Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

7 posts ยท Jun 2 2001 to Jun 2 2002

From: Randall L Joiner <rljoiner@m...>

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 00:49:20 -0700

Subject: Re: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

I always prefer the distinction: If you worry about which tree to hide behind,
that's tactics. If you're worried about which forest to hide behind, that's
strategy.

> At 09:50 PM 6/1/2002 -0400, you wrote:

From: Randall L Joiner <rljoiner@m...>

Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:40:44 -0400

Subject: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

[snip]

> I am in no way agreeing with all of Mr. Atkinson's somewhat jingoistic

Well put.

I would like to add, that had the US been a neutral party, being who we
are, we would have sold arms and materials to _both_ sides.  (I won't
comment on the intelligence, ethics, or morals, or more specifically the

lack that this entails) Just imagine how much longer and bloodier things

would have been.

To bring this remotely back to a semblance of topic, Axis and Allies, though
beer and pretzels, has some potential for a lot of interesting fun given the
above premise.

Now, to hopefully drag this fully back on topic... Kicking and screaming,
drawing large amounts of blood along the way... This is how I've read the
canon on how the Vasku should be played, and how they're played by at least
one of our group... Although instead of supplies, they actually take part in
the fights themselves. Anyone else

play them that way? I'm curious as to how others see them.

Rand.

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 19:05:07 +1000

Subject: RE: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

G'day,

> Although instead of supplies, they actually take part in

They wait to see who won and then smack them down;)

From: Randall L Joiner <rljoiner@m...>

Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 15:28:51 -0400

Subject: RE: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

Granted. Tactically, but what about strategic level actions?

> At 07:05 PM 6/1/02 +1000, you wrote:

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 11:49:18 +1000

Subject: RE: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

G'day,

> Granted. Tactically, but what about strategic level actions?

I'm not real great on the distinction between the two and in this case I'd
actually play them as "waiting to see who won and then smack them down" at
both levels;)

If I were to anthropomorphise their thought processes I guess my take is "why
get my hands dirty when lesser beings will do it for me...". So what the KV,
PH and HS (homo sapiens) need to do is get over their petty squabbles, create
a grand alliance and go kick some SV butt;)

Cheers

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 21:50:45 -0400

Subject: Re: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

> > Granted. Tactically, but what about strategic level actions?

The short form: Tactics: using the right fire and movement to win a battle
Strategy: using the right battles to win a war

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 12:02:58 +1000

Subject: RE: Playing both sides (was: Re: The same old shit!!!)

G'day,

> The short form:

I'm going to have to stick that up next to my "pocket summary" of
grammar -
which consists of a post-it note on my computer screen reading "noun =
name, verb = doing stuff";)

Thanks