto a whole new tangent with the military scenario.
:-)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:14:10 GMT, "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I understand your point now.
>
>John
>
>
>"Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com> wrote in message
>news:%RzWe.11219$ib1.9852@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>> The kid was trying to play me for a fool, and I knew better. 50's?
>> Probably so. They had a lot more respect for authority then, since people
>> actually still HAD authority. 60's? I don't know about that. You're
>> starting to get into that whole counter-culture hippy thing. Thank god
>> they
>> all sold out and became corporate sharks by the 80's.
>>
>> MY attitude has nothing to do with it. All I expect when someone walks in
>> the door is for them to present themselves in a professional manner.
>> Pant's
>> down around your ankles is not it.
>>
>> Wages has nothing to do with it. If a person's underlying character is
>> not
>> there, all a high wage does is make him happy for the first week until he
>> starts deciding that I "don't pay him ENOUGH to do this/that".
>>
>>
>> "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:YgsWe.85435$xl6.65796@tornado.tampabay.rr.com ...
>>> I have no idea what you mean by being 'stroked'. I just posted an honest
>>> question and an opinion to what I perceived to be an honest post and
>> opinion
>>> on your part.
>>>
>>> So, when was the youth up to your expectations? 1960's ? 1950's?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry you're pissed that it's hard to find good help. Maybe a
>> different
>>> attitude or higher wages would help.
>>>
>>> There's a lot of great youth around. Many of them are in Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

I won't bother commenting on the rest because for the most part you're
pretty close. For the "most" part.

The only thing I can say the Marines are taught reflexive responses to are
orders and certain combat situations. When told to do it, you do it NOW,
without question or hesitation. If someone yells "GRENADE!", you hit the
deck. Now. You don't ask where, you don't ask who, you hit the deck and try
to stay alive.

Robots do not make good soldiers. They are too inflexible. Marines aren't
robots (nor do I think are any of the other branches). You mistake
discipline and obedience to orders as being robotic and unthinking. You
see, your "boss" has been charged with doing his best to get his job done
and keep you alive while he's at it. You on the other hand have been
charged to follow his directives, implement the plan, and trust him to do
his best to keep you alive. It doesn't always work but it works a helluva
lot better than if everyone stood around debating the merit of a given order
or plan. While you're chatting it all up, Joe Shit the Rag Head has walked
up and blown you to hell.

Oh, and the only thing they get from the Navy is a paycheck (since much to
their chagrin, they ARE a dept. of the Navy) and transportation. Otherwise,
they do their own cooking, have their own supply line. Food preparation
shipboard is supplied, but I'd call that fair since the Jarheads provide all
shipboard security. Navy guys and small arms don't mix all that well.

Oh, and just in case you were thinking the term "Jar Head" comes from some
misguided idea that upon enlistment their brains are placed in jars, you are
mistaken.


"Hardtime" <hardtime11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83sli19bs972og9bpjmhoj8s4ff3rlekcq@4ax.com...
> I have to mention a couple of ongoing jokes here ;-)
> They are possibly quite factual though IMHO ;-)
>
> Pre-Programmed Robots taught only reflex/responsive action to given
> situations. Brains have been placed in Jars for possible collection
> upon retirement. When you mention the Navy with the marines remember
> that the Navy normally provides their subsistence as in food,
> transportation and equipment supplies. Yes the Marines have "Recon"
> or "Force Recon" that have singular objectives one way in to one
> thing/objective and then one way out. They are definitely there when
> there is something that might end up in a sacrificial involvement. Go
> for it "Jar-Heads" ;-)
>

I taught at the US Army Field Artillery School for a short time. The Marines
don't have their own Artillery School.
"Hardtime" <hardtime11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:douli1d9oujkflv4fgnbo1hlagigdt2fv7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:10:56 GMT, "John J." <detectorist@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I totally agree with your opinion of the Marines. You even see it in the
>>ads. They recruit out of pride and the expectation of hard work.
>
>>The Army throws money at the recruits.
> I suppose you are talking about bonuses for choices made for their
> evident potential abilities?
>> In a classroom environement, Army folks do better on tests.
>
>> However, when it comes to the rough and tumble of field
>>duty, Marines are far superior to Army folks.
>
> As a general rule they are programmed to do just that the rough and
> tumble mud wrestling. No potential abilities needed there. ;-)
>
>> I know, I've trained them and trained with them.
>
> Wait a second you were what branch teaching Marines ?
>
>>BAck in 1976, when I was a young 2nd LT attending Officer's Basic Field
>>Artillery Course, we had a bunch of Marines in our class. They has 6
>>months
>>of hard field training before even taking the basic course!
>
> Now that is messed up. A "Butter Bar" comparing conditioning of
> several months of glorified infantry training for "Jar Heads" to the
> conditioning of much less time (basic is 6-8 weeks and then what
> possibly another 8 weeks advanced) for "Army". There has to be some
> fallacy there. :-)
>
>>Air Force personnel are the softest. They expect their tour of duty to be
>>like a civilian job.
>>
>>Just my opinion.
>>
> No doubt about that :-) They even have civilian people to bus their
> tables in the mess halls/cafeterias. I hear now that some bases even
> have cleaning service once a week for barracks (that is not a
> definite). I have had the chance with construction to help build some
> Air Force Barracks for the lower enlisted and up. They are in fact
> very nice.

One component of the Navy that has my utmost respect are the Navy Corpsmen
that are attached to Marine units. They are there with the Marines through
thick and thin.

John

"Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com> wrote in message
news:NmDWe.11244$ib1.9012@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com.. .
>I won't bother commenting on the rest because for the most part you're
> pretty close. For the "most" part.
>
> The only thing I can say the Marines are taught reflexive responses to are
> orders and certain combat situations. When told to do it, you do it NOW,
> without question or hesitation. If someone yells "GRENADE!", you hit the
> deck. Now. You don't ask where, you don't ask who, you hit the deck and
> try
> to stay alive.
>
> Robots do not make good soldiers. They are too inflexible. Marines
> aren't
> robots (nor do I think are any of the other branches). You mistake
> discipline and obedience to orders as being robotic and unthinking. You
> see, your "boss" has been charged with doing his best to get his job done
> and keep you alive while he's at it. You on the other hand have been
> charged to follow his directives, implement the plan, and trust him to do
> his best to keep you alive. It doesn't always work but it works a helluva
> lot better than if everyone stood around debating the merit of a given
> order
> or plan. While you're chatting it all up, Joe Shit the Rag Head has
> walked
> up and blown you to hell.
>
> Oh, and the only thing they get from the Navy is a paycheck (since much to
> their chagrin, they ARE a dept. of the Navy) and transportation.
> Otherwise,
> they do their own cooking, have their own supply line. Food preparation
> shipboard is supplied, but I'd call that fair since the Jarheads provide
> all
> shipboard security. Navy guys and small arms don't mix all that well.
>
> Oh, and just in case you were thinking the term "Jar Head" comes from some
> misguided idea that upon enlistment their brains are placed in jars, you
> are
> mistaken.
>
>
> "Hardtime" <hardtime11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:83sli19bs972og9bpjmhoj8s4ff3rlekcq@4ax.com...
>> I have to mention a couple of ongoing jokes here ;-)
>> They are possibly quite factual though IMHO ;-)
>>
>> Pre-Programmed Robots taught only reflex/responsive action to given
>> situations. Brains have been placed in Jars for possible collection
>> upon retirement. When you mention the Navy with the marines remember
>> that the Navy normally provides their subsistence as in food,
>> transportation and equipment supplies. Yes the Marines have "Recon"
>> or "Force Recon" that have singular objectives one way in to one
>> thing/objective and then one way out. They are definitely there when
>> there is something that might end up in a sacrificial involvement. Go
>> for it "Jar-Heads" ;-)
>>
>
>