No clothes in the rain, at night, in an ambush where no movement is permited? Wouldn't the enemy notice them from a mile away by their clattering teeth?

OTOH it could be true...

Reinhardt

Stranger in a Stange Land is the One Heinlein book I absolutely hated - Most of his other stuff (particularly the "juveniles") I love

>>Jeez, can't a body say ANYTHING in these fora without offending someone?<<

Of course not. This is the first decade of the 21st Century, being offended is still a leading recreational activity.

Not offended, really. But, if you "poke fun" at me, you have to expect me to poke back a bit...

Wasn't sure from the broad nature of your first sally whether I was defending the idea expressed, Heinlein, science fiction, fiction in general, or naked women. I guess we've narrowed it down to the idea.

>>It's just that you seemed to be quoting from it like it was the US Army Field Manual, and it ain't.<<

Well, that wasn't the intent. I had mentioned the book many times, and I just thought that the quote might pique a few people's interest enough to actually look at it.

>>The fact is, even the most eager young recruit is going to think twice about opening fire on a numerically superior force when his job is to remain quiet and collect information. He/she wouldn't be sent out on such a patrol unless she/he had learned to obey orders. And if he/she was incapable of controlling her/his emotions to even that limited extent then I suspect her/his commander would be glad to get rid of him/her/it asap. So Heinlein's basic premise - if that's what it was - that a soldier with a gun is more likely to engage the enemy on a solo recce mission than an unarmed one seems to me to be flawed.<<

Here we might disagree. This seems a drastic enough misinterpretation of the actual quote that I have to suspect that you either didn't read it very carefully, or you've consciously misstated his position for the purposes of argument. I don't think that was Heinlein's premise at all.

The point he was making was not about "engaging the enemy", it was about staying alive in what is intrinsically a vulnerable position- in this case, keeping the enemy from engaging you. He wasn't saying that being armed was going to make them charge in like Rambo on crystal meth, he was just saying that you're a LOT more careful when you feel scared and vulnerable, that there are times when it's entirely appropriate and beneficial to feel scared and vulnerable... and you feel LESS scared and vulnerable when you're armed. Just human nature.

FWIW, I pretty much recognized what I think is probably the source of this a long time ago. I'm working entirely from memory here, but I seem to recall that Baden-Powell of Scouts fame related the story of some African tribe where the rite of passage for boys was to be indelibly painted white, with the entire tribe under obligation to try to kill him whenever he's spotted, until the white pigment wore off on it's own. Not only excellent stealth training, I would think, but it would also seem a pretty good way to take the arrogance of late adolescence down a notch or two.

But of course, anyone advocating any "rite of passage" at all in these PC times would be immediately condemned. Is it any wonder we have so many infantile adults?

>>Stranger in a Stange Land is the One Heinlein book I absolutely hated - Most of his other stuff (particularly the "juveniles") I love<<

I'm pretty much in that camp. Contrary to the impression I seem to have given, there's a lot of Heinlein novels I don't like at all- a fair amount of his later work just seems self-indulgent, to put it mildly. As I've mentioned before, there seem to have been unfortunate health reasons behind some of that. I don't much care for "Evil", "Job", "Beast", "Friday", "Cat", etc.

When "Stranger" came out it disappointed many Heinlein fans, who felt it was by far his most uncharacteristic. At the time I spent a great deal of effort trying to understand it, feeling I must be missing something... and, of course, it became a counterculture "cult" favorite. We didn't know at the time it was a precursor to later work. I've never developed any affection for it.

I think many, but not all, of the "juveniles" are just excellent. Other than "Tunnel", I still enjoy "Have Spacesuit Will Travel", "Red Planet", "Citizen of the Galaxy"...

There are also number of the "adult" novels I do like. "Orphans of the Sky", "Glory Road", "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" , "Farnham's Freehold"... none of them are "unflawed", but I've never read any fiction that was...

Being in a line marrage myself, I really relate to many of the Hienlin books. Yes, he was a dirty old man, even when he was younger. Doesn't make the idea wrong, just not acceptable socially GENRALLY.

I hope that this will actually start another thread...

But back to Knife possession...

"An armed Society is a polite Society, after the first five years."



Guess who penned that one?


Rena

Wildcard163:

Naked Greek men attacking other men at night?

Better watch out that some Greek man desn't take offense by thinking you may be inferring something other than combat. You should be safe as you did not say anything about the attacked wearing locking steel underwear. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Survivalgene:

I have always wondered who came up with that statement, but this is the first time I have heard the tag line, "after the first five years".

Bountyhunter

Bounty ?
or one of the Marx Brother ?
.....

<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Just like other qoutes, most people don't use the full quote. I know that I am 'fairly' polite.

Rena

Well, I wasn't intentionally misstating it. (Even I can occasionally win an argument with myself, especially if I cheat. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But what would be the point?) But I may have misinterpreted it.

>>he was just saying that you're a LOT more careful when
>>you feel scared and vulnerable, that there are times when
>>it's entirely appropriate and beneficial to feel scared and
>>vulnerable...

Maybe so. Otoh, the point of reconnaissance is not just to come back, it's to come back with information, so maybe making them TOO scared and vulnerable would be counter-productive.

It's an interesting concept, I can see that now. I never was in the infantry but I spent enough time playing "silly bugger" in the woods to remember that the rifle always seemed to be catching on branches and tree roots, or swinging around and pulling you off balance. Doubtless the groundpounders who live, breathe, eat and sleep with the damned things learn how to handle them in the pitch black night. Or maybe they really do just hide them under a layer of brush when they set out and pick them up on their return.

Now that you mention it, Carsten Stroud, in "The Blue Wall", interviewed a veteran city police detective who always locked his handgun in the trunk of the car at the start of his shift and left it there until the end. Figured it was more likely to get him into trouble than out of it. Maybe he was a Heinlein fan <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />