From: jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour)
Subject: Re: Get off the Combat  Thing
Organization: Medar, Inc.     Farmington Hills, MI
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:48:40 GMT

In article <keqZguu00awY8EnEV2@andrew.cmu.edu> ar2z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alexander Franklin Rose) writes:
>Hey Guys,
>	I am not trying to tell anyone what to post on billboards I would

I should certainly hope not :-).

>simply like to see the comparison of killing and paintball stay aas far
>away from eachother as possible and this format is just as public as a
>national publication.

Not really.

>                       If I saw the same type of comparisons made in
>those publications  I would send a letter to the editor, and indeed I
>have.
>	On the note of the Ironmen's combat techniques being borrowed from
>anything I beg to differ, none of us have ever received any military
>training,

I believe that in the posting to which you're replying, the
poster said something like: "whether you realize it or not,
you are using...".

>          and I think that the utilization of military tactics are what
>kill a lot of teams.

Indeed, "...the utilization of military tactics are what kill (kill?)
a lot of teams." all right - their opponents teams.

Perhaps we have a confusion in terms here.  Military strategy and
tactics involve the planning and execution phases of a "battle"
(roughly speaking).  I think you may have attached some negative
connotations to the word "military", one of those being
military == kill.  The term "military tactics" does *not* equate to
"kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.".  You may find this hard
to believe, but the purpose of the military is to win battles
(again, roughly speaking).  The fact that the most efficient way to
do this frequently is to kill people and destroy things is merely
coincidental.

I seem to recall you dispensing some advice in an earlier posting.
One piece of which was to scout the playfield(s) beforehand.  This
is, in effect, the same thing any competent military commander would
do before committing to a battle, if possible.  Maybe not physically,
but via sat and other recon, maps, etc.  I believed that in the
very same article, you talked about specialized fire teams.  Also
a military (and hockey, etc.) concept.

>                       The fact that everyone on our team can think
>instead of having 99% mindless pawns as in military stategy sets us eons
>ahead of any war this country has fought since the Revolution.

Uh, I think you'd find your average SEAL or other Special Forces
member to be highly intelligent and quite capable of thinking on
his/her own.  (The Special Forces are definitely part of U.S.
military strategy.)  Furthermore, U.S. military practice has
always concentrated on encouraging the individual soldier to think
for his/her own when the situation demanded it.  This is one of
the things that has resulted in the U.S. military generally being
more competent than it's opponents.

>                                                                Besides
>all our stratagies were originated out of playing Paintball every week
>and whether or not they bare some likeness to something done in the past
>or present by the military is indeed irrelevent.
>

So, neither you nor any of the Ironmen have read any of the many
fine articles on strategy and tactics in, for instance, Paintcheck?
Many of them were, knowingly or not, based on sound military
strategy and tactics.  Several of them, if memory serves me, even
mention the connection.

>"Football, soccer, chess, hockey, paintball, the list goes on and on.
>All share common threads which require the defeat of the opposition
>within the constraints of the rules of the game."
>
>	This is very true J.H. and by your own logic this sets paintball and
>these other sports further from war because in war there are no rules,

Really?  Tell that to the judges at the Nuremburg (sp?) trials.
(Only one example, I'm sure there are others.  I'm not a military
history buff.)

>as is clearly depicted by our last war where we killed hundreds of
>thousands without ever even looking into their eyes.

What's your point?  You have to look your opponent in the eye
before eliminating him/her?  Think carefully before answering
that one :-).

[discussion about the advantages of sponsored teams deleted.]

>	Again as a firm believer in the First Amendment I do agree that you may
>write anyhting you want I simply think that those types of things are
>potentially harmful to the sport that we all love.  This is a simple
>question of timing and placement not censorship.  Just like it would be
>out of place and would cast the wrong impression if people posted their
>sexual fantasies on this board.

Zander, please don't take this as a flame.  That is not the way
it's meant.  I'll put it as politely as I can.  I think you need
to expand your knowledge.  I don't think you have an accurate or
realistic understanding of the purpose and methods of the
military.  Whether you are aware of it or not (you don't appear
to be), or whether you like it or not (you don't appear to),
paintball most closely resembles combat in form, and recreational
sports in intent.  The latter is what truly distinguishes
paintball from combat/war.

>				Zander of the IRONMEN

BTW: Good luck in Nashville!

-- 
Jim Seymour				| "If NT is the answer, it must
...uunet!medar!jseymour			|  be a really silly question"
jseymour@medar.com			|      Warner Losh
CIS: 72730,1166  GEnie: jseymour	|      Computer Power Software
Newsgroups: rec.sport.paintball