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

For the record, I've got nothing against naked women - that's the Internet's whole raison d'etre, IMO. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I was just pointing out that there are very few elite commando units that send their scouts out in their undies to do a spot of recon.

I firmly believe that if fiction doesn't provoke you to think about something in a new way, then it isn't very good fiction. It's just that you seemed to be quoting from it like it was the US Army Field Manual, and it ain't.

I am familiar with the "ad hominem" fallacy, and if Heinlein had been presenting a reasoned argument with facts to back it up, yours would be a valid complaint. But he wasn't.

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.

And yes, I was poking fun at you. Sorry, but I didn't know any way to respond to your post without doing so. But I certainly didn't mean to offend you.

Heinlein was a good writer, btw. Not my favourite, but a good, thought-provoking read (with lots of half-naked wimmen, to boot). <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
_________________________
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
-Plutarch