Re: Toys from Jane's...

Roger Books wrote:

> It reminds me of my test for archaelogical theories.	Goes like this,
> if the theory requires my ancestors to be stupid I dismiss it out of
hand.
> I've noticed we, as a society, tend to equate uneducated with stupid.
> In this arguement we are equating stressed with stupid.  Those who
> go stupid under stress won't last long in future (or current) combats.

I didn't see that in the previous posts, nor did I refer to it in that
fashion.  In response to your "uneducated with stupid" comment, without
getting
too far OT, I think I can say with a bit of authority that uneducated
*does*
equal stupid if someone is uneducated by choice (or fails to take
advantage of
an educational opportunity, in other words; I'd like to think I'm an
authority
on the subject due to the fact that I spend the better part of my days
trying
to educate those who don't necessarily want to be :).  As for equating
stressed
with stupid, I never said that nor did I see anyone else do so (if I
missed it,
then mea culpa).  Stressed is just that, stressed.  Intense training is
what
overcomes that in most cases (which is why from what I hear you NEVER
want to
question what your DI tells you during boot camp :).  But one of the
things
that was pointed out was the usefulness of these types of systems when
in the
hands of green troops, which, IIRC from the fluff surrounding the SG
universe,
are usually conscripts or militia with little/no formal training. 
Regular
quality troops may be troops that have seen combat, or exceptionally
well-trained troops that have not seen any combat (the 29th Division on
Omaha
Beach, for example, during D-Day would be prime examples of these types
of
troops).  I would expect troops of regular quality or above to be able
to
handle the extras, but not necessarily green or militia to perform as
well.
Some might do well, but the majority probably would have some
difficulty, but I
wouldn't necessarily call it stupid.

Mark

>
>