Who should lead SG1?(Spoilers)

[warmbeachbrat]

These two threads are interesting:

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26733

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26907

They're a bit long, but give some insight into TPTB's thinking on Mitchell. I don't know if it will give a different perspective or entrench thinking regarding the issue, but I thought I'd throw it out there for people to look at.

[Deevil]

We've also seen false statements posted about military protocol, rank systems and how they effect command, specialisms and leadership - all invented for the same purpose, it seems.

I chose not to believe it was invented, rather that it was presented by people who are inherently niave to the true nature of the military. That it came from people who learnt military protocal from television and movies.

There's no ifs ands or buts about it in my mind, SG-1 is a front-line team. To the best of my knowledge, there's no "real" Stargate out there, with "real" teams running missions to prove that statement otherwise, either.

Totally 1000000% with ya there.

[scarimor]

I chose not to believe it was invented, rather that it was presented by people who are inherently niave to the true nature of the military. That it came from people who learnt military protocal from television and movies.

I gave that benefit of the doubt first, and for some I think you're right. Thing is, even after we'd pointed out to them that they'd got their facts wrong (and in some cases pointed to the off-site info), the same falsehoods kept cropping up again. And it wasn't just military stuff - e.g. there was some nonsense posted about how long it takes to get a PhD a while ago which just had to be made up (as if some of us wouldn't already know it was untrue ) Because if you genuinely didn't know, you'd just find out, wouldn't you?

And I saw at least one piece of misinformation appear on another thread from the same culprit just recently.

I recognise that tactic as one from the list of "what to watch out for in trolls", so, without accusing anyone of being a troll, I was immediately on alert.

In short, I get suspicious when someone posts false info, when it would be very easy to check if it were true before posting it.

[Deevil]

gave that benefit of the doubt first, and for some I think you're right. Thing is, even after we'd pointed out to them that they'd got their facts wrong (and in some cases pointed to the off-site info), the same falsehoods kept cropping up again. And it wasn't just military stuff - e.g. there was some nonsense posted about how long it takes to get a PhD a while ago which just had to be made up

But, Phd's generally take between 2 - 8 years, depending on where you are studying, what you are studying, your study load etc... how could anyone not know this? It would take 2 minutes of research online.

I totally understand where you are coming up from. It comes to the point where people are ignoring facts in the hopes that it will somehow support their arguements. Sadly this happens pretty much everywhere.

[scarimor]

These two threads are interesting:

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26733

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26907

They're a bit long, but give some insight into TPTB's thinking on Mitchell. I don't know if it will give a different perspective or entrench thinking regarding the issue, but I thought I'd throw it out there for people to look at.

Yes I read these before thanks to Formerhost, they're interesting. Thank you for posting something about Cameron in the discussion - we've just had a load of "Carter-can't-do-this-that-the-other" based on shifting sand recently.

[scarimor]

But, Phd's generally take between 2 - 8 years, depending on where you are studying, what you are studying, your study load etc... how could anyone not know this? It would take 2 minutes of research online.

There you go, and the argument being made that 'Carter couldn't have possibly had time to whatever because she had to have taken 8 years blah blah' was based on this... or rather it was the other way round: poster didn't want Carter to be abe to do such-and-such, so made up that had to take 8 years to make it fit. Bleh!

(btw, 3 is average round here)

I totally understand where you are coming up from. It comes to the point where people are ignoring facts in the hopes that it will somehow support their arguements.

Yep, just like that.

If I guessed who was on the Troll list, do I get a prize?

Ooh, I'm not gonna accuse, I'm already in deep water It's nice'n'warm though. So have some jelly instead:

[Lord Shiva]

*zats the moron*



You know I think it's hilarious when people enter a conversation or debate to make a wide-sweeping (and imbecilic) remark, when they haven't even taken the time or energy to actually participate in the debate. It's people like that that really give me a chuckle.

But that's just me. And I've come to understand that I have a sick sense of humor sometimes.

Who said I enetered a conversation to make a sweeping wide remark without participating or reading the debate? I may be fairly quiet, but I've posted at least 3-4 times, first defending Mitchell because whether people like it or not it's his command, and that Carter wasn't even going to be IN SG-1 at the start of season 9, thus making her not leader of SG-1 by default... but that actually is logical, so people say "we've heard that before! Now, let's get back to why Carter should be leading!"

*rolls eyes*

btw, that zat tingled!!!

[scarimor]

Is there an echo in here? Something went funny with this thread earlier.

[DEM]

*cue Twilight Zone music*

[scarimor]

Who said I enetered a conversation to make a sweeping wide remark without participating or reading the debate? I may be fairly quiet, but I've posted at least 3-4 times,

ROFL! Ok Lord, you go ahead and make your sweeping wide remarks about "feminazis"... just so long as you've posted 3-4 times first that'll be fine then...

*rolls eyes*

uh-huh

btw, that zat tingled!!!

See, a woman wouldn't have felt a thing...

[heated sometimes, yeah, but this thread sure has its moments of entertainment ]

[binkpmmc]

U.S. Air Force 1st Lt. Julie Ayres, Capt. Mary Melfi, and Capt. Tally Parham, three of the five female fighter pilots from the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, that flew front line combat missions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. USAF photo by SSgt. Derrick Goode.

Captain Barbara A. Wilson, USAF (Ret), Quote from 2002, said, in an essay on the subject:
"The term "combat" needs to be tossed out and a new one used to define the way 21st Century military operations will be conducted. It is archaic, nebulous, and as old and worn out as the cliches and rhetoric used by those organizations, religions, and misogynists who refuse to think in terms of equal opportunity for military women. We have ground combat, aerial combat, naval combat, mechanized combat, missile combat, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical combat and a plethera of combat modes. "Mano a mano" -( i.e. hand to hand, not man to man, as lazy journalists misuse it,) is almost a thing of the past. I honestly don't think young men or young women should be sent into gut slitting hand-to-hand combat - and I certainly hope that we have scrapped the theories that ground troops are to be used for "cannon fodder". Perhaps if we scrap the term combat these illiberal and ignoble zealots [who claim women cannot or should not serve on the so-called "front lines"] will have nothing about which to hue and cry."

[Nowadays], we have an array of sensors, vehicles and weapons that can be operated by remote control or are totally autonomous. What difference does the gender of the operator make if she or he is trained in that operation? Military planners know that machines will be able to perform many of the most dangerous, strenuous or boring tasks now assigned to people. A fundamental change in warfare is happening right now. Autonomous sentinels on the ground, in the air and in orbit are probing with heat detectors, radar, cameras, microphones and other devices. Some can even penetrate darkness and bad weather. Targets are being destroyed by weapons from pilotless vehicles. The rapid shift away from people to automation certainly should not limit the training in this automation to men only. Many new devices will be much smaller and lighter, making them cheaper, more fuel efficient and easier to move. Machines are better at tedious tasks that human soldiers find boring, like guard duty or CQ. Remote technology has to be operated by a real person - but the gender of that soldier, sailor or airman should not be in question. Military women pilots are flying combat aircraft - every single day."

"And yes women are serving proudly in Operation Iraqui Freedom - in, around, and near hostile territory.

Yes, we've had casualties, prisoners, and injuries - both men and women.

But now is not the time to advocate removing women from certain roles in the military nor is it the time to use the issue of casualties and prisoners to decry allowing women to serve in combat roles - attacking military women with invidious caterwauling .

There is really nothing to debate - women are in combat roles, in harm's way, and they are doing their jobs. Let's just get used to it and realize it's not the Girl Scouts it's the Armed Forces.

Women are serving proudly, living up to the oath that they took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..."

Regression for military women is not an option in the 21st Century!!! "





Myths, Fallacies, Falderol and Idioic Rumors about Military Women
(That's this particular paper's title, not my own commentary)
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

Military Readiness: Women Are Not A Problem (RAND Research Report):
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_br...15/index1.html



-

Thank you ever so much, MG. I have bolded the sentence I think is particularly appropriate and compelling (see above).

[binkpmmc]

These two threads are interesting:

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26733

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=26907

They're a bit long, but give some insight into TPTB's thinking on Mitchell. I don't know if it will give a different perspective or entrench thinking regarding the issue, but I thought I'd throw it out there for people to look at.

Boy - did cooper bomb-out on the Mitchell thinking or what? They really thought that would work? Thanks for playing cooper - now try again. I have seen umpteen posts on umpteen threads on umpteeen forums say that they wish mitchell had stayed the way he was in the beginning eps and not turned into the immature dolt he became - I have thought cooper shortsighted and a bad showrunner since mid-S7 and this has pretty much confirmed it for me.

[the dancer of spaz]

I couldn't green ya my thanks, mini, but it's great to hear the perspective of women officers who have experience. And that pic is really cool, too!

[scarimor]

Oh dear, Lightsabre just red-dinged me because I joined in with Lord Shiva's zat humour. My first red! Woot!

[Lightsabre]

Ok, this is a reply to all the stuff that's been posted in the last day or so.

Scarimor, MG. Look at your own side of the argument. You've been calling Ryan and myself, alternatly, sock puppets, sexists, idiots, ignorant, accused of making things up, told we lack debting skills, claimed we cannot think logically, claimed I created another login solely for this arguement, and there's also the matter of the constant, non-stop Cam bashing that most of you indulge in. This is not a hate thread, we Cam supporters shouldn't have to listen to you spew your hatred here. We respect you enough not to bash Carter(tho we tend to like the character but anyway).
Your side is hardly lilly white. Those who live in glass houses.....

Deevil, you took that arguement completely out of context.
First off, it does take about 8-10 years to get the average PHD. This is because you must first get an bachelor degree, then a masters. Yes, it can be fast tracked, but Carter would need to do all that, while learning to be an officer, then a pilot, as well as studying several other disciplines, like mechanical engineering. To say nothing of the fact most degrees are patently useless till you have some practical, real world experience. So, could she do all that in the time alloted? I highly doubt it.

Oh and please stop telling me I don't know things. It's a damn fact about how long PHD's take in Australia and I've always said 'In AUSTRALIA' when I talk about this.

Scarimor. No one has been attacking Sam or trying to drag her down.
If you say 'Sam should lead because of X', we must, of necessity, post something negative to refute the point. All of the good points we post for Cam are refuted with negative things, yet we can't post the same about Carter?


Finally.
MG, women in combat. Thanks for posting Capt Barbara A Wilson's opinion. It was a good read.
Not really related to the topic, tho, as no one has been commenting about women in air combat, but anyway.
You also missed the point(along with most of your side) that initially, Ryan was trying(I think) to have a more reasoned discussion on this. He was not and I was not ever trying to say Carter shouldn't be on SG-1 because she's a woman. Ever.
It's a cold fact that women aren't allowed in front line combat. Now, that's not my decision and I"m not posting an opinion on it either way. I'm simply stating a fact.
Oh and please stop calling me sexist, mysoginistic, ect. Those are incredibly offensive terms and I'd appreciate if you'd stop it, as you don't know a god damned thing about me. I'm allowed to have an opinion(one which I haven't expressed on this thread) and not be attacked or labelled for holding it.