Pick Your "The Walking Left 4 Dead" Team

[asterion]

We've made it through a season and a half of The Walking Dead, and quite a number of the characters seem to be pretty much useless. Combined with the discussion about Shane in the mid-season finale, I thought this would be the perfect time to pick your team.

Two possibilities: Three characters plus yourself or four characters. Either way, it's a team of four against the zombies.

Personally, I think the best combo is probably Daryl, Shane, Rick, and Glenn. Sure, there are some risks, but I think the other three could keep Shane in line.

[Isamu]

Carl, Carol, Maggie and Hershel.

It would be fun to watch.

[Joey P]

Well, part of the problem is that we don't know what good the Farm people are if they aren't under Hershel's control (for lack of a better way to say it).
Maggie might might prove to be the most level headed of the bunch once she has some real world experience under her belt. Hell, if Hershel would stop trying to save the zombies, it might be good to have a doctor with you.

Also, is our team going to be going back out on the road or staying put like they have been? I think that might make a big difference.

Having said that...
I'd get rid of Shane, he seems about one loose screw away from going Lord of the Flies on the rest of the bunch and picking off his own crew. At the very least I don't think there's any way I would want Shane in my crew if Rick was there as well...one or the other.

Daryl for sure, I think that's a given. I'm not sure about Glenn, I think the only thing he brings to the group is that fact that he's small, quick and quiet, I guess we can take him along.
I'm not really sure who that leaves. Lori is pregnant and is going to very soon be out of commission. Andrea, in theory, could off herself at any point, but I think that's just Dale blowing things out of proportion. I don't think she'd really do that. I have no interest in Dale, Carol or Carl and I'm not really sure about T-Dog one way or the other.

So, I've got Rick and Daryl, Shane is out on principle. I'm going to add in Andrea. I think Andrea is picking up on this whole Zombie killing thing really quickly and I think she'll do okay.
That's Rick, Daryl, Glenn and Andrea

But I want to add in a caveat that if in the second part S2 the Greenes have a change of heart and are willing to join in on the quest I'd like to be able to take another look at the list. I might be willing to get rid of Glenn to have a doctor on board or swap Andrea for Maggie if Maggie is more competent. But we won't know those answers for a few months yet.

[Joey P]

Carl, Carol, Maggie and Hershel.

It would be fun to watch.

Watch them what...make it to the end of the driveway and start arguing? I don't think that group would make it far at all.
ETA, yes, I know it was a joke.

[Feyrat]

We've made it through a season and a half of The Walking Dead, and quite a number of the characters seem to be pretty much useless. Combined with the discussion about Shane in the mid-season finale, I thought this would be the perfect time to pick your team.

Two possibilities: Three characters plus yourself or four characters. Either way, it's a team of four against the zombies.

Personally, I think the best combo is probably Daryl, Shane, Rick, and Glenn. Sure, there are some risks, but I think the other three could keep Shane in line.

Well, since we haven't specified the whole "no comics" thing for this thread: Rick, Andrea, Glenn and Maggie.

If we're going show-only, then Shane, Daryl, Glenn and Andrea. I want people who are more interested in survival than whether or not everyone's being nice.

[drastic_quench]

Joey
Chandler
Phoebe
and Rachel

Yeah, I just made a better show.

"Herschel, could they be anymore dead!?"
-- from "The One with the Barn"

[Joey P]

Joey
Chandler
Phoebe
and Rachel

Yeah, I just made a better show.

"Herschel, could they be anymore dead!?"
-- from "The One with the Barn"

I'm not sure how Zombie Phoebe and her "no food with a face" philosophy would reconcile should she ever be bitten.

[Spoke]

No Shane on my team. I don't want to be traveling with a guy who's liable to shoot me if it will get him out of a jam.

I'll take Rick (firearms training), Andrea (has proven herself a firearms prodigy), Glenn (gotta have a scrounger) and Daryl (no justification needed).

[ExTank]

No Shane on my team. I don't want to be traveling with a guy who's liable to shoot me if it will get him out of a jam.

I'll take Rick (firearms training), Andrea (has proven herself a firearms prodigy), Glenn (gotta have a scrounger) and Daryl (no justification needed).

That's pretty much my roster too, with the caveat that I might swap T-Dog for Andrea; less angst, and still handy in a fight.

Lori: it's my impression the she can't seem to get over the fact that the middle-class, white suburban homemaker is a demographic as dead as the walkers.

Dale: probably full of good info, and hidden/as-yet-untapped skill sets, but too likely to navel-gaze and philosophize/moralize when action is required.

Carol: nice lady, I feel for her losing Sophia, but brings little to the table, skills-wise.

Carl: nice kid, probably has potential, with Rick as a dad, but like Carol, no useful skills.

[Death of Rats]

Shane, Otis, Otis and Otis.

Four men enter, one man leaves. :D

[xenophon41]

If I'm going to realistically assess each character's utility as a potential team member, I better go deeper than a first pass selection and look at group dynamic variables that would affect the willingness of my preferred members to join such a team, and the ability of the completed team to work effectively. We have to be a travelling, scavenging and fighting band that can stay together while making use of found materials and remaining flexible in evaluating and adopting or rejecting "found" companions.

In light of that, I think I'd have to reject several individuals who, through virtue of demonstrated skills, resourcefulness or clear thinking I'd otherwise want with me. So, choosing the me + three others option, my eliminations are as follows:

Shane - I'll assume I know everything shown so far in the series at this point, so I have to reject the murderer. It boggles me a bit how many commenters in the other thread believe Shane's sacrifice of Otis was a 'tough but smart decision' given the situation. I think they're not looking at the story universe as realistically as they think they are. Putting ethics and morality aside for the moment (something I'm doing only for argument's sake), betraying a comrade in order to avoid failure of the mission just isn't a successful option for survival as part of a group.

Shane (who let's not forget failed to plan any type of exit from the FEMA supply trailer in the first place) had time to argue with Otis over going on without him, time to shoot Otis when he refused to leave him, and time to wrestle him for the pack containing the respirator... but he didn't think he had any time to limp away arm in arm with Otis to escape the shambling z horde.

Given the fact that every mission in this brave new world o' shit is going to be critical, I don't want this backstabbing scumbag practicing his idea of flexible thinking anywhere near my group. If I thought like Shane did, I'd put a bullet through his brain at the earliest opportunity, but fortunately for him (in this hypothetical) I ain't like he is.

Rick - No way I'm getting Rick without taking Lori and Carl as well. Even if I weren't arbitrarily limited to three selections (more on this later), I wouldn't want to take a pregnant woman and her adolescent child away from the more stable and defensible farm we're currently at. Plus, Rick owns the Shane problem. I need to leave him to see that one through.

In addition, although I'm alternately puzzled and appalled at Rick's major strategy and tactical decisions, I've agreed with every one of his eventual moral and ethical choices. (Including going back to try and retrieve redneck drug dealer Merle.) But if I'm with the group already, I don't really need Rick's moral compass. And I sure don't want to have to constantly argue against his need to find a surviving governmental authority from which to take direction. The most we're likely to find is a strong arm proxy, and I want no part of that either.

So with Rick and Shane eliminated, my strongest choices are Glen, Daryl and either Andrea, T-Dog or Dale.

Taking those in reverse order, Dale has that unfortunate tendency of the experienced and wise to extrapolate his general case of "knowing best" into a universal assumption of correctness for each specific case. He sometimes assumes more ownership of events than he's warranted. I'd like his auto repair skills and no doubt plentiful wealth of life experience, but I don't want his tendency towards unilateral action. Dale's out.

T-Dog seems resourceful and tough, but he's still carrying some sort of baggage from the pre-zombiepocalypse. I'll keep him as an alternate, but he's not one of my first picks.

That leaves Daryl, Glen and Andrea. Daryl is a hunter-tracker and a tough survivor. He's adapted to the group pretty well and seems OK with not leading the group as long as he has a specific goal he can work toward. But he's also capable of decisive independent action. All of this makes Daryl part of my "A" team.

Glen is fast, light, quiet and quick thinking in a stress situation. He's in, but I don't think he'll want to leave Maggie, nor will she want him to go without her. This is fine with me. I need Glen, so I'll let Maggie choose to join on her own, and I get two quick and able bodied team members for the price of one.

Andrea will either get completely over her existential angst or eventually kill herself, but it's not likely she'd do that at the expense of the group. And she'll see crisis situations through without flinching. She's also shown herself to be a scrappy survivor. She'll do just fine.

But we ain't heading towards Ft. Benning.

[Lust4Life]

I'm treating this as a real life issue, and basing my post on that.

Daryl definitely, Shane definitely, and the young asian bloke who steals cars.

I'd like to take Rick, as someone else said, firearms training, but without the kid and a pregnant wife, and I don't think that he'd leave them behind as he's very goody goody.

You've got to think," will we survive with the team you've chosen ?"

Its all very well making your judgement on ethics and principles, but if you all end up dead in a short while it doesn't really matter that your team consists of Mother Theresa, Ghandi and the Pope/Archbishop of Canterbury, because they'll never have a chance to do good anyway.

Mostly on the acount of you all being dead.

[xenophon41]

Guess I'll take my chances without Shane's masterful ability to get himself surrounded by zeds.

By the way, where's this idea come from that ethics and principles have no relationship to survival? Just curious. The notion seems more than a little naive or juvenile to me. It's like people instinctively understand the utility of being part of a group in a lawless post-apocalyptic scenario, but they disregard the consequences of tribal existence.

[Lust4Life]

Guess I'll take my chances without Shane's masterful ability to get himself surrounded by zeds.

By the way, where's this idea come from that ethics and principles have no relationship to survival? Just curious. The notion seems more than a little naive or juvenile to me. It's like people instinctively understand the utility of being part of a group in a lawless post-apocalyptic scenario, but they disregard the consequences of tribal existence.

So you think that if you're a nice guy then you'll survive to pass on your "niceness"to society ?

I've actually been in life or death situations and because we were well trained we stayed alive.

Some of us literally hated each others guts, but because we were good at what we did we stayed alive.

Your opinion comes from watching a t.v. programme.

My opinion comes from actual experience and real life.

[palacheck]

Me, Andrea, Maggie, and the yet-to-be-introduced blonde background character from the season finale.

I'm a forward thinker.

[Spoke]

So you think that if you're a nice guy then you'll survive to pass on your "niceness"to society ?

I've actually been in life or death situations and because we were well trained we stayed alive.

Some of us literally hated each others guts, but because we were good at what we did we stayed alive.

Your opinion comes from watching a t.v. programme.

My opinion comes from actual experience and real life.

Why do I get the feeling that your post=apocalyptic community would look a lot like the second half of 28 Days Later?

[Joey P]

Me, Andrea, Maggie, and the yet-to-be-introduced blonde background character from the season finale.

I'm a forward thinker.

Andrea's not blonde enough for you? Sounds like what you need is a redhead or a hipster or something.

[xenophon41]

Your opinion comes from watching a t.v. programme.
Golly, what else do you know about me, Mr. Wizard? How many fingers am I holding up right now?




(You're right, it was just one.)

[Lust4Life]

golly, what else do you know about me, mr. Wizard? How many fingers am i holding up right now?




(you're right, it was just one.)

meeeow!

[John Mace]

Rick, Daryl, Shane and Glen.

Shane doesn't really bother me. He does what he has to do. And without any women in the mix, you eliminate that element of competition among the men.

[Omega Glory]

Glenn, Daryl, and I guess, T Dawg and Andrea. Rick wouldn't leave his family and Shane is just right out since he'd be willing to do whatever it took to save Carl and Lori, including killing everybody else. Also, his choice to use up all the flares at once is the reason he and Otis got surrounded by Walkers when they were leaving the school.

I don't know much about T Dawg and Andrea is a bit trigger happy, but it would have to work.

[xenophon41]

meeeow!

Hmm. I suppose it might be safer for me to disengage after such a devastating rejoinder, but I think the point is an important aspect to explore in the discussion. There seem to be two different viewpoints forming about Shane, one generally accepting of his actions as necessary or justifiably expeditious, even if icky, and one view generally condemnatory. (If asterion objects or feels this is a distraction from the OP, I'm happy to start a different thread.)

So, noting the fearsome sophistication of L4L's "ethics and principles equates to 'trying to be a nice guy'" formulation, I'll steel my nerve and wade into the fray.

To take into account your unique life experience, Lust4Life, I'll accept without question that your participation as part of a highly trained unit facing life or death situations forms the basis of your opinion. I also suggest to you that my view, along with those of the other participants in the thread, is also informed by experiences outside of televised entertainment. (There are a number of participants in the thread besides you and I who I know to have military experience. But I will try at all times to maintain the appropriate level of respect for your special case.)

To illustrate how ethical considerations factor into day to day survival in life or death situations, I'd like to ask you an honest question about your [British?] military history, based on the following scenario:

Let's imagine that at some point in your career in the elite force to which you were attached, you found yourself along with a single companion from a separate unit returning from a mission. Let's say you were carrying information or material (we'll call this a Macguffin) which could be instrumental in saving the life of one of your unit mates back at the field base to which you're both returning.

Along the way you've encountered enemy forces which, in your judgement, it's impossible for you both to elude working together, but from which one of you might escape with the Macguffin if the other were to serve as a distraction. This is complicated by two facts - first, the enemy is known by both of you to invariably and immediately torture and kill their captives, and second, your comrade refuses to leave you and has not volunteered himself for sacrifice.

First question: Do you shoot him and leave him to be tortured and killed, wresting the Macguffin from the confused and wounded soldier before leaving, or do you continue to work with him until you escape or one or both of you is captured?

Second question: If you shot and left your unfortunate partner, would you have reported the action to your fellows or superiors, and if your actions were otherwise made known, would there have been consequences involving military justice?

Now, I don't know the answer to the first question, but it's important to note that whatever your answer, if you justified it by anything other than a coin flip or other random selection, you employed a system of ethics to reach your decision. Doesn't matter if it was so rudimentary as to be complete self interest, or if it were a complex mixture of adherence to military code, concern for your Macguffin deprived comrade and conscientious propitiation of the ancient deity Moloch.

Because ethics is not, in fact, the desire to be 'nice' but is the application of universal principles to situational needs through a process of interpretation and evaluation. It is impossible to apply any sort of belief to any sort of situation without employing a system of ethics.

Now, I know with full confidence the answer to my second question above. We all know that one, don't we? There's not an organized national military on the planet which would fail to treat the betrayal portrayed in the hypothetical as a breach of conduct. Such an act would, in most military systems, be tried as murder, and without massive extenuation would result in severe punishment.

Do we think this universal condemnation of the fuck-your-buddy battlefield technique is because all militaries of the world are softheaded organizations overly concerned with being 'nice guys'? Or is it because they all believe such ethical considerations are vital to the continuing operation and maintenance of a military force?


We can explore other aspects of ethics in extreme circumstances, but I think this is enough for now, and doesn't stray too far from the fictional universe of the Walking Dead franchise. It would be interesting to explore the inevitable consequences of Shane's approach, but I'll bet we see some sort of take from the writers in the second half of the season. I hope the OP will continue to indulge this sidetrack.

[MaddyStrut]

If we're going to function as a group, I'd have to trust the people I've chosen. That rules out Shane (because I'd be worried about him if I so much as got the sniffles) and Dale (who would decide to hide our guns or break the camper if he thought it was best).

Darryl and Glenn are first picks. Do I have to pick another one? Can't I just pick those two?

If so, then it would be T-Dogg and Andrea. T-Dogg because I don't know enough about him to have anything against him. Andrea because she's the best of those left. As mentioned, Rick wouldn't leave Lori and Carl. Maggie could be a substitute for Andrea (and I may have to go that way if Glenn won't leave without her), but I'm not sure she'll leave Hershcel and crew.

[panamajack]

Rick
Pros: Police training, some leadership ability, high concern for others.
Cons: Reluctance to act (seeks higher authority or further information despite being semi-capable of handling tough decisions). May be unwilling to leave Lori & Carl.

Lori
Pros: Cares deeply about those she loves, wants to do right.
Cons: Utterly ineffectual at doing anything for them, pregnant.

Carl
Pros: Has the bravery and obedience of a child soldier.
Cons: Has the strength and inexperience of a child.

Shane
Pros: Police training; unafraid to act. Usually can keep thinking in difficult situations.
Cons: Thoughts tend toward dangerous and selfish behavior. Prone to anger. Shows little loyalty even to those close to him, and much less to others.

Glenn
Pros: Willingness to help, resourceful and usually quick-thinking.
Cons: Has little initiative; can get in over his head.

Dale
Pros: Experience gives him the ability to make decisions and react; carries himself fairly well in combat.
Cons: Experience makes him unwilling to share his decisions with everyone else, physically weak with age.

Andrea
Pros: Seems a naturally gifted fighter.
Cons: Panics under stress. May be mentally unstable.

Carol
Pros: Has strong and resilient spirit.
Cons: No fighting ability; easily cowed by others.

Daryl
Pros: Pretty much kicks ass, and is willing to help others if he decides he wants to. Usually makes good choices.
Cons: Reacts poorly to authority or group decisions; may be tough to control.

"T-Dog"
Pros: Generally willing to help, physically fairly strong.
Cons: Lacks training (and sorely needs it); does not seem to be at his best in combat situations.

Hershel
Pros: Strong leader, medical training.
Cons: Holds delusions about zombies that make him a liability, not a fighter.

Maggie
Pros: Confident fighter, rational and intelligent.
Cons: Somewhat controlled by Hershel; has poor situational awareness and loses her cool in close combat.


other family/farm folks - ignored, appear to lack experience with outside world.

various vatos - ignored, possibly capable, but appear unwilling to form a team.

others left behind (Morgan et al.) - ignored, lack of evidence.

My picks:
Daryl and Rick are in - the best fighters that aren't a problem for the group.

Next is probably Maggie.

I think the last one is either Glenn, T-Dog, or Dale. Glen I'd rather not have if he & Maggie are trouble. I wouldn't mind Hershel if he were convinced of the danger; there's hope that Maggie might know a bit about medicine just from being with him.

I choose Daryl, Rick, Maggie, and T-Dog.

[MacTech]

I'm looking at the WL4D crew in a sort of D&D vein in terms of character classification;

Working off Panama Jack's quick reviews of the character archetypes

Rick - Paladin
Pros: Police training, some leadership ability, high concern for others.
Cons: Reluctance to act (seeks higher authority or further information despite being semi-capable of handling tough decisions). May be unwilling to leave Lori & Carl.

Lori - meaningless cannon-fodder NPC peasant
Pros: Cares deeply about those she loves, wants to do right.
Cons: Utterly ineffectual at doing anything for them, pregnant.

Carl
Pros: Has the bravery and obedience of a child soldier.
Cons: Has the strength and inexperience of a child.

Shane- Berserker
Pros: Police training; unafraid to act. Usually can keep thinking in difficult situations.
Cons: Thoughts tend toward dangerous and selfish behavior. Prone to anger. Shows little loyalty even to those close to him, and much less to others.

Glenn - Magic-User/Thief
Pros: Willingness to help, resourceful and usually quick-thinking.
Cons: Has little initiative; can get in over his head.

Dale -Cleric
Pros: Experience gives him the ability to make decisions and react; carries himself fairly well in combat.
Cons: Experience makes him unwilling to share his decisions with everyone else, physically weak with age.

Andrea -Rogue
Pros: Seems a naturally gifted fighter.
Cons: Panics under stress. May be mentally unstable.

Carol meaningless cannon-fodder NPC peasant
Pros: Has strong and resilient spirit.
Cons: No fighting ability; easily cowed by others.

Daryl -Fighter/Knight
Pros: Pretty much kicks ass, and is willing to help others if he decides he wants to. Usually makes good choices.
Cons: Reacts poorly to authority or group decisions; may be tough to control.

"T-Dog" -Fighter
Pros: Generally willing to help, physically fairly strong.
Cons: Lacks training (and sorely needs it); does not seem to be at his best in combat situations.

Hershel -Monk
Pros: Strong leader, medical training.
Cons: Holds delusions about zombies that make him a liability, not a fighter.

Maggie Rogue
Pros: Confident fighter, rational and intelligent.
Cons: Somewhat controlled by Hershel; has poor situational awareness and loses her cool in close combat.

If I was one of the group, my three compatriots would be Daryl, Maggie, and Glenn
If I was choosing only from the group, I'd choose Daryl, Maggie, Glenn, and T-Dog

Daryl and T-Dog appear to work well as a team, even if they aren't "freinds", they have a good overall balance of talents, Maggie and Glen also have similarly complimentary talents

Shane is out due to his unpredictability and temper, yes he gets things done, but he is also a bit too close to the breaking point for my tastes, don't want him waking up on the wrong side of the bedroll and killing off team members for some ill concieved delusional "reason"

[Spoke]

"T-Dog"
Pros: Generally willing to help, physically fairly strong.
Cons: Lacks training (and sorely needs it); does not seem to be at his best in combat situations.

Does he? I may be mis-remembering, but didn't T-Dog assist with the firearms training?

[Omega Glory]

Does he? I may be mis-remembering, but didn't T-Dog assist with the firearms training?

Yes.

[ExTank]

Does he? I may be mis-remembering, but didn't T-Dog assist with the firearms training?

He seems pretty capable with the group; but in S2E1 he freaked out/panicked on the highway when the walkers came by (he may have been surprised and startled by their sudden appearance) and almost killed himself getting cut.

[Spoke]

T-Dog seems like kind of an unknown at this point. His character just hasn't been explored that much.

[stegon66]

Maggie
Pros: Confident fighter, rational and intelligent.

You forgot darn cute.

I'd take Daryl, Carol (team her with Daryl and I think they'd make a good, no-nonsense couple to have around), Andrea (good shooter) and Maggie (for me).

[Lust4Life]

Hmm. I suppose it might be safer for me to disengage after such a devastating rejoinder, but I think the point is an important aspect to explore in the discussion. There seem to be two different viewpoints forming about Shane, one generally accepting of his actions as necessary or justifiably expeditious, even if icky, and one view generally condemnatory. (If asterion objects or feels this is a distraction from the OP, I'm happy to start a different thread.)

So, noting the fearsome sophistication of L4L's "ethics and principles equates to 'trying to be a nice guy'" formulation, I'll steel my nerve and wade into the fray.

To take into account your unique life experience, Lust4Life, I'll accept without question that your participation as part of a highly trained unit facing life or death situations forms the basis of your opinion. I also suggest to you that my view, along with those of the other participants in the thread, is also informed by experiences outside of televised entertainment. (There are a number of participants in the thread besides you and I who I know to have military experience. But I will try at all times to maintain the appropriate level of respect for your special case.)

To illustrate how ethical considerations factor into day to day survival in life or death situations, I'd like to ask you an honest question about your [British?] military history, based on the following scenario:

Let's imagine that at some point in your career in the elite force to which you were attached, you found yourself along with a single companion from a separate unit returning from a mission. Let's say you were carrying information or material (we'll call this a Macguffin) which could be instrumental in saving the life of one of your unit mates back at the field base to which you're both returning.

Along the way you've encountered enemy forces which, in your judgement, it's impossible for you both to elude working together, but from which one of you might escape with the Macguffin if the other were to serve as a distraction. This is complicated by two facts - first, the enemy is known by both of you to invariably and immediately torture and kill their captives, and second, your comrade refuses to leave you and has not volunteered himself for sacrifice.

First question: Do you shoot him and leave him to be tortured and killed, wresting the Macguffin from the confused and wounded soldier before leaving, or do you continue to work with him until you escape or one or both of you is captured?

Second question: If you shot and left your unfortunate partner, would you have reported the action to your fellows or superiors, and if your actions were otherwise made known, would there have been consequences involving military justice?

Now, I don't know the answer to the first question, but it's important to note that whatever your answer, if you justified it by anything other than a coin flip or other random selection, you employed a system of ethics to reach your decision. Doesn't matter if it was so rudimentary as to be complete self interest, or if it were a complex mixture of adherence to military code, concern for your Macguffin deprived comrade and conscientious propitiation of the ancient deity Moloch.

Because ethics is not, in fact, the desire to be 'nice' but is the application of universal principles to situational needs through a process of interpretation and evaluation. It is impossible to apply any sort of belief to any sort of situation without employing a system of ethics.

Now, I know with full confidence the answer to my second question above. We all know that one, don't we? There's not an organized national military on the planet which would fail to treat the betrayal portrayed in the hypothetical as a breach of conduct. Such an act would, in most military systems, be tried as murder, and without massive extenuation would result in severe punishment.

Do we think this universal condemnation of the fuck-your-buddy battlefield technique is because all militaries of the world are softheaded organizations overly concerned with being 'nice guys'? Or is it because they all believe such ethical considerations are vital to the continuing operation and maintenance of a military force?


We can explore other aspects of ethics in extreme circumstances, but I think this is enough for now, and doesn't stray too far from the fictional universe of the Walking Dead franchise. It would be interesting to explore the inevitable consequences of Shane's approach, but I'll bet we see some sort of take from the writers in the second half of the season. I hope the OP will continue to indulge this sidetrack.


You certainly seem to have a lot of issues, which I think that I'll leave for you to sort out for yourself.

Don't call me I'm busy.

[ExTank]

You certainly seem to have a lot of issues, which I think that I'll leave for you to sort out for yourself.

Don't call me I'm busy.

You quoted his whole post just to say that?

Gotta say, speaking as combat veteran, xeno's making one hell of a better case for his position than you are for yours.

And you come across as pretty arrogant to just waltz in, and tell everyone they're wrong and basically stupid.

A "Shane" in our military unit would've received either the quickest beat down and medevac or the quickest transfer to a non-combat support unit. Maybe one, then the other.

Spoke nailed it above. 28 Days Later indeed.

[Lust4Life]

You quoted his whole post just to say that?

Gotta say, speaking as combat veteran, xeno's making one hell of a better case for his position than you are for yours.

And you come across as pretty arrogant to just waltz in, and tell everyone they're wrong and basically stupid.

A "Shane" in our military unit would've received either the quickest beat down and medevac or the quickest transfer to a non-combat support unit. Maybe one, then the other.

Spoke nailed it above. 28 Days Later indeed.

I quoted her whole post because I couldn't be bothered to go though all of that verbiage on delete.


Hope thats alright with you now, if you have any other queries with my posting style, as opposed to my actual points, then do by all means take it up with someone who actually cares.

Actually I didn't rate 28 Days Later very much, thought that it was badly written, and the story unbelievable.

As to your ex position as a tank driver, I don't think that it really qualifies you overmuch for ground/hand to hand tactics whether against humans, zombies or teddy bears.

If you don't like my attitude then feel free to ignore my posts, ie. don't read them and don't respond to them.


And now if you don't actually have a point about the TWD to make to me, I'll wish you a fond farewell.

I promise that you won't hurt my feelings by doing so.

[ExTank]

I quoted her whole post because I couldn't be bothered to go though all of that verbiage on delete.

Hope thats alright with you now, if you have any other queries with my posting style, as opposed to my actual points, then do by all means take it up with someone who actually cares.

Well, aren't you just a pleasant person to have a conversation with.

Bless your heart.


Actually I didn't rate 28 Days Later very much, thought that it was badly written, and the story unbelievable.

Regardless of your movie critique, there was a military unit that set themselves up in house, abducting people for sex slavery and whatever usefull bits they had on them, because it was "situationally expedient" for them to do so. They had the guns, and it was in there immediate interests to become Honey Badger.

And Honey Badger doesn't Give A Shit.


As to your ex position as a tank driver, I don't think that it really qualifies you overmuch for ground/hand to hand tactics whether against humans, zombies or teddy bears.

Gunner. Trigger man. And when I went through basic training, everyone received basic infantry fire-and-maneuver training. But that's besides the point; the service-weapon for American tankers is pistol, for which I'm fairly proficient with to this day (range time is cheap).



If you don't like my attitude then feel free to ignore my posts, ie. don't read them and don't respond to them.


All too easy. Buh-bye!

[Miller]

Gunner. Trigger man. And when I went through basic training, everyone received basic infantry fire-and-maneuver training. But that's besides the point; the service-weapon for American tankers is pistol, for which I'm fairly proficient with to this day (range time is cheap).

Doubly besides the point, since the the locus of disagreement here isn't small unit tactics, but team building and military esprit de corps. Which is something that, I would imagine, is equally important whether you're in the ground infantry, part of a tank crew, or swabbing the deck of an aircraft carrier.

And, of course, military training usually involves a huge amount of ethical instruction, although I guess it's not really phrased that way in boot camp. But "Never leave a man behind," is purely an ethical position. The idea that you can depend, absolutely, on your team mates, and that you must be absolutely dependable to them, is an ethical system, and (as I understand it) one of the first things they try to impress upon new recruits.