<p>
[quote]
Then go talk about something important, like underwear!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or Merlot. ;)</p>
<p>Damned cold medicine is making me feel as if I just chugged a bottle.</p>
<p>Well, are we? :)</p>
<p>And then, can you imagine, 2010 wanted to know who in this world brought Sir Slick into the fray. I'm simply OUTRAGED, FLABBERGASTED, ETC., ETC. ;)</p>
<p>And mad. My smilies don't seem to be working. :mad:</p>
<p>How's that for the old full-circle!:confused:</p>
<p>Sorry.:( </p>
<p>NOT! :p</p>
<p>btw, for WPson2010 and others ... this technique is well known among Kaplan, SAT, ACT trainer/educator types as a great technique for writng those essays in response to questions the student hasn't a clue. It's called a seque to get to something of greater import or interest or at least something you can write about.</p>
<p>Now, what was your essay question, WPson? I wonder if we're related? Same initials. Who was your father?</p>
<p>(Love the smilies!!:) )</p>
<p>Do you get the sense this thread's petering out? :eek:</p>
<p>Oh, dear. I've created a monster. :D</p>
<p>"Oh, dear. I've created a monster."</p>
<p>of style over substance.</p>
<p>Who was it that said ...</p>
<p>"Beware and avoid at all cost the zealot. He is humorless."</p>
<p>Life is heavy.</p>
<p>Oh, good grief. Have skins become so thin that we are reduced to this now? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you get the sense this thread's petering out?
[/quote]
I hope so. I'm going to do my part to help.</p>
<p>Zaphod out.</p>
<p>or what's really of value...</p>
<p>chocolate;)</p>
<p>As always, a Mom gets it right. Right enough for me to post in this thread again! Chocolate with almonds! Be still by clogging heart! :D</p>
<ul>
<li>Z out. No, really! ;)</li>
</ul>
<p>Can we get back to the subject?</p>
<p>I'm posting at my mid daughter's request, some of you may remember Wheelah44, she IM'd me while I was looking at this thread yesterday, so I got to ask her what she had heard about the Lt. Black incident and if she knew the female mid. (She isn't able to get on CC at the academy, has anyone else noticed we don't have many mid posters anymore?) Anyway, I cut and pasted some of the posts to her and she about blew a gasket. There were quite a few things she wanted me to "Tell those people", namely:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The female midshipman did not report or complain about the incident, the incident was reported by the male mids who were present at the time.</p></li>
<li><p>She was asked to confirm the report, in other words, backup her shipmates, which she did. </p></li>
<li><p>Then she got caught up in the administrative process over which she had no control. There is no feeling in Bancroft that she is taking a victim status or trying to fry the guy.</p></li>
<li><p>Her feeling is that the Supe's decision to push for adjudication was not a bow to pc winds but a demonstration of his contempt for those who don't hold "His mids" with the same regard that he does. Regardless of their criticism of some of his policies there appears to be no doubt among the brigade that he genuinely cares for them. </p></li>
<li><p>Above all, she takes offense at 1) the characterization of the female mid (who she knows personally) as a sissy, a whiner or a cupcake, and 2) anyone who questions her aptitude for commissioning or leadership qualifications. She expresses in the strongest terms that this mid is "one of the most legit mids here!" She is universally well liked and respected. This seems to be borne out by the fact that her male peers were moved to take action on her behalf. It appears from this incident that Zaphod was right when he said that "once a female mid earnes the respect of her peers (and it really doesn't take anything extraordinary, mind you), then they have it FOR LIFE, and whoa be it unto him that messes with a female mid when her male peers are around!" </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Anyway, whoa be to you who make summary judgments about this mid when Wheelah's around. </p>
<p>She's won my daughter's loyalty and admiration and the respect of her peers, that is more compelling to me than the opinions expressed about her on this thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She isn't able to get on CC at the academy, has anyone else noticed we don't have many mid posters anymore?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well that bites! :mad:</p>
<p>So it WAS the firewall, then. I've had another mid contact me offline asking about it.</p>
<p>This place just got less fun. Having the Mids themselves around was an incredible resource. Talk about a complete bummer. It's not going to be the same without them around. :(</p>
<p>"Beware and avoid at all cost the zealot. He is humorless."</p>
<p>"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." -- Abraham Lincoln</p>
<p>Trust me; I'm laughing out loud.</p>
<p>. . . and who was the first to admonish: "get a spine sweetheart"?</p>
<p>And lets not forget this classic:</p>
<p>"Is thinskin a disqualifier?"</p>
<p>rwheeler -
Thanks for the perspective of your daughter (of whom I have had the great pleasure of reading her posts in the past)! You have shed new light on this subject and I am appreciative for the insight!</p>
<p>I know how passionate we can all be in the heat of these discussions and sometimes I'm sure our fingers are nearly lighting our keyboards on fire as we respond. I, for one can get a little caught up in these fiery dialougues. Please forgive me when I do and be patient with all the others on this site who do the same! We are just human after all :>)</p>
<p>With the post from Wheelah's mom, I decided to go back and re-read the original article in light of the facts she brought forth. </p>
<p>From the article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
A female Mid tearfully testified in January that she was "appalled" by Black's statements. She said that she had accepted his apology but that she confirmed the incident when other female officers reported it and she was questioned by an academy lawyer, Maj. C.J. Thielemann.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's consider two key differences in the stories: The Baltimore Sun claims it was "other female officers" who reported the incident, NOT MALE MIDSHIPMEN, as reported by Wheelah.</p>
<p>I will not accept that Wheelah is making it up, so I must conclude that the Baltimore Sun AGAIN has gotten the story wrong. My mistake was taking anything that rag says about USNA seriously in the first place. I should have known better; my time away from it has made me rusty.</p>
<p>Second, I trust that Wheelah would not think or speak highly of a wimp, nor would male Midshipmen. Seeing as the BS (there's an accurate irony if ever I saw one) was unable to get the rank or even sex of those who reported the incident correctly, and seeing as this Midshipman is looked upon favorably by her peers "one of the most legit mids here!"), then I am once again inclined to think that the BS got it wrong on the "tearily" part.</p>
<p>So, despite what some here seem to think, I am not above eating crow when it is served up by someone I respect and who has a hell of a lot better source for facts. If Wheelah is doing the serving, then somebody please pass me a knife and fork, and ask Wheelah to make it a double serving, heavy on the dark meat, please. Everything I have said in this thread with regard to the Mid in question stands IF the facts in the original story are true. But I now don't believe them for the reasons given. </p>
<p>As such, if the young lady in question happens to read this or hear of it second-hand, I offer her an apology for having judged her based on yet another fraud of a story from the BS, which can't get anything right about USNA aside from its location. Can't trust a damned thing they say about anything, really.</p>
<p>This does leave one issue behind, though. If male midshipmen were so upset at what this moron said, what was it that he might have said? If it was that serious, and with so many apparently willing witnesses, then how did he get off on the charges? Troubling, to say the least...</p>
<p>I was coming back on to report what it said in the Navy Times (not so easy to find on an AF base!) in the 9/11 issue:</p>
<p>"The Navy officer who ran afoul of his superiors for using salty language in mixed company received no punishment during a brief admiral's mast Sept. 1 at the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard, according to his Lawyer, Charles Gittins.</p>
<p>Lt. Bryan Black, a former oceanography instructor at the Naval Academy, faced a conduct unbecoming charge after being accused of using explicit terminology with midshipmen during a training cruise to Norfolk last summer. He had been scheduled for a special court-martial in October, but took nonjudicial punishment instead.</p>
<p>The Academy declined to comment due to privacy considerations." </p>
<p>She must be legit if it was her fellow midshipmen who went to bat for her. Wonder what else the BS got wrong?</p>
<p>Zaphod - I'm going to respond to your last post because I fear without clarification I will be lending some credence to your comments.</p>
<p>I do not think there is any discrepancy between the Baltimore Sun piece and the account that my daughter relates. The formal charge against the LT was made by a female LCDR, this was the officer who asked the female mid to confirm the account of the incident which was related to her (the LCDR) by the male mids who were present at the incident, apparently they also reported additional instances of "vulgar comments" which had no connection whatsoever to the female mid. I trust that the BS got it right when they reported that she testified "tearily", so what? It's what you do when the chips are on the line that matters and by all accounts she did exactly what so many of you said she should do, she took it and got over it.</p>
<p>By the sounds of it most of the posters here have some military experience of their own so I think you either have to be obtuse or far too disposed to hyper-politicization to miss the obvious subtext of the story and choose instead to heap abuse on a most unfortunate midshipman.</p>
<p>What we have here is the case of a notorious dirtbag LT (even the investigating officer, a Marine Maj. said "He'd never before heard a professor at school use language as offensive as Lt. Black is charged with") engaging in all kinds of unseemly, improper and overly familiar conduct while in his official capacity. </p>
<p>The reporting officer (female LCDR) wants it in his personnel file, why? So his next command has fair warning, watch out for this guy, he can get out of hand. She initiates the report, the investigation takes place and the investigating officer (Marine Maj.) recommends just that, put a nonpunitive letter in his file, end of story. </p>
<p>Not so fast, the Supe wants to do the butt-chewing on this dirtbag personally, and in a public setting, so he dismisses the recommendation and calls for an admirals mast to be open to the public (in the foyer of the administration bldg no less!) for all the faculty and staff to see. That's when our dubious Lt Black decides to up the ante himself and asks for a courts martial instead, anything to keep it out of the public and get the Supe out of the judgment seat by all accounts. </p>
<p>He later agrees to an admiral's mast to be held in private by an admiral from outside the academy. The admirals mast takes place and Lt Black ends up with what? ....A nonpunitive letter of caution in his personnel file. Precisely what the initiating officer expected and exactly what the Maj recommended except that now Lt Black gets to wear his imprimatur of "pc victim" and instead of the question being "How does a dirtbag like this end up training our future leaders?" you vent your rage about the "feminization of men" and the "whining sensitivity pervading the military" and engage in the character assasination of a member of the Brigade of Midshipman.</p>
<p>Madam,</p>
<p>Thank you for clarifying the details. It was not my intent to put words or conclusions in your mouth. Simply reading what was there.</p>
<p>I never said that all the officer's conduct was proper. Some was clearly and undeniably out of line no matter what the standard. I (and the others who responded in a similar manner) was simply responding based upon the facts in hand. Since those facts continue to be added to, it would seem that my last post, where I offer my apology in light of the facts brought forth by your daughter, stands as offered. What you added above only makes it more appropriate, and I have no problem offering it.</p>
<p>As to the methodology utlized by the sup, I'm not JAG, so I'll defer to his judgement. My earlier question concerning what this officer must have said seems to have been confirmed by the comments made by the Marine. Either way, this guy's career is toast, as it should be if the comments were as bad and as repeated as reported.</p>
<p>So, in summary, my apology to the midshipman in question stands. While I still believe that there is way too much whining going on both in and out of the military, it would seem that it did not occur here. I am glad my initial conclusion was wrong, but that was the impression the original story gave me. If the story had had all the rest of the details, then the reaction would have been quite different.</p>
<p>The guy creeped out a Marine. Wow. :eek:</p>
<p>Please send my regards to your daughter. Thanks.</p>
<p>"Everything I have said in this thread with regard to the Mid in question stands IF the facts in the original story are true"</p>
<p>The facts in the original story seem to be true, so does that mean that you still believe the "sweetheart" should get a spine?</p>
<p>I do not believe the depiction of her breaking down under questioning, based upon what Wheelah said. Additionally, it would seem this creep had a track record of this, and had most likely been confronted before this incident with little obvious effect.</p>
<p>Otherwise, the answer to your question would be "yes". Sorry if you don't like it.</p>