What is the worst Tom Clancy book?

[Thomas Anderson]

guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy

for me, number one go to Red Rabbit, I didn't like it
at all, there was no suspense in the book, I didn't care about
the bloody Russian guy, it was so damn easy for him to
pass the information to the Moscow COS , of all the people.
and Jack Ryan, was doing what, giving us a lectures in the Century
and when finally the action start after 600 pages, he was acting like
a wimp.

[Bruce in Cleveland]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy
for me, number one go to Red Rabbit, I didn't like it
at all, there was no suspense in the book, I didn't care about
the bloody Russian guy, it was so damn easy for him to
pass the information to the Moscow COS , of all the people.
and Jack Ryan, was doing what, giving us a lectures in the Century
and when finally the action start after 600 pages, he was acting like
a wimp.

IMO I always thought the worst was R6, even though some of the ideas
in it are intriguing. (Focusing on Clark & Chavez) the execution was a
little weak.

[Steve Doherty]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:30:38 -0400, Bruce in Cleveland

Post by Bruce in Cleveland
IMO I always thought the worst was R6, even though some of the ideas
in it are intriguing. (Focusing on Clark & Chavez) the execution was a
little weak.

I loved R6, but then I've always been intrigued by special forces such
as the British and Australian SAS, SEALs and Delta etc.

Seeing how well the Aussie SAS performed in Iraq recently makes me
proud to have adopted Australia as my home.

Cheers,
Steve

[loki]

Post by Bruce in Cleveland
IMO I always thought the worst was R6, even though some of the ideas
in it are intriguing. (Focusing on Clark & Chavez) the execution was a
little weak.

R6 is indeed the worst book. Clark is more Ryan than Clark and that's what
spoiled it for me. Nothing else required.

Loki

[Loren Pechtel]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy
for me, number one go to Red Rabbit, I didn't like it
at all, there was no suspense in the book, I didn't care about
the bloody Russian guy, it was so damn easy for him to
pass the information to the Moscow COS , of all the people.
and Jack Ryan, was doing what, giving us a lectures in the Century
and when finally the action start after 600 pages, he was acting like
a wimp.

Yup.

[Ryan Webster]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy

Actually, I enjoyed SoAF, RR, and R6; RR or SoAF proably being my
favorite out of everything. To answer your question, the book I least
enjoyed was CotK

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Ryan Webster

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy

Actually, I enjoyed SoAF, RR, and R6; RR or SoAF proably being my
favorite out of everything. To answer your question, the book I least
enjoyed was CotK

Did anyone *not* like the DoH/EO series?

Maybe that's why I like SoAF so much. SoAF/DoH/EO makes a nice trilogy.

[David A McIntee]

Sum Of All Fears.

Of course, "worst" is relative - it was still better than most others in the
genre.

--
--
"Hey, if you'd been listening you'd know that Nintendos pass through
everything." (Colonel Jack O'Neill}

Redemption 05 - Hanover International Hotel, Hinckley, February 25-27
http://www.smof.com/redemption

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee

Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by David A McIntee
Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

Chandler and Daschle Hammett were the kings of noir. I also particularly
liked Chandler's "Farewell My Lovely" and "The Long Goodbye." Speaking of
good, if more current, noir, I just watched "L.A. Confidential" again last
week and was blown away -- again. It is based on James Ellroy's gritty
novel of the same name. Like "The Maltese Falcon," "L.A. Confidential" is
in many ways even better than the book upon which it is based, and in my
opinion is one of the half-dozen or so films noir that can truly be called
great.

Grey Satterfield

[Diane Wilson]

In article <BB72B5FE.15F9%***@cox.net>, ***@cox.net
says...

Post by Grey Satterfield

Post by David A McIntee
Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

Chandler and Daschle Hammett were the kings of noir. I also particularly
liked Chandler's "Farewell My Lovely" and "The Long Goodbye." Speaking of
good, if more current, noir, I just watched "L.A. Confidential" again last
week and was blown away -- again. It is based on James Ellroy's gritty
novel of the same name. Like "The Maltese Falcon," "L.A. Confidential" is
in many ways even better than the book upon which it is based, and in my
opinion is one of the half-dozen or so films noir that can truly be called
great.

I watched Sunset Blvd a few weeks ago, and was blown away. I had no
idea it was noir, but it is, and it holds up well in spite of its age.
A great film, and perhaps the meanest trashing that Hollywood has
ever received.

Diane

[Brian Jackson]

Sunset Boulevard

I'm ready for my close-up...

For my money, the greatest thrashing Hollywood ever got was that Robert
Altman has directed two or three dozen films against all odds. See 'THE
PLAYER'.

Brian J.

[Michael Kennedy]

Post by Grey Satterfield

Post by David A McIntee
Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

Chandler and Daschle Hammett were the kings of noir. I also particularly
liked Chandler's "Farewell My Lovely" and "The Long Goodbye."

It is fun to look for the locales of these books. Hammett wrote about SF and
I was rereading Maltese Falcon a year ago while spending a week in SF. The
places in MF are still there and the place Miles Archer was shot was across
the street from my hotel.

Raymond Chandler is tougher because Los Angeles has changed more than SF
since the books were written. The Big Sleep mentions "Bay City" which is now
Malibu (I think). There is a Bay City Cafe in the Santa Monica area that is
probably a remnant of the old geography. First edition Raymond Chandler
books can get very expensive and, if you go to abebooks.com you find a huge
number of German editions of his books, for some reason. It's been a while
since I read them but the Chandler locales from the books were once there.
The names have changed in many cases but he didn't make them up.

Mike Kennedy

[David A McIntee]

Post by Grey Satterfield

Post by David A McIntee
Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

Chandler and Daschle Hammett were the kings of noir. I also particularly
liked Chandler's "Farewell My Lovely" and "The Long Goodbye."

Yeah- Farewell My Lovely is my favourite Chandler. I actually prefer
Hammett's Detective Agency stories with the unnamed lead to the more famous
ones like The Thin Man or The Maltese Falcon.

Post by Grey Satterfield
Speaking of
good, if more current, noir, I just watched "L.A. Confidential" again last
week and was blown away -- again. It is based on James Ellroy's gritty
novel of the same name. Like "The Maltese Falcon," "L.A. Confidential" is
in many ways even better than the book upon which it is based, and in my
opinion is one of the half-dozen or so films noir that can truly be called
great.

Great movie, great book. I have all of Ellroys, actually. I just wish they'd
made the whole LA Quartet, in order...


--
--
"By the way, don't try to kill me again; it makes me angry." (John Crichton)

Redemption 05 - Hanover International Hotel, Hinckley, February 25-27
http://www.smof.com/redemption

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee

Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

[David A McIntee]

I read about a year ago that HBO are making American Tabloid and the
Cold Six Thousand into two 14 epidose series.

If true, that'd be way cool.

But what about The Police Gazette (third in the trilogy), which doesn't come
out till 2005 in hardcover?

--
--
"By the way, don't try to kill me again; it makes me angry." (John Crichton)

Redemption 05 - Hanover International Hotel, Hinckley, February 25-27
http://www.smof.com/redemption

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee

Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

[runningcow13]

The Bear & The Dragon...but I also agree, worst is a very relative term.

[David A McIntee]

Post by David A McIntee
Sum Of All Fears.

Are you kidding!?!?!?!?!!!??
What a GREAT book.

There is a great book in there, true enough. It's just a shame it's such a
short one, tagged onto the back of a very dry 500-page nuclear physics
textbook.


--
--
"By the way, don't try to kill me again; it makes me angry." (John Crichton)

Redemption 05 - Hanover International Hotel, Hinckley, February 25-27
http://www.smof.com/redemption

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee

Currently reading: The Big Sleep [Raymond Chandler]

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by David A McIntee

Post by David A McIntee
Sum Of All Fears.

Are you kidding!?!?!?!?!!!??
What a GREAT book.

There is a great book in there, true enough. It's just a shame it's such a
short one, tagged onto the back of a very dry 500-page nuclear physics
textbook.

I guess if what you're looking for is the political intrigue angle,
you'd think so.

In fact, it took me about three readings of the book fully to grasp the
political intrigue angle. By and large, that stuff doesn't do much for
me.

But even worse are the obligatory battle scenes. That crap REALLY bores
me. In fact, in BatD, I skipped completely over the obligatory battle
scene completely. I knew when I arrived at it, and I just shuffled the
pages until it was over (40 or 80 pages, I forget). This type of thing
had become completely predictable over the course of the last few
Ryanverse books.

There are those in the world who see and enjoy nothing *but* that crap.
That's not me. I remember taking a freshman American History class in
college; the class had its share of techno-weenies who lived to analyze
the minute details of individual battles. Then one day the professor
wasn't there, and it was up to his TA (an American guy, but I digress)
to take over class for the day. We were discussing the Vietnam war. He
prefaced the class by saying this: War is war, they're all the same.
What's important is not how the battles are fought; what's important is
(a) what social forces caused the war to start, and (b) what social
changes resulted from the war afterward?

Man, this guy was right on the money. All that crap in the
middle--yeah, they're all the same. Why waste time analyzing that
outside the context of a war college. That's not big picture stuff.
It's meaningless in the context of history.

I was indeed more fascinated by the 500 page nuclear physics textbook
than I ever was by those types of battle scenes.

That being said, I *do* read the final battle scene in CotK, every time.
Maybe it's better tied in with the story, compared to the later books
where the final battle scene is just a nod to the techno-weenies in the
audience, to keep them happy.

[Michael Kennedy]

snipped

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But even worse are the obligatory battle scenes. That crap REALLY bores
me. In fact, in BatD, I skipped completely over the obligatory battle
scene completely. I knew when I arrived at it, and I just shuffled the
pages until it was over (40 or 80 pages, I forget). This type of thing
had become completely predictable over the course of the last few
Ryanverse books.
There are those in the world who see and enjoy nothing *but* that crap.
That's not me.

The military details of world history are what make the story. Someone once
said that history is the story of everything that went wrong. I agree that
many writers don't get the details right but, when they are right, you can
actually understand why the Romans won and the Persians lost, or the Germans
won and the French lost. Sociology is the opinion of someone who will never
understand why things happened.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I remember taking a freshman American History class in
college; the class had its share of techno-weenies who lived to analyze
the minute details of individual battles. Then one day the professor
wasn't there, and it was up to his TA (an American guy, but I digress)
to take over class for the day. We were discussing the Vietnam war. He
prefaced the class by saying this: War is war, they're all the same.

That's why we lost. Those guys were running it. Read "Steel My Soldiers'
Hearts" by Hackworth to see how different it can be whe n someone knows
what he is doing.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
What's important is not how the battles are fought; what's important is
(a) what social forces caused the war to start, and (b) what social
changes resulted from the war afterward?

Winning and losing determine the social forces before and after. The
Russians could have won the battles with the Germans in WWI. It was
extremely close. If they had won, the Bolshevek Revolution would not have
happened and history would be completely different. The war would have been
over in 1915, the Germans would have been thoroughly beaten, Hitler would
not have happened. You just don't get it.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Man, this guy was right on the money. All that crap in the
middle--yeah, they're all the same. Why waste time analyzing that
outside the context of a war college. That's not big picture stuff.
It's meaningless in the context of history.

You should stick with MTV. All that stuff in the middle is what determines
history. But you don't have to know that. Someone else will take care of
those matters for you.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I was indeed more fascinated by the 500 page nuclear physics textbook
than I ever was by those types of battle scenes.

The physics was the best part of SoAF and Clancy does get too much in love
with technology in military matters. Still, if you don't understand why
battles are won and lost, you don't understand history.

Mike Kennedy

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
There are those in the world who see and enjoy nothing *but* that crap.
That's not me.

The military details of world history are what make the story.

We disagree completely. The military is the fist, but the fist doesn't
make up the entire brain and body and life story of the body it's
attached to.

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
What's important is not how the battles are fought; what's important is
(a) what social forces caused the war to start, and (b) what social
changes resulted from the war afterward?

Winning and losing determine the social forces before and after.

Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war, given
what we know of the past (those who would ignore history and all that),
and can we learn from the social changes that DID occur given that such
and such events DID take place, the details of which are not important?

Post by Michael Kennedy
The
Russians could have won the battles with the Germans in WWI. It was
extremely close. If they had won, the Bolshevek Revolution would not have
happened and history would be completely different. The war would have been
over in 1915, the Germans would have been thoroughly beaten, Hitler would
not have happened. You just don't get it.

I get it, but the details of who moved where and how and why are simply
not important outside the context of a war college. This and that could
have happened had a battle been won or not been won; however, the
details of who moved where and why in that battle, and who yielded what
weapon, are quite unimportant in the big picture of history.

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Man, this guy was right on the money. All that crap in the
middle--yeah, they're all the same. Why waste time analyzing that
outside the context of a war college. That's not big picture stuff.
It's meaningless in the context of history.

You should stick with MTV.

Sorry, I don't watch MTV. Or VH1. Or anything even remotely resembling
it.

Post by Michael Kennedy
All that stuff in the middle is what determines
history.

no, the RESULTS of all that stuff in the middle determine history. But
not who's holding what weapon and who outflanked whom and how and why,
and whose tank blew a tread and what direction did the tank crew run
when they evacuated. That's stuff for the war college, but not for
analyzing social forces in history.

Post by Michael Kennedy
Still, if you don't understand why
battles are won and lost, you don't understand history.

Absolutely I do--because the details of the battle are completely
unimportant for the sake of history. Only the outcome and what resulted
from it are important in understanding global history and the history of
man.

Nobody outside a war college cares whose weapon malfunctioned or what
corporal threw himself on a grenade and why or what direction THIS tank
went at THAT time. That's all minutiae, and the social forces of
history do not respond to minutiae.

In fact, you might read Asimov's Foundation trilogy to get an idea of
what I'm talking about.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <***@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

:In article <oqV3b.10750$***@fed1read04>,
: "Michael Kennedy" <***@cox.net> wrote:
:
:> > There are those in the world who see and enjoy nothing *but* that crap.
:> > That's not me.
:>
:> The military details of world history are what make the story.
:
:We disagree completely. The military is the fist, but the fist doesn't
:make up the entire brain and body and life story of the body it's
:attached to.

Remove the bits about war and you've just eliminated the majority of
history.

:> > What's important is not how the battles are fought; what's important is
:> > (a) what social forces caused the war to start, and (b) what social
:> > changes resulted from the war afterward?
:>
:> Winning and losing determine the social forces before and after.
:
:Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
:picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war, given
:what we know of the past (those who would ignore history and all that),
:and can we learn from the social changes that DID occur given that such
:and such events DID take place, the details of which are not important?

Hardly the only lesson to be learned. The lesson may be something
along the lines of "Should the war have been fought earlier and what
bad effects resulted from trying to avoid it?"

:> The
:> Russians could have won the battles with the Germans in WWI. It was
:> extremely close. If they had won, the Bolshevek Revolution would not have
:> happened and history would be completely different. The war would have been
:> over in 1915, the Germans would have been thoroughly beaten, Hitler would
:> not have happened. You just don't get it.
:
:I get it, but the details of who moved where and how and why are simply
:not important outside the context of a war college. This and that could
:have happened had a battle been won or not been won; however, the
:details of who moved where and why in that battle, and who yielded what
:weapon, are quite unimportant in the big picture of history.

Sorry, but no. Or do you think that history simply stops during wars?

:> > Man, this guy was right on the money. All that crap in the
:> > middle--yeah, they're all the same. Why waste time analyzing that
:> > outside the context of a war college. That's not big picture stuff.
:> > It's meaningless in the context of history.
:>
:> You should stick with MTV.
:
:Sorry, I don't watch MTV. Or VH1. Or anything even remotely resembling
:it.

Really? What's wrong with you?

:> All that stuff in the middle is what determines
:> history.
:
:no, the RESULTS of all that stuff in the middle determine history. But
:not who's holding what weapon and who outflanked whom and how and why,
:and whose tank blew a tread and what direction did the tank crew run
:when they evacuated. That's stuff for the war college, but not for
:analyzing social forces in history.

Social forces in a vacuum, like military history in a vacuum, is only
a partial story. This is why war colleges don't just teach tactics.
It's why history departments ought not to just teach 'social forces'
(particularly since 'social forces' aren't even the majority part of
the story even if you ignore the military history aspects).

:> Still, if you don't understand why
:> battles are won and lost, you don't understand history.
:
:Absolutely I do--because the details of the battle are completely
:unimportant for the sake of history. Only the outcome and what resulted
:from it are important in understanding global history and the history of
:man.

Wrong.

:Nobody outside a war college cares whose weapon malfunctioned or what
:corporal threw himself on a grenade and why or what direction THIS tank
:went at THAT time. That's all minutiae, and the social forces of
:history do not respond to minutiae.

Note that people IN a war college typically don't care at that level,
either. Your remarks are non-responsive to the point, however.

:In fact, you might read Asimov's Foundation trilogy to get an idea of
:what I'm talking about.

Only problem for your thesis is that Asimov was writing FICTION, not
history.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
:picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war, given
:what we know of the past (those who would ignore history and all that),
:and can we learn from the social changes that DID occur given that such
:and such events DID take place, the details of which are not important?
Hardly the only lesson to be learned. The lesson may be something
along the lines of "Should the war have been fought earlier and what
bad effects resulted from trying to avoid it?"

Just what I said. The crap about what tank unit moved where doesn't
even fit into that analysis.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <***@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

:In article <***@4ax.com>,
: Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> :Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
:> :picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war, given
:> :what we know of the past (those who would ignore history and all that),
:> :and can we learn from the social changes that DID occur given that such
:> :and such events DID take place, the details of which are not important?
:>
:> Hardly the only lesson to be learned. The lesson may be something
:> along the lines of "Should the war have been fought earlier and what
:> bad effects resulted from trying to avoid it?"
:
:Just what I said. The crap about what tank unit moved where doesn't
:even fit into that analysis.

Not just what you said at all. It wouldn't be because, you see, you
are wrong. Such details determine a lot of things that you're going
to wind up ignoring if you ignore those details. You have no context
at all, for example, for what was going on in WWII if you don't know
the broad scope of what was going on militarily.

You may feel free to clutch your ignorance to your chest for as long
as you like, but don't expect people to agree that you are doing the
right thing.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:Sorry, I don't watch MTV. Or VH1. Or anything even remotely resembling
:it.
Really? What's wrong with you?

I assume that was tongue-in-cheek.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Fred J. McCall
Social forces in a vacuum, like military history in a vacuum, is only
a partial story.

Learning about social forces by teaching what tank unit moved where
when, isn't teaching social forces. It's teaching geek war fan stuff.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Fred J. McCall
Social forces in a vacuum, like military history in a vacuum, is only
a partial story.

Learning about social forces by teaching what tank unit moved where
when, isn't teaching social forces. It's teaching geek war fan stuff.

Jesus! Because life is too short, anyway, *PLONK*.

Grey Satterfield

[Michael Kennedy]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
There are those in the world who see and enjoy nothing *but* that crap.
That's not me.

The military details of world history are what make the story.

We disagree completely.

You are certainly right about that.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
The military is the fist, but the fist doesn't
make up the entire brain and body and life story of the body it's
attached to.

No, but if the military part is unsuccessful, the body dies.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
What's important is not how the battles are fought; what's important is
(a) what social forces caused the war to start, and (b) what social
changes resulted from the war afterward?

Winning and losing determine the social forces before and after.

Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war,

What if we can't ? Tehn what ?

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
given
what we know of the past (those who would ignore history and all that),
and can we learn from the social changes that DID occur given that such
and such events DID take place, the details of which are not important?

You must be one of those people who know enough to put the key in the
ignition and turn it. If the car doesn't start, you're lost. All you care
about is where you are going and the car is the device that gets you there.
Engineers make things go and armies make sure that bad guys don't take the
things away from you. If you want to live your life as a child, and it
sounds like you do, you have to hope that someone cares about the details
that you don't care about.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Michael Kennedy
The
Russians could have won the battles with the Germans in WWI. It was
extremely close. If they had won, the Bolshevek Revolution would not have
happened and history would be completely different. The war would have been
over in 1915, the Germans would have been thoroughly beaten, Hitler would
not have happened. You just don't get it.

I get it, but the details of who moved where and how and why are simply
not important outside the context of a war college. This and that could
have happened had a battle been won or not been won; however, the
details of who moved where and why in that battle, and who yielded what
weapon, are quite unimportant in the big picture of history.

You still don't get it. The history is determined by the battle and who won.
The Greeks stopped the Persions at Marathon and Salamis. Some of us are
interested in why that happened. If it had not we would be living in small
villages and hauling water from a well. Sort of like they do in the Middle
East. The Romans improved on the phalanx and defeated the Greeks. Diseases
probably defeated the Romans. The invention of the stirrup created the
mounted knight and the whole era of chivalry. The long bow ended it and
opened the door to the freeman instead of the serf. The Chinese invented
gunpowder but never developed guns. The list goes on. If you don't
understand that, you don't understand history.

Mike Kennedy

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
I get it, but the details of who moved where and how and why are simply
not important outside the context of a war college. This and that could
have happened had a battle been won or not been won; however, the
details of who moved where and why in that battle, and who yielded what
weapon, are quite unimportant in the big picture of history.

You still don't get it. The history is determined by the battle and who won.
The Greeks stopped the Persions at Marathon and Salamis. Some of us are
interested in why that happened. If it had not we would be living in small
villages and hauling water from a well. Sort of like they do in the Middle
East. The Romans improved on the phalanx and defeated the Greeks. Diseases
probably defeated the Romans. The invention of the stirrup created the
mounted knight and the whole era of chivalry. The long bow ended it and
opened the door to the freeman instead of the serf. The Chinese invented
gunpowder but never developed guns. The list goes on. If you don't
understand that, you don't understand history.

I'll say he doesn't get it. I have seldom, if ever seen a proposition more
preposterous than, "the details of who moved where [in a war] and why are
simply not important [in a broader historical context]. One waits with
baited breath to see if Mr. Shagnasty has the grace to demonstrate that he
is capable of learning or will continue the course he has been on so far,
which appears to this observer to have been an unconvincing exercise in
self-justification.

Grey Satterfield

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Grey Satterfield
I'll say he doesn't get it. I have seldom, if ever seen a proposition more
preposterous than, "the details of who moved where [in a war] and why are
simply not important [in a broader historical context]. One waits with
baited breath to see if Mr. Shagnasty has the grace to demonstrate that he
is capable of learning or will continue the course he has been on so far,
which appears to this observer to have been an unconvincing exercise in
self-justification.

Ah, the beginnings of the ad hominem attack. It was only a matter of
time. Short time, in this case.

No self-justification here. Just a firmly held belief that history
doesn't care what tank group moved where at what time. Only students of
the details of war care.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <***@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

:In article <BB763780.178D%***@cox.net>,
: Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:
:
:> I'll say he doesn't get it. I have seldom, if ever seen a proposition more
:> preposterous than, "the details of who moved where [in a war] and why are
:> simply not important [in a broader historical context]. One waits with
:> baited breath to see if Mr. Shagnasty has the grace to demonstrate that he
:> is capable of learning or will continue the course he has been on so far,
:> which appears to this observer to have been an unconvincing exercise in
:> self-justification.
:
:Ah, the beginnings of the ad hominem attack. It was only a matter of
:time. Short time, in this case.
:
:No self-justification here. Just a firmly held belief that history
:doesn't care what tank group moved where at what time. Only students of
:the details of war care.

Ah, "firmly held belief". Another way of saying, "My mind is made up.
Don't cloud the issue with facts...."

Looks like you were right, Grey. His policy seems to be that when
cornered into thinking, claim you were attacked.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> I'll say he doesn't get it. I have seldom, if ever seen a proposition more
:> preposterous than, "the details of who moved where [in a war] and why are
:> simply not important [in a broader historical context]. One waits with
:> baited breath to see if Mr. Shagnasty has the grace to demonstrate that he
:> is capable of learning or will continue the course he has been on so far,
:> which appears to this observer to have been an unconvincing exercise in
:> self-justification.
:Ah, the beginnings of the ad hominem attack. It was only a matter of
:time. Short time, in this case.
:No self-justification here. Just a firmly held belief that history
:doesn't care what tank group moved where at what time. Only students of
:the details of war care.
Ah, "firmly held belief". Another way of saying, "My mind is made up.
Don't cloud the issue with facts...."
Looks like you were right, Grey. His policy seems to be that when
cornered into thinking, claim you were attacked.

Yeah, this guy's bad judgment and ill temper just convinced me to *PLONK*
him.

Grey Satterfield

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/30/03 1:40 PM, in article

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Grey Satterfield
I'll say he doesn't get it. I have seldom, if ever seen a proposition more
preposterous than, "the details of who moved where [in a war] and why are
simply not important [in a broader historical context]. One waits with
baited breath to see if Mr. Shagnasty has the grace to demonstrate that he
is capable of learning or will continue the course he has been on so far,
which appears to this observer to have been an unconvincing exercise in
self-justification.

Ah, the beginnings of the ad hominem attack. It was only a matter of
time. Short time, in this case.
No self-justification here. Just a firmly held belief that history
doesn't care what tank group moved where at what time. Only students of
the details of war care.

There was nothing "ad hominem" about it. I don't do that -- as all the
regulars here know. My comment was based on Mr. Shagnasty's apparent
inability to respond rationally to what appeared to several others here (all
of whom I know to possess a sound understanding of geopolitics) to be clear
error. We are, by and large, one of the most courteous groups in Usenet.
That's faint praise, I know, but there it is. We do, however, routinely
refuse to suffer foolishness gladly. Those who present there positions
convincingly have little trouble here; those who don't are likely to have it
called to their attention.[1]

Grey Satterfield

[1] There's a hint in there somewhere.

[cMAD]

Post by Grey Satterfield
We are, by and large, one of the most courteous groups in Usenet.
That's faint praise, I know, but there it is. We do, however, routinely
refuse to suffer foolishness gladly. Those who present there positions
convincingly have little trouble here; those who don't are likely to have it
called to their attention.[1]
Grey Satterfield
[1] There's a hint in there somewhere.

Does this mean that Fred has become much more civilized since I created that
killfile specifically for him?

cMAD

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
The military is the fist, but the fist doesn't
make up the entire brain and body and life story of the body it's
attached to.

No, but if the military part is unsuccessful, the body dies.

Which is why I said that the details of the battle, who turned what way
with what timing and weapons, is useless OUTSIDE the context of a war
college.

INSIDE the context of a war college, it's relevant--because that's why
the war college is there. But I'm not interested in reading anything
about any of that, and it's just plain not relevant to the story. The
details of tank maneuvers is there to appease the geeks who get off on
that kind of thing. Me, I skip over that stuff completely.

Jack Ryan's behaviors were not affected at all by the behavior of
individuals or individual units in some battle somewhere. He may or may
not have had a hand in creating the situation, or in cleaning up
afterward; THOSE are the important things. What tank moved what way at
what time? Completely irrelevant.

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war,

What if we can't ? Tehn what ?

Go back and re-read what I said. I never said the military wasn't
important; I said the details of its workings are unimportant in the
large context of social history. That it exists is relevant in that
context, but what tank moved where isn't.

Again, go back to Asimov's Foundation trilogy and you'll understand
about the difference between the individual and the masses. I don't
care about the individual, or the individual unit. Some people get off
on watching tanks dance on a practice field. Not me, no way. I skip
over that stuff.

Post by Michael Kennedy
You must be one of those people who know enough to put the key in the
ignition and turn it.

Hardly. But if you were writing a book about the history of computers,
you'd probably focus on the technology inside Bill Gates's car and how
it all works, piece by piece, and what happened when he put different
octane fuel in it, etc. Me, I wouldn't care about that a bit. I'd
rather know that he WAS at a meeting with IBM and committed things to
them, and THEN he got into his car and drove it over to see the DOS guy
and acquire DOS from him for dirt cheap. THAT'S what's important. How
well the ignition fired or whether the temperature guage was a notch
higher than normal because or crud in the radiator is completely
unimportant in the larger context of history.

Post by Michael Kennedy
You still don't get it. The history is determined by the battle and who won.

The fact of who won, yes. (Also why the battle was engaged in the first
place.) But the maneuvers used in that battle? Completely irrelevant
to what happened to society as a result of that win (or loss).

[Jason Atkinson]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:39:20 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
INSIDE the context of a war college, it's relevant--because that's why
the war college is there. But I'm not interested in reading anything
about any of that, and it's just plain not relevant to the story.

Here we see the heart of the problem. "I'm not interested" is
magically transformed into "it's just plain not relevant".

Just because I'm not interested enough in metallugry, for example, to
be a metallurgist doesn't mean that I can appreciate the major
influence that the physical properties of metals has on history. The
same can be said of any number of fields.

[Jason Atkinson]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:31:33 GMT, ***@vt.edu (Jason Atkinson)
wrote:

Reposted with correction. Did I mention I'm having a bad day?

Post by Jason Atkinson
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:39:20 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
INSIDE the context of a war college, it's relevant--because that's why
the war college is there. But I'm not interested in reading anything
about any of that, and it's just plain not relevant to the story.

Here we see the heart of the problem. "I'm not interested" is
magically transformed into "it's just plain not relevant".
Just because I'm not interested enough in metallugry, for example, to
be a metallurgist doesn't mean that I can [not] appreciate the major
influence that the physical properties of metals has on history. The
same can be said of any number of fields.

[Howard Berkowitz]

Post by Jason Atkinson
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:39:20 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
INSIDE the context of a war college, it's relevant--because that's why
the war college is there. But I'm not interested in reading anything
about any of that, and it's just plain not relevant to the story.

Here we see the heart of the problem. "I'm not interested" is
magically transformed into "it's just plain not relevant".
Just because I'm not interested enough in metallugry, for example, to
be a metallurgist doesn't mean that I can appreciate the major
influence that the physical properties of metals has on history. The
same can be said of any number of fields.

As the Man of Steel on Soviet history?

[Howard Berkowitz]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
The military is the fist, but the fist doesn't
make up the entire brain and body and life story of the body it's
attached to.

No, but if the military part is unsuccessful, the body dies.

Which is why I said that the details of the battle, who turned what way
with what timing and weapons, is useless OUTSIDE the context of a war
college.
INSIDE the context of a war college, it's relevant--because that's why
the war college is there. But I'm not interested in reading anything
about any of that, and it's just plain not relevant to the story. The
details of tank maneuvers is there to appease the geeks who get off on
that kind of thing. Me, I skip over that stuff completely.

I suggest you look at the curriculum of any of the War Colleges, or the
Staff Colleges one level below. Yes, the Branch Officer courses deal
with details.

But I think you will find that the more senior the school, the more it
also deals with social and political history and their interactions with
specific military events. The "Wise Peace Policy of Comrade Stalin"
definitely reflected both Soviet and German internal politics,
diplomacy, and military perception.

To deal specifically with several of TC's books, there is considerable
jockeying for spheres of influence among power blocs in East and
Southwest Asia. Political considerations as you will, it was significant
that Task Force COMEDY did have the ability to get to its destination,
just as much as the failure of Pickett's Division to reach its target.

Passive resistance, multilateral control of Jerusalem,
rejectionists/irredemptists, are all current political and social
matters. Coincidentally, senior military commanders need to deal with
them.

The fiasco in Mogadishu didn't have a great deal to do with weapons
technology, although more weapons might have helped. It had to do with
national-level political directives, confused chains of command, a
failure to understand the Somali structure, etc., as well as less than
stellar command decisions at the two-star level.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Jack Ryan's behaviors were not affected at all by the behavior of
individuals or individual units in some battle somewhere. He may or may
not have had a hand in creating the situation, or in cleaning up
afterward; THOSE are the important things. What tank moved what way at
what time? Completely irrelevant.

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war,

What if we can't ? Tehn what ?

Go back and re-read what I said. I never said the military wasn't
important; I said the details of its workings are unimportant in the
large context of social history. That it exists is relevant in that
context, but what tank moved where isn't.
Again, go back to Asimov's Foundation trilogy and you'll understand
about the difference between the individual and the masses. I don't
care about the individual, or the individual unit. Some people get off
on watching tanks dance on a practice field. Not me, no way. I skip
over that stuff.

There is the question of who calls the dance and why.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Michael Kennedy
You still don't get it. The history is determined by the battle and who won.

And why the particular battle was fought, and, in some cases, what was
unique about the way it was fought.

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
The fact of who won, yes. (Also why the battle was engaged in the first
place.) But the maneuvers used in that battle? Completely irrelevant
to what happened to society as a result of that win (or loss).

Consider the social impacts -- the change in national belief or
perception of nations -- of the revolutionary tactics at Tsushima
Straits, Ypres, the Peninsular Campaign, Cambrai, Hiroshima, Tokyo (fire
raids), the spiritual aspect of Kublai Khan's 1274 invasion of Japan,
Thermopylae, Coral Sea, Gettysburg, Dien Bien Phu, Battle of Britain,
the Alamo, the Plains of Abraham, Omduran, Masada...

Consider the high-level policy decisions involved in Operation
Barbarossa, the (original) Anaconda Plan, decisionmaking (or not) in
13th century Poland, Fort Sumter, the Rape of Nanking, the entire system
of mid-level disobedience and militarism in Japan in the twenties and
thirties...

[Howard Berkowitz]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
There are those in the world who see and enjoy nothing *but* that crap.
That's not me.

The military details of world history are what make the story.

We disagree completely. The military is the fist, but the fist doesn't
make up the entire brain and body and life story of the body it's
attached to.

Post by Michael Kennedy

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
What's important is not how the battles are fought; what's important is
(a) what social forces caused the war to start, and (b) what social
changes resulted from the war afterward?

Winning and losing determine the social forces before and after.

Never said they didn't. However, all that's important in the big
picture of history is the social forces: can we prevent the war, given
what we know of the past (those who would ignore history and all that),
and can we learn from the social changes that DID occur given that such
and such events DID take place, the details of which are not important?

Do you accept a distinction among grand strategy, strategy, operational
art, and tactics?

[Jason Atkinson]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:03:27 -0700, "Michael Kennedy"

Post by Michael Kennedy
The military details of world history are what make the story.

As a full time student of both history and the military I'd say that
that statement is as much a symptom of over-simplified determinism as
the contrary claim that social history is what makes the story.
History is a tangled weave of events, people and processes that
includes _everything_, including the hard sciences Elmo is so quick to
dismiss.

[Jason Atkinson]

Post by Jason Atkinson
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:03:27 -0700, "Michael Kennedy"

Post by Michael Kennedy
The military details of world history are what make the story.

As a full time student of both history and the military I'd say that
that statement is as much a symptom of over-simplified determinism as
the contrary claim that social history is what makes the story.
History is a tangled weave of events, people and processes that
includes _everything_, including the hard sciences Elmo is so quick to
dismiss.

My bad. It was David who wanted to write of the hard sciences.
Eitherway, saying that only a person's own personal interests (social
history, military history, physics etc) are central and relevent to
the human story seems arrogant to me.

[Fred J. McCall]

***@vt.edu (Jason Atkinson) wrote:

:On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:03:27 -0700, "Michael Kennedy"
:<***@cox.net> wrote:
:
:>The military details of world history are what make the story.
:
:As a full time student of both history and the military I'd say that
:that statement is as much a symptom of over-simplified determinism as
:the contrary claim that social history is what makes the story.
:History is a tangled weave of events, people and processes that
:includes _everything_, including the hard sciences Elmo is so quick to
:dismiss.

I'm with you on this one, Jason, if that wasn't obvious from what I've
already said.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Jason Atkinson
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:03:27 -0700, "Michael Kennedy"

Post by Michael Kennedy
The military details of world history are what make the story.

As a full time student of both history and the military I'd say that
that statement is as much a symptom of over-simplified determinism as
the contrary claim that social history is what makes the story.
History is a tangled weave of events, people and processes that
includes _everything_, including the hard sciences Elmo is so quick to
dismiss.

I agree with Jason here but I got nothing from Mike's full post that
disagreed with Jason's point. I believe that Mike's point was that
Shagnasty's claim that only social history counts in history and that wars
should be ignored was preposterous. I agree with that, too.

Grey Satterfield

[Jason Atkinson]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:43:32 GMT, Grey Satterfield

Post by Grey Satterfield

Post by Jason Atkinson
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:03:27 -0700, "Michael Kennedy"

Post by Michael Kennedy
The military details of world history are what make the story.

As a full time student of both history and the military I'd say that
that statement is as much a symptom of over-simplified determinism as
the contrary claim that social history is what makes the story.
History is a tangled weave of events, people and processes that
includes _everything_, including the hard sciences Elmo is so quick to
dismiss.

I agree with Jason here but I got nothing from Mike's full post that
disagreed with Jason's point. I believe that Mike's point was that
Shagnasty's claim that only social history counts in history and that wars
should be ignored was preposterous. I agree with that, too.

I was slaming Elmo more then Mike. It's just that I think Mike
overstated the role of a single aspect of history.

[Bill Toscano]

Thomas: Let's put it this way: Red Rabbit it the only one I didn't finish.
In fact, I didn't get very far.

I wasn't planning to buy Teeth of the Tiger until I found out it was
contemporary Ryanverse, and not like Red Rabbit.

But considering how much I like everything else and how much I have re-read
them, that's only one book.

Bill

[Brian Jackson]

I've read Patriot Games, Red October, Cardinal of the Kremlin, and half of
Clear and Present Danger. Hands down, the worst for me so far is Clear and
Present Danger, and it's been a real surprise for me since I had previously
heard over and over on this NG that it's one of the very best.

I think that TC's overly simplified view of the drug world is very
off-putting. Also, every single character is anti-drugs with a Mack Bolan
sized hard-on to kill all drug users/dealers/manufacturers with extreme
prejudice. So far the good guys are coming off very much like bad, bad guys.
I think that the use of Military hardware and training against drug runners
without the consent, knowledge, and approval of the American people at large
is not just overkill, but also ethically offensive to the nines.

Overuse of the term "Druggies" abounds.

So far, the only time I actually got excited while reading this one is when
the drug cartel stuck four RPGs up the ass of the head of the FBI. I was
totally rooting for the underdog and felt really weird about it.

Then again, the fact that Jack Ryan has been kept out of the loop for the
first 300+ pages has me hoping he'll find out about all this covert activity
and denounce it, but you never know, because all TC's characters usually
share his singularly simple-minded, cartoon-conservative, black and white
view of things. A good example being the fact that every single character
we've encountered thus far in the narrative is explicitly anti-drugs, with
no gray area whatsoever. Tens of characters have been introduced and flitted
through the pages, and all of them hate anything related to drugs. Nobody
thinking, "Well, Heroin and PCP and Cocaine and Methamphetamine are all
plenty bad, but gee, I sure liked all that Pot I smoked in college!"

Very 80's, very Just Say No. Very much like a Don Pendleton
Published-by-Pinnacle adventure novel.

And it's funny, because I have read in here time and time again that people
hated CotK. So far, next to Red October, Cardinal was my favorite.

Brian J.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Brian Jackson
I've read Patriot Games, Red October, Cardinal of the Kremlin, and half of
Clear and Present Danger. Hands down, the worst for me so far is Clear and
Present Danger, and it's been a real surprise for me since I had previously
heard over and over on this NG that it's one of the very best.

I, too, thought like you did. I do believe that CaPD takes a few years
and a few readings to really "get".

But most importantly, we finally meet Mr. Clark.* And we see men--REAL
men, like Clark and Ryan and Ding--doing what REAL men are *supposed* to
do.



*yeah, yeah, I know, he was there in Patriot Games. But we didn't meet
him, all we knew was the fuzzy image from the satellite.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Clark is in CotK. He goes into Russia and helps extract Gerasimov's family.
He also rides in on the Dallas from Red October.

Clark is in HfRO?

I mean, I've read that piece many, many times. And I don't remember
that a bit.

I'd forgotten about CotK. But he wasn't fleshed out, not in the least,
nothing at all like CaPD.

[Brian Jackson]

Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Clark is in HfRO?

I mean that in CotK, he gets a ride on the Dallas, featuring some of the
same crew from HfRO. Not that Clark is in HfRO.

Brian J.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Brian Jackson
And it's funny, because I have read in here time and time again that people
hated CotK. So far, next to Red October, Cardinal was my favorite.

I vote for not liking CotK so much, for the basic reasons you describe
not liking CaPD.

Interesting.

[cMAD]

Post by Brian Jackson
I've read Patriot Games, Red October, Cardinal of the Kremlin, and half of
Clear and Present Danger. Hands down, the worst for me so far is Clear and
Present Danger, and it's been a real surprise for me since I had previously
heard over and over on this NG that it's one of the very best.

You'll hear that (and the opposite) over and over in this NG just about any TC
book.

Post by Brian Jackson
I think that TC's overly simplified view of the drug world is very
off-putting. Also, every single character is anti-drugs with a Mack Bolan
sized hard-on to kill all drug users/dealers/manufacturers with extreme
prejudice. So far the good guys are coming off very much like bad, bad guys.
I think that the use of Military hardware and training against drug runners
without the consent, knowledge, and approval of the American people at large
is not just overkill, but also ethically offensive to the nines.
Overuse of the term "Druggies" abounds.

You should definitely not attempt to read Anthony Burgess: A Clockwork Orange.

Post by Brian Jackson
So far, the only time I actually got excited while reading this one is when
the drug cartel stuck four RPGs up the ass of the head of the FBI. I was
totally rooting for the underdog and felt really weird about it.
Then again, the fact that Jack Ryan has been kept out of the loop for the
first 300+ pages has me hoping he'll find out about all this covert activity
and denounce it, but you never know, because all TC's characters usually
share his singularly simple-minded, cartoon-conservative, black and white
view of things. A good example being the fact that every single character
we've encountered thus far in the narrative is explicitly anti-drugs, with
no gray area whatsoever.

On a very loosely related subject:
Since we have a grey area in this newsgroup, I would like to grasp the
opportunity to ask Mr. Satterfield, Esq.:

What (or who) is the law?

cMAD

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by cMAD
Since we have a grey area in this newsgroup, I would like to grasp the
What (or who) is the law?

The law is a cruel mistress. What else?

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:On 8/28/03 1:20 AM, in article ***@freenet.de, "cMAD"
:<***@freenet.de> wrote:
:>
:> On a very loosely related subject:
:> Since we have a grey area in this newsgroup, I would like to grasp the
:> opportunity to ask Mr. Satterfield, Esq.:
:>
:> What (or who) is the law?
:
:The law is a cruel mistress. What else?

So Buffy is a cruel mistress? I'd rather gotten that impression, from
the way she slapped poor Spike around....

[Marc Reeve]

Post by cMAD
Since we have a grey area in this newsgroup, I would like to grasp the
What (or who) is the law?

According to Danny Elfman, "No Spill Blood."

Who makes the rules? Someone else.

-Marc

[runningcow13]

Post by Brian Jackson
And it's funny, because I have read in here time and time again that people
hated CotK. So far, next to Red October, Cardinal was my favorite.
Brian J.

I couldn't agree more! Cardinal and Red October are two of my all time favorites!

[Fred J. McCall]

***@hotmail.com (Thomas Anderson) wrote:

:guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
: written by Clancy

I think you'll get a near-unanimous vote around here for Rainbow Six.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
: written by Clancy
I think you'll get a near-unanimous vote around here for Rainbow Six.

Number 2 on the list, to be sure.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy

Red Storm Rising. Hands down.

[Ogden Johnson III]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy

The reality of this newsgroup is that for every title cited as his
worst book, you will find a number of people who feel it is his best
book.

Best versus worst, in books as in so many other things, is solely
within the purview of the individual reader.

OJ III
[Who doesn't care *how* many Super Bowls they've won, the Cowboys are
*still* the worst.]

[Grey Satterfield]

ubject: Re: What is the worst Tom Clancy book?
From: Ogden Johnson III
OJ III
[Who doesn't care *how* many Super Bowls they've won, the Cowboys are
*still* the worst.]

And now that we have the Texans, no one cares :).

I loved the Cowboys under Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Barry Switzer --
who, together, won all of the Cowboys' Super Bowls. Since Switzer, though,
the teams have been bad and the coaches worse. Maybe The Tuna can turn it
around but he has a big job to do to make them competitive again.

Grey Satterfield

[Tom Clancy]

I loved the Cowboys under Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Barry Switzer --
who, together, won all of the Cowboys' Super Bowls. Since Switzer, though,
the teams have been bad and the coaches worse. Maybe The Tuna can turn it
around but he has a big job to do to make them competitive again.


********************

All of which may be true, but I've met the Cowboys owner a few times, and I
found him to be a complete and honorable gentleman.

TC

Success will ruin your life.

[DDENT]

Subject: Re: What is the worst Tom Clancy book?
I loved the Cowboys under Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Barry Switzer --
who, together, won all of the Cowboys' Super Bowls. Since Switzer, though,
the teams have been bad and the coaches worse. Maybe The Tuna can turn it
around but he has a big job to do to make them competitive again.
********************
All of which may be true, but I've met the Cowboys owner a few times, and I
found him to be a complete and honorable gentleman.
TC

Ah, but does he know his limits on coaching and staffing his team? That is the
impression here in Texas, that he needs a more "hands off" approach.

Fran

[Fred J. McCall]

***@aol.com (Tom Clancy) wrote:

:I loved the Cowboys under Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Barry Switzer --
:who, together, won all of the Cowboys' Super Bowls. Since Switzer, though,
:the teams have been bad and the coaches worse. Maybe The Tuna can turn it
:around but he has a big job to do to make them competitive again.
:
:
:********************
:
:All of which may be true, but I've met the Cowboys owner a few times, and I
:found him to be a complete and honorable gentleman.

Perhaps true, but it's still difficult to have both a strong coach and
a strong owner, both of whom want to run things and like the
limelight. Too much conflict in the front office.

Landry, well, was Landry. He was an institution, so it was hard for
ownership to push him too far.

Johnson was big and flashy, which also describes the owner. Small
wonder Johnson wasn't allowed to complete his contract. Stealing too
much of the limelight. I liked Johnson.

Switzer was (sorry Grey) not qualified to be a head coach in the NFL,
so far as I could tell. Everything just sort of drifted under him,
with the players and the rest of the coaching staff trying to do the
job that Switzer SHOULD have been doing but didn't seem to know enough
to do. Besides, how stupid do you have to be to FORGET that there's a
gun in your luggage? Didn't notice it when he packed for the plane?

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
Switzer was (sorry Grey) not qualified to be a head coach in the NFL,
so far as I could tell. Everything just sort of drifted under him,
with the players and the rest of the coaching staff trying to do the
job that Switzer SHOULD have been doing but didn't seem to know enough
to do. Besides, how stupid do you have to be to FORGET that there's a
gun in your luggage? Didn't notice it when he packed for the plane?

This is the Texas media's view of things -- a wrongheaded view, it seems to
me. Darrell Royal, an admirable man but a very competitive one, hated Barry
Switzer. I suggest that this stems mostly from the fact that Royal's record
against Barry was 0-3-1 and that Texas sportswriters routinely accepted
Saint Darrell's opinions as holy writ. Also, Switzer never lost to any
Oklahoma State team coached by Jimmy Johnson, whom the Dallas press also
adored; this didn't help, either. The coup de grace was Jerry Jones's
arrogant claim, after he had fired Johnson, that any coach could win a Super
Bowl with the talent the Cowboys had.

Switzer won three national championships at Oklahoma, had the highest
winning percentage of any active college coach, and then added a Super Bowl.
Nobody else in the history of coaching has won a combination of national
championships and Super Bowls totaling four -- Johnson won a total of three.
The unconvincing claim that Switzer had little or nothing to do with those
four championships is understandable from Dallas sportswriters, but I would
have hoped that the rest of the country knew better. I suggest that the
record simply does not support the biased line parroting the claims of
Switzer's jealous opponents that are made by Texas sportswriters to this
day.

The wrongheadedness of Texas writers, which has lead to the remarkable
underestimation of Switzer's talent, is partially explained by the fact that
Barry Switzer was a slippery piece of work. My defense here of Switzer's
undeniable skills as a coach does not include a defense of his equally
undeniable flaws as a human being.

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:On 8/28/03 5:15 PM, in article ***@4ax.com,
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Switzer was (sorry Grey) not qualified to be a head coach in the NFL,
:> so far as I could tell. Everything just sort of drifted under him,
:> with the players and the rest of the coaching staff trying to do the
:> job that Switzer SHOULD have been doing but didn't seem to know enough
:> to do. Besides, how stupid do you have to be to FORGET that there's a
:> gun in your luggage? Didn't notice it when he packed for the plane?
:
:This is the Texas media's view of things

It was also the view of a number of players. It was even Switzer's
view, in point of fact, when he was asked about his poor attendance at
team practices the first year he was coaching in Dallas.

He may have been an institution in Oklahoma, but he was just a waste
of perfectly good skin once he got to Dallas.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> Switzer was (sorry Grey) not qualified to be a head coach in the NFL,
:> so far as I could tell. Everything just sort of drifted under him,
:> with the players and the rest of the coaching staff trying to do the
:> job that Switzer SHOULD have been doing but didn't seem to know enough
:> to do. Besides, how stupid do you have to be to FORGET that there's a
:> gun in your luggage? Didn't notice it when he packed for the plane?
:This is the Texas media's view of things
It was also the view of a number of players. It was even Switzer's
view, in point of fact, when he was asked about his poor attendance at
team practices the first year he was coaching in Dallas.
He may have been an institution in Oklahoma, but he was just a waste
of perfectly good skin once he got to Dallas.

This debate brings to mind Dizzy Dean's old mot, "It ain't braggin' if you
done it." Barry "done it." Nuff said.

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:On 8/28/03 10:46 PM, in article ***@4ax.com,
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:
:>
:> :On 8/28/03 5:15 PM, in article ***@4ax.com,
:> :"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :
:> :> Switzer was (sorry Grey) not qualified to be a head coach in the NFL,
:> :> so far as I could tell. Everything just sort of drifted under him,
:> :> with the players and the rest of the coaching staff trying to do the
:> :> job that Switzer SHOULD have been doing but didn't seem to know enough
:> :> to do. Besides, how stupid do you have to be to FORGET that there's a
:> :> gun in your luggage? Didn't notice it when he packed for the plane?
:> :
:> :This is the Texas media's view of things
:>
:> It was also the view of a number of players. It was even Switzer's
:> view, in point of fact, when he was asked about his poor attendance at
:> team practices the first year he was coaching in Dallas.
:>
:> He may have been an institution in Oklahoma, but he was just a waste
:> of perfectly good skin once he got to Dallas.
:
:This debate brings to mind Dizzy Dean's old mot, "It ain't braggin' if you
:done it." Barry "done it." Nuff said.

Yeah, he did. But what he 'done' in Dallas better supports my
position than yours. Just take a look. He took over and the first
couple of years looked ok, largely based on inertia. However, by
1997, only four years after he took over, the Dallas Cowboys were
turning in losing seasons.

He took over a team that was among the highest ranked in both offense
and defense and rapidly moved their offensive rankings down to the
bottom of the league (with a lot of the same players, which indicates
that the problem was in the front office). Under his leadership, the
team turned in seasons of 12-4, 10-6, 10-6 and a miserable 6-10. He
quit, and the very next year Gailey had the team turning in a 10-6
season with their offensive ranking surging up from the pathetic
cellar that Switzer had it living in to being back in the top 10 in
the league. He did all this with pretty much the same players that
Switzer had.

I will give you this. Switzer DOES appear to have been a better coach
than Campo, who has been an unmitigated disaster judging by the
record. Of course, Campo is having to deal with a team whose talent
had aged out from under him, so he at least has an excuse that Switzer
can't claim for his performance. I can't speak to what's actually
going on, since I don't follow the Dallas Cowboys unless forced to and
I no longer live in Dallas so am not forced to.

No, as a head coach at the NFL level, Switzer seems to have been
pretty poor. Without the advantage of being able to 'cheat' on things
like recruiting, as he could and did do while in the NCAA, he seems to
have been unable to turn in performances in keeping with the talent he
had available.

The proof is really in the pudding, here. If he was such a great NFL
coach, where's he coaching now? Or was he just so good that no one
else was interested in offering him a head coaching job?

[Grey Satterfield]

. . .

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> He may have been an institution in Oklahoma, but he was just a waste
:> of perfectly good skin once he got to Dallas.
:This debate brings to mind Dizzy Dean's old mot, "It ain't braggin' if you
:done it." Barry "done it." Nuff said.

. . .

Post by Fred J. McCall
No, as a head coach at the NFL level, Switzer seems to have been
pretty poor. Without the advantage of being able to 'cheat' on things
like recruiting, as he could and did do while in the NCAA, he seems to
have been unable to turn in performances in keeping with the talent he
had available.
The proof is really in the pudding, here. If he was such a great NFL
coach, where's he coaching now? Or was he just so good that no one
else was interested in offering him a head coaching job?

I would be the last to defend Barry Switzer's character and, it's true, he
did get caught cheating.[1] Couple this with the fact that he regularly
spanked Darrell Royal's and Jimmy Johnson's teams fannies before replacing
the legendary Jimmy, it is understandable that the Dallas press -- and
apparently its citizens -- are constitutionally unable to recognize
Switzer's greatness as a coach. His combined record in college and the pros
speaks for itself. It seems pretty obvious to me that the reason he is
still not coaching is that he was 60 years old when he left the Dallas job,
taking with him the millions Jerry Jones paid him to -- as Barry put it --
return to Norman to "sit on my couch." I suggest that the only reason he
came out of retirement to take the Dallas job was the seven figure salary
Jones paid him.

Trying to get Texas folks to concede that Switzer's success at OU and in
Dallas was the result of anything but skulduggery and luck is an exercise in
futility -- but it makes for a fun debate. One thing Fred and I can agree
on, I bet, is that the OU-Texas Red River Shootout at the Cotton Bowl every
October is the greatest rivalry in college football. Thus, it's no wonder
Royal (0-3-1) hated Switzer (3-0-1). Switzer made matters worse because he
knew how to push Royal's buttons and did. When Switzer was asked what the
difference was in his coaching philosophy and Royal's, Barry talked about
the youth of his coaching staff and added, "Our hair's still growin'." That
crack made Darrell plumb crazy. I suspect that the boys do not exchange
Christmas cards, even now.

Grey Satterfield

[1] Barry's version of those events is fascinatingly told in his
autobiography, "Bootlegger's Boy." Whether or not you believe all of what
Switzer said in it (I don't) it is a really good book.

[DDENT]

Subject: Re: What is the worst Tom Clancy book?
From: Grey Satterfield
One thing Fred and I can agree
on, I bet, is that the OU-Texas Red River Shootout at the Cotton Bowl every
October is the greatest rivalry in college football.

And I'll agree as well. As a UT alum, I can attest to a wild weekend of fun
and football is had by all. This is one reason I am happy my children do not
aspire to attend UT.

Fran

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by DDENT

Subject: Re: What is the worst Tom Clancy book?
From: Grey Satterfield
One thing Fred and I can agree
on, I bet, is that the OU-Texas Red River Shootout at the Cotton Bowl every
October is the greatest rivalry in college football.

And I'll agree as well. As a UT alum, I can attest to a wild weekend of fun
and football is had by all. This is one reason I am happy my children do not
aspire to attend UT.

Those who have not lived through an OU-Texas weekend cannot really
understand its appeal. Not only do two of the most storied programs in
college football meet, they play in an arena that is literally located in
the middle of a carnival midway. It's fun even if you don't drink -- not
that I would really know about that. We Oklahomans and Baja Oklahomans
(sorry, Fran) are lucky to have it.

Grey Satterfield

[DDENT]

Subject: Re: What is the worst Tom Clancy book?
From: Grey Satterfield
Those who have not lived through an OU-Texas weekend cannot really
understand its appeal. Not only do two of the most storied programs in
college football meet, they play in an arena that is literally located in
the middle of a carnival midway. It's fun even if you don't drink -- not
that I would really know about that. We Oklahomans and Baja Oklahomans
(sorry, Fran) are lucky to have it.
Grey Satterfield

The State Fair of Texas being located around the Cotton Bowl venue creates
quite an atmosphere for sure. The Belgian waffles are to die for. As for
alcohol, the drinking age was 18 when I went to college......and I took
advantage of that fact.

Fran

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:Trying to get Texas folks to concede that Switzer's success at OU and in
:Dallas

And his success in Dallas was? Sorry, but I was in Dallas when he was
coaching, Grey. He may have been the greatest all-time college coach
ever to exist, but he simply didn't quite get it in the pros.

[I'm not a Texas native by any stretch, so that's not it. I'm just
judging by what was going on while he was in Dallas.]

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:Trying to get Texas folks to concede that Switzer's success at OU and in
:Dallas
And his success in Dallas was? Sorry, but I was in Dallas when he was
coaching, Grey. He may have been the greatest all-time college coach
ever to exist, but he simply didn't quite get it in the pros.

Fred, Fred, Barry Switzer won the Super Bowl for Dallas. It ain't how,
it's how many, it seems to me; and one Super Bowl win is more than about 95%
of the other guys who ever coached in the NFL can claim. Marv Levy and Dan
Reeves would tell you that this is true. Why must so many of Switzer's
detractors -- admittedly most of whom have a Texas connection -- look for
reasons to claim that the demonstrable fact that Switzer won the Super Bowl
is, somehow, not really a fact, after all? Oh yeah, I answered that
question, to my satisfaction at least, in earlier posts. :>)

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:On 8/29/03 7:22 PM, in article ***@4ax.com,
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:
:>
:> :Trying to get Texas folks to concede that Switzer's success at OU and in
:> :Dallas
:>
:> And his success in Dallas was? Sorry, but I was in Dallas when he was
:> coaching, Grey. He may have been the greatest all-time college coach
:> ever to exist, but he simply didn't quite get it in the pros.
:
:Fred, Fred, Barry Switzer won the Super Bowl for Dallas.

There is a difference between Switzer winning the Super Bowl for
Dallas and Switzer happening to be in Dallas when the team won the
Super Bowl. He had a Super Bowl team handed to him in 1994 (and
didn't make it). He had virtually the same team in 1995 and did.
From their ranking as a top offense in the 1994 and 1995 seasons, the
Cowboys plummeted to being in the bottom offensively in 1996 and 1997.

Good coaching and management by Switzer? I don't think so, especially
since the year after he left the team the offense was back on top
again. Jimmy Johnson started with an offense in the cellar and built
the disciplined, highly ranked offensive weapon that Barry Switzer
frittered away back into the cellar with his undisciplined style.

:It ain't how,
:it's how many, it seems to me; and one Super Bowl win is more than about 95%
:of the other guys who ever coached in the NFL can claim. Marv Levy and Dan
:Reeves would tell you that this is true. Why must so many of Switzer's
:detractors -- admittedly most of whom have a Texas connection -- look for
:reasons to claim that the demonstrable fact that Switzer won the Super Bowl
:is, somehow, not really a fact, after all? Oh yeah, I answered that
:question, to my satisfaction at least, in earlier posts. :>)

And yet you ignore so many other facts and don't look at other
questions that call into question what you want to believe in this.
Your right, of course, but don't expect that to make a convincing
argument for anyone else.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> :Trying to get Texas folks to concede that Switzer's success at OU and in
:> :Dallas
:>
:> And his success in Dallas was? Sorry, but I was in Dallas when he was
:> coaching, Grey. He may have been the greatest all-time college coach
:> ever to exist, but he simply didn't quite get it in the pros.
:Fred, Fred, Barry Switzer won the Super Bowl for Dallas.
There is a difference between Switzer winning the Super Bowl for
Dallas and Switzer happening to be in Dallas when the team won the
Super Bowl. He had a Super Bowl team handed to him in 1994 (and
didn't make it). He had virtually the same team in 1995 and did.
From their ranking as a top offense in the 1994 and 1995 seasons, the
Cowboys plummeted to being in the bottom offensively in 1996 and 1997.
Good coaching and management by Switzer? I don't think so, especially
since the year after he left the team the offense was back on top
again. Jimmy Johnson started with an offense in the cellar and built
the disciplined, highly ranked offensive weapon that Barry Switzer
frittered away back into the cellar with his undisciplined style.
:It ain't how,
:it's how many, it seems to me; and one Super Bowl win is more than about 95%
:of the other guys who ever coached in the NFL can claim. Marv Levy and Dan
:Reeves would tell you that this is true. Why must so many of Switzer's
:detractors -- admittedly most of whom have a Texas connection -- look for
:reasons to claim that the demonstrable fact that Switzer won the Super Bowl
:is, somehow, not really a fact, after all? Oh yeah, I answered that
:question, to my satisfaction at least, in earlier posts. :>)
And yet you ignore so many other facts and don't look at other
questions that call into question what you want to believe in this.
Your right, of course, but don't expect that to make a convincing
argument for anyone else.

As I long ago concluded with Chris Vail and the abortion debate, I now
realize that Fred and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the issue
of Barry Switzer's talent as a football coach. Nevertheless, the debate was
fun.

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:As I long ago concluded with Chris Vail and the abortion debate, I now
:realize that Fred and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the issue
:of Barry Switzer's talent as a football coach. Nevertheless, the debate was
:fun.

And I certainly wouldn't disagree about his college record. He was in
place long enough that any lack of ability at that level would have
become obvious over the years. And Switzer was hardly the first
Oklahoma coach to get in trouble over recruiting violations. I still
remember back in 72-73, when one of the games that got thrown out
because illegally recruited players played in it was one where we BEAT
Oklahoma.

Pretty annoying for us, since that was one of their few losses that
season. Oklahoma had a 'spy' on our campus (some kid from Oklahoma
who was attending CU and was calling back to the OU coaches reporting
on what he was seeing going on during practices). Oklahoma accused us
of watering the artificial turf before the game to put them at a
disadvantage (our team was bigger, but slower, while Oklahoma was
built around smaller, faster players).

The response was, "Hell, they were getting regular reports on all our
practices. It seems someone should have told them it rained here last
night."

[Yes, it really did rain the night before.]

Even more annoying for us was that Nebraska beat us the following
week.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:As I long ago concluded with Chris Vail and the abortion debate, I now
:realize that Fred and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the issue
:of Barry Switzer's talent as a football coach. Nevertheless, the debate was
:fun.
And I certainly wouldn't disagree about his college record. He was in
place long enough that any lack of ability at that level would have
become obvious over the years. And Switzer was hardly the first
Oklahoma coach to get in trouble over recruiting violations. I still
remember back in 72-73, when one of the games that got thrown out
because illegally recruited players played in it was one where we BEAT
Oklahoma.
Pretty annoying for us, since that was one of their few losses that
season. Oklahoma had a 'spy' on our campus (some kid from Oklahoma
who was attending CU and was calling back to the OU coaches reporting
on what he was seeing going on during practices). Oklahoma accused us
of watering the artificial turf before the game to put them at a
disadvantage (our team was bigger, but slower, while Oklahoma was
built around smaller, faster players).
The response was, "Hell, they were getting regular reports on all our
practices. It seems someone should have told them it rained here last
night."
[Yes, it really did rain the night before.]
Even more annoying for us was that Nebraska beat us the following
week.

I always hate it when OU has to play CU in Boulder. Bad things have
happened to them a lot up there. The Buffs are supposed to be a little down
this year. I can only hope that they are both down and OU plays well or it
will be another disappointment for us -- wet field or no wet field. We
owned them last year but that was then, this is now.

Grey Satterfield

[G***@scvnet.com]

Post by Grey Satterfield
I loved the Cowboys under Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson, and Barry Switzer --
who, together, won all of the Cowboys' Super Bowls. Since Switzer, though,
the teams have been bad and the coaches worse. Maybe The Tuna can turn it
around but he has a big job to do to make them competitive again.
********************
All of which may be true, but I've met the Cowboys owner a few times, and I
found him to be a complete and honorable gentleman.

Most people are complete and honorable gentlemen when meeting strangers.

George

[David B.]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy

I didn't really care much for Red Storm Rising or Rainbow 6 though
Clancy's worst is pretty good.

[Grey Satterfield]

On 8/28/03 12:35 PM, in article

I would have to say my least favorite was Cardinal of the Kremlin, but
I've still re-read it several times (for continuity).
Unlike some others here, I have not yet read Teeth of the Tiger...but
hope to soon. I honestly cannot afford to spend the cash on a book,
and have yet to see it in my local library. I am patient however, and
hope to read it soon.
A thought...
Does it bother anyone else that the three actors that have played Jack
Ryan, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck are all weak-kneed
liberal Clinton apologists?
It bothers me greatly. Not only as a former actor (I find is
disingenuous to play a character I am the ideological opposite of) but
as one who detests hypocrisy in all forms.

If I let (1) the intellect (2) education or (3) the political ideology of
actors inform my decisions as to whether to see their films, I fear I would
have to stop watching movies.

Grey Satterfield

[Fred J. McCall]

Grey Satterfield <***@cox.net> wrote:

:If I let (1) the intellect (2) education or (3) the political ideology of
:actors inform my decisions as to whether to see their films, I fear I would
:have to stop watching movies.

Yeah, really. I'm told that Katherine Bell is something of a ditz in
person, but I don't think I care.... ;-)

[Marc Reeve]

Post by Fred J. McCall
Yeah, really. I'm told that Katherine Bell is something of a ditz in
person, but I don't think I care.... ;-)

Catherine, Fred. Catherine with a C.

Otherwise I'm in complete agreement. Though my favorite gal on that show
is still Karri Turner. :)

-Marc

[Fred J. McCall]

***@nospam.calm (Marc Reeve) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>
:> Yeah, really. I'm told that Katherine Bell is something of a ditz in
:> person, but I don't think I care.... ;-)
:
:Catherine, Fred. Catherine with a C.

Somehow, I just never worried all that much about spelling when I
watched her. ;-)

[Howard Berkowitz]

I would have to say my least favorite was Cardinal of the Kremlin, but
I've still re-read it several times (for continuity).
Unlike some others here, I have not yet read Teeth of the Tiger...but
hope to soon. I honestly cannot afford to spend the cash on a book,
and have yet to see it in my local library. I am patient however, and
hope to read it soon.
A thought...
Does it bother anyone else that the three actors that have played Jack
Ryan, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck are all weak-kneed
liberal Clinton apologists?

I suppose we would have to begin with a rigorous, not an emotional,
definition of weak- versus strong-kneed, liberal and other, Clinton
apologists. I approve of some things Nixon and Clinton did, and I detest
others.

It bothers me greatly. Not only as a former actor (I find is
disingenuous to play a character I am the ideological opposite of) but
as one who detests hypocrisy in all forms.

So, you could not play Iago, Brutus, Caligula, Torquemada, Mordred,
Hannibal Lechter, Nero, Socrates (according to Nietzsche), Nixon
(according to some -- I prefer picking Buchanan), Burr, Sherman
(according to the South), Forrest (according to the North), Professor
Moriarty, Hedley Lamarr, Pinochet (to the left), Allende (to the right),
Hitler, Stalin, Galileo (to the contemporary Church), Luther (ditto)...?

[DDENT]

Subject: Re: What is the worst Tom Clancy book?
From: "Michael W. Ellis"
Maybe he can consult with some of your state representatives about the
"hands off" approach...
--
Michael Ellis

<chuckle> That would be Senators this time, but yes, maybe they could teach
each other a thing or two.

Fran

[Ogden Johnson III]

Not only as a former actor (I find is
disingenuous to play a character I am the ideological opposite of)

Your parenthetical statement shows you were not an actor, whatever you
may have been doing. If you cannot perform the role of a character
who is the total antithesis of you, spiritually, psychologically,
politically, in intelligence, in the approach to life, etc., you
cannot call yourself an actor.

To keep this TC-connected, check out the roles James Cromwell
[President Fowler in Sum of All Fears] [and several other "Presidents"
at times, for that matter] has played during his career. That's what
a real actor does. Acts. Lots. As different characters, good, bad,
and every shade of gray in between. You won't know what he believes
going by his roles.

OJ III

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Ogden Johnson III

Not only as a former actor (I find is
disingenuous to play a character I am the ideological opposite of)

Your parenthetical statement shows you were not an actor, whatever you
may have been doing. If you cannot perform the role of a character
who is the total antithesis of you, spiritually, psychologically,
politically, in intelligence, in the approach to life, etc., you
cannot call yourself an actor.
To keep this TC-connected, check out the roles James Cromwell
[President Fowler in Sum of All Fears] [and several other "Presidents"
at times, for that matter] has played during his career. That's what
a real actor does. Acts. Lots. As different characters, good, bad,
and every shade of gray in between. You won't know what he believes
going by his roles.

Speaking of Cromwell, he played the thoroughly evil Captain Dudley Liam
Smith in "L.A. Confidential." His performance made my blood run cold,
"boy-o."

Grey Satterfield

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Post by Grey Satterfield
Speaking of Cromwell, he played the thoroughly evil Captain Dudley Liam
Smith in "L.A. Confidential." His performance made my blood run cold,
"boy-o."

What an outstanding film overall.

[Mark Healey]

I find it extremely entertaining how ignorant many people are when it
comes to when really goes on in the world of theatre, movies, etc.

When actors choose to discuss their political views in public forums,
and then choose to accept large sums of money to play characters that
glorify the very things the stand for it's not acting, it's
prostitution.

It's funny that as soon as Rob Lowe went on the record as saying he
supported the President, it took only a few months for his "salary
demands" to get him tossed off the show...

As someone who is a moderate Republican, I was always made to feel an
"outsider" in the theatre crowd that I worked in...Why? Because,
after the show is over and the cast of a given producation goes out
after wards, the converstations always seem to turn to politics.
religion, etc.

If you disagree...you are "blackballed"

One of the reasons I got out of that business and became a
sportswriter is that I can cover a baseball team, and no one cares
what my political views are (and no one asks about them either).
Though I work in a highly liberal occupation, sportswriters as a group
are already looked down upon by the "elite" news people.

I had the "talent" to play any role I was asked to play...and did so.
I never let my opinions or political views becaome involved. "I"
never made it an issue..."They" did.

"How can you be in the arts when you support rich old white men?" was
a constant refrain.

Elvis Presley once said, when asked by a reporter if he supported the
Vietnam War, he smiled and replied,"Ma'am, I'm entertainer, and I'd
like to keep my opinions to myself"

Indeed....

I don't expect actors, artists, or those from the "arts" to be
Republicans, but since they are so adamant in their "digust", why do
otherwise?

Money. That's why...It has nothing to do with art. When I lived in
Hollywood and was living on Ramen noodles, I had no time to be
political...I was trying to make a living...once I did so, I was then
able to pick and choose what kind of roles I wanted to play...

The lifestyle demands a certain approach...if you resist it, more than
likely, you will be washed away. I chose to stop swimming and get a
real job.

So, don't lecture me on what actors are and what they do...you
obviuosly have no idea what it's like...

Post by Ogden Johnson III

Not only as a former actor (I find is
disingenuous to play a character I am the ideological opposite of)

Your parenthetical statement shows you were not an actor, whatever you
may have been doing. If you cannot perform the role of a character
who is the total antithesis of you, spiritually, psychologically,
politically, in intelligence, in the approach to life, etc., you
cannot call yourself an actor.
To keep this TC-connected, check out the roles James Cromwell
[President Fowler in Sum of All Fears] [and several other "Presidents"
at times, for that matter] has played during his career. That's what
a real actor does. Acts. Lots. As different characters, good, bad,
and every shade of gray in between. You won't know what he believes
going by his roles.
OJ III

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Does it bother anyone else that the three actors that have played Jack
Ryan, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck are all weak-kneed
liberal Clinton apologists?

No.

Acting is a job. You do it, and go home. In fact, what makes an actor
good is that he can play such roles in such a situation.

[Fred J. McCall]

***@msn.com (Mark Healey) wrote:

:A thought...
:
:Does it bother anyone else that the three actors that have played Jack
:Ryan, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck are all weak-kneed
:liberal Clinton apologists?

Not at all. That's why they call it 'acting'. All I care about is
whether they can act or not. Just as I don't worry about the ideology
of a writer, so long as it doesn't seep into their stories too heavily
(and if it does, then I have to agree with them or the book is just
tedious to read). You're not involved to enjoy their politics; their
acting or writing or whatever is the point.

:It bothers me greatly. Not only as a former actor (I find is
:disingenuous to play a character I am the ideological opposite of) but
:as one who detests hypocrisy in all forms.

But if you're playing yourself, is that acting? Acting is about being
able to play people you AREN'T. Look at Martin Sheen on The West
Wing. Hell, from what I understand, Sheen's politics are so far left
he makes Alec Baldwin look like Newt Gingerich. That's certainly not
the part he plays, though.

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Hunt For Red October is probably the worst written since it has a lot of
beginner's (writing) mistakes and was not edited to the standards of a great
American novel. It is however far better than 99% of all other novels that
make it to press, and makes up for most flaws with a rare original (and
genre creating?) storyline.

In a very similar vein, John Grisham's A Time To Kill is without
question his finest piece--and far better than 99% of all other novels
that make it to press.

[G***@scvnet.com]

Post by Thomas Anderson
guys, what do you think is the worst book that was
written by Clancy
for me, number one go to Red Rabbit, I didn't like it
at all, there was no suspense in the book, I didn't care about
the bloody Russian guy, it was so damn easy for him to
pass the information to the Moscow COS , of all the people.
and Jack Ryan, was doing what, giving us a lectures in the Century
and when finally the action start after 600 pages, he was acting like
a wimp.

Would you have enjoyed it more if you knew it was a true story?

It was a dramatization, which is considerably different. Particularly since
it had little drama in it.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Terminator" <***@deathstar.com> wrote:

:I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six, but not because it was bad. I was
:disappointed because I was expecting the continuation of Debt Of
:Honor/Executive Orders.

I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six because I was expecting a
continuation of the characters from Without Remorse and Clear and
Present Danger. Instead John Clark seemed like he was possessed by
Jack Ryan and 'Ding' Chavez seemed to have been taken over by Robby
Jackson. I considered this a horrible shame, because if the
characters had stuck around instead of having someone else fill in for
them, I think it had possibilities of being a really good book.

[Grey Satterfield]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six, but not because it was bad. I was
:disappointed because I was expecting the continuation of Debt Of
:Honor/Executive Orders.
I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six because I was expecting a
continuation of the characters from Without Remorse and Clear and
Present Danger. Instead John Clark seemed like he was possessed by
Jack Ryan and 'Ding' Chavez seemed to have been taken over by Robby
Jackson. I considered this a horrible shame, because if the
characters had stuck around instead of having someone else fill in for
them, I think it had possibilities of being a really good book.

Although I had not thought of this before reading Fred's post, I am
convinced of its truth. It does seem that in R6 Clark and Chavez turned
into dead ringers for Ryan and Jackson. That being said, though, I really
liked the closing scene in the jungle where the self-styled
"environmentalist" bad guys were left to commune with nature in their
birthday suits -- heart monitors or no heart monitors.

Grey Satterfield

[Terminator]

Post by Grey Satterfield

Post by Fred J. McCall
:I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six, but not because it was bad. I was
:disappointed because I was expecting the continuation of Debt Of
:Honor/Executive Orders.
I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six because I was expecting a
continuation of the characters from Without Remorse and Clear and
Present Danger. Instead John Clark seemed like he was possessed by
Jack Ryan and 'Ding' Chavez seemed to have been taken over by Robby
Jackson. I considered this a horrible shame, because if the
characters had stuck around instead of having someone else fill in for
them, I think it had possibilities of being a really good book.

Although I had not thought of this before reading Fred's post, I am
convinced of its truth. It does seem that in R6 Clark and Chavez turned
into dead ringers for Ryan and Jackson.

The chains of command? I will have to consider that when I read it again,
but commanding troops does require a different personality than field
operations. You wouldn't want them to be two dimensional, would you?

Post by Grey Satterfield
That being said, though, I really
liked the closing scene in the jungle where the self-styled
"environmentalist" bad guys were left to commune with nature in their
birthday suits -- heart monitors or no heart monitors.
Grey Satterfield

No, because they survived and will be the driving force behind Ryan's
assassination.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Terminator" <***@deathstar.com> wrote:

:"Grey Satterfield" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
:news:BB7416DF.171F%***@cox.net...
:> On 8/28/03 7:38 PM, in article ***@4ax.com,
:> "Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:> > "Terminator" <***@deathstar.com> wrote:
:> >
:> > :I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six, but not because it was bad. I
:was
:> > :disappointed because I was expecting the continuation of Debt Of
:> > :Honor/Executive Orders.
:> >
:> > I was most disappointed with Rainbow Six because I was expecting a
:> > continuation of the characters from Without Remorse and Clear and
:> > Present Danger. Instead John Clark seemed like he was possessed by
:> > Jack Ryan and 'Ding' Chavez seemed to have been taken over by Robby
:> > Jackson. I considered this a horrible shame, because if the
:> > characters had stuck around instead of having someone else fill in for
:> > them, I think it had possibilities of being a really good book.
:>
:> Although I had not thought of this before reading Fred's post, I am
:> convinced of its truth. It does seem that in R6 Clark and Chavez turned
:> into dead ringers for Ryan and Jackson.
:
:The chains of command? I will have to consider that when I read it again,
:but commanding troops does require a different personality than field
:operations. You wouldn't want them to be two dimensional, would you?

Real operators don't just 'stop'. They have to BE stopped.

[cMAD]

Hunt For Red October is probably the worst written since it has a lot of
beginner's (writing) mistakes and was not edited to the standards of a great
American novel. It is however far better than 99% of all other novels that
make it to press, and makes up for most flaws with a rare original (and
genre creating?) storyline.

Exactly the point. HfRO set new standards.

cMAD <- Rare indeed are those who can _remain_ original. Then again,
predictability pays better,
and you get to stay at nice places, e.g. http://www.bayerischerhof.de/
[Note that it's Bayerischer HOF]

[Michael Kennedy]

Post by cMAD

Hunt For Red October is probably the worst written since it has a lot of
beginner's (writing) mistakes and was not edited to the standards of a great
American novel. It is however far better than 99% of all other novels that
make it to press, and makes up for most flaws with a rare original (and
genre creating?) storyline.

Exactly the point. HfRO set new standards.
cMAD <- Rare indeed are those who can _remain_ original. Then again,
predictability pays better,
and you get to stay at nice places, e.g. http://www.bayerischerhof.de/
[Note that it's Bayerischer HOF]

It's just not the Crillon though. I stayed there in 1987. Maybe it's
improved. :)

Mike Kennedy

[Michael Kennedy]

I would have to say my least favorite was Cardinal of the Kremlin, but
I've still re-read it several times (for continuity).
Unlike some others here, I have not yet read Teeth of the Tiger...but
hope to soon. I honestly cannot afford to spend the cash on a book,
and have yet to see it in my local library. I am patient however, and
hope to read it soon.

Less than $16 at Sam's Club.

A thought...
Does it bother anyone else that the three actors that have played Jack
Ryan, Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck are all weak-kneed
liberal Clinton apologists?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my answer is a resounding "no".
Baldwin, Ford and Affleck are in my estimation decent enough actors and

did

well in their respective roles.

I didn't mind Baldwin as Ryan in HfRO but I almost threw up when he was cast
as Doolittle in Pearl Harbor. I think his casting had something to do with
the limited appeal of that movie. Of course, it was also written (like
Titanic) for 13 year old girls.

Mike Kennedy

[Brian Jackson]

I thought Pearl Harbor sucked ass. I know nobody asked, but I thought I'd
chime in. I hate it when they turn a war picture into Candy-Land. I still
remember being totally upset that "Fat Man and Little Boy" portrayed the
creators of the atom bomb as cute.

Brian J.