<p>USNA1985. I agree with you. I am not suggesting at all that I am in a better position to make the determination. My comment is that it "appear[s]" to not further the mission.</p>
<p>This does not affect me personally; I am not a 2011 parent. That doesn't mean, as I have tried to say many times, that one can't still think the decision is somewhat petty. That doesn't mean I am undermining the administraiton's authority or that I am in a better position to make the decision. Nor does it mean that the administration isn't capable of making "large-minded" decisions in the best interests of the Academy. </p>
<p>THIS decision, however, [without the benefit of being on the inside and without the benefit of having all information available to me] does not APPEAR to have any larger benefit.</p>
<p>This is no different than questioning the President of the United States--which more people should be doing on a regular basis--on some of the decisions he makes. I have been on the inside of operations, as have it sounds like some of the people on this site, that were reported to the public based on limited information. I am sure some of the decisions made at the time appeared screwy to the public but made perfect sense to us. I would guess the Academy administration considers this decision to make perfect sense. Surely they are rartional people who would not act in a manner contrary to what they thought was in the best interests of the mids.]</p>
<p>In life, as in the military and in many parts of government, decisions ar emade at a higher pay grade that you may or may not agree with. That still doesn't mean that you can't shake your head and move on.</p>
<p>"Small-minded" in that there are, I would guess, many, many more important things that should occupy the minds of the administration regarding mid welfare, training, etc. that might take precedent over this.</p>
<p>This is only important, more or less, to the parents. The mids will get along just fine. Certainly the precedent came about only because of unusual circumstances; that doesn't mean the permission shouldn't have happened, merely that, perhaps, nobody thought of it before. My understanding is that fears of undermining training were some of the basis for not permitting the night previously. Once it happened, there did not seem to be any adverse affect on training. So, it was permitted again, and again. If no adverse affect, why reverse course?</p>
<p>No, USNA69, despite your best efforts to re-write short-term history, you did start it. I did not post any comment about you prior to your postings about me. My original post was #2 or #3. Your slam was #4 or #5. The comment that you extracted came quite a bit later. But, then again, that is your MO, to mis-characterize facts so as to fit your perception.</p>
<p>USNA09. My understanding is that paretns were particularly out of control [using that term loosely] at I-day this year. You've read the stories of some parents being a bit over-enthusiastic during processing?<br>
We did not go to sea trials, but didn't they start at 0500 anyway?
Oh well, let those who criticize the parents [some of whom do go a bit overboad] stand tall when its their time.</p>
<p>Enough about this, time to move on to the next meaningless, time-consuming internet discussion by mid-aged adults [?] who have nothing better to do with their lives.</p>