<p>Midshipmen don't "work", maddam. They go to school. Bancroft Hall is no different than any other barracks. Perhaps a bit more posh, but that's it.</p>
<p>OMG! Pornographic images on the computer! RUN! :eek:</p>
<p>I'm sure that those Mids who have Rainbow Six and Doom on their computers are all potential mass-murderers, too. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I believe there are specific rules about downloading "copyrighted materials and pornography." Is the mere possession of such images on a computer, purchased by the mid, a proper subject for inquiry? That is, if they were not downloaded through USNA servers [unlikely as that is], can he have possession of such images? Interesting question.</p>
<p>Speaking of the rapist, wonder if he was permitted to participate in graduation? [Presumably he fulfilled his academic requirements] Commissioned? [Commissioned so he could be court-martialed?] </p>
<p>". . . displayed in the open . . ." Do you mean leaving the magazine [a legally produced magazein] about on his/her desk or do you mean the posting of a foldout on the mid's bulletin board?</p>
<p>Wthin one's own room, on one's bulletin board, is that in the "open." Does the display of a Maxim photo, which does not involve nudity, create a hostile work environment if it is displayed within one's own personal work space. A work space that may or may not be visible to members of the opposite sex during the normal course of their duties. That is, does a mid's bedroom constitute a part of the work space?</p>
<p>Hmmm. . . this is what lawyers are for.</p>
<p>Wouldn't "watch" be considered work? My mid is in the Navy and receives a fraction of an ensign's pay. At this moment she is working on a ship in the Pacific Ocean.</p>
<p>(madonna has always been obscene...)</p>
<p>Classic case of chicken and the egg, Z.</p>
<p>Some people love to confuse their cause and effect. It's much more likely that most serial killers play violent video games than that most who play violent video games become serial killers. In fact, just looking at the sheer number of people who play violent video games, who look at porn, etc., one must assume (unless blinded by sheer ignorance) that there are other factors involved (and in fact "life choices" have very little to do with the statistical probability of killing, raping, pillaging, etc.).</p>
<p>Those of you who wish to chastise these young people, who have made the decision to potetentially die for their country, do not deserve the rights these young men and women sacrifice so much for. Young men and women who have decided to take on a higher cause do so to fight for the very rights you wish to take away from them.</p>
<p>Pathetic.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should've raised children with a little thicker skin, children who could take care of themselves and make their own life decisions free of the influence of others. Or would you rather remove the rights of all so that your child can have the environment which you consider "perfect", a sterile one in which they learn nothing about interacting with the people of the world and dealing with the fact that others act in a manner different than their own.</p>
<p>bill,
according to a recent article in the Baltimore Sun, the football player remains at USNA but didn't receive a commission.</p>
<p>TN,
Who's "chastising?" We were having a rational discussion about whether porn at the service academies constitutes a "hostile work environment" as defined by federal standards, until you butted in. Go play a video game or practice being a zoomie because you're not contributing much to the discussion.</p>
<ol>
<li> Did he receive a diploma from USNA?</li>
<li>Did he participate in the graduation ceremonies?</li>
</ol>
<p>I noticed [watching a bit of the web broadcast of the graduation], for example, that one person in the back row sat during the portion where the mids are commissioned. Perhaps he/she was injured and could not stand [seems odd] or perhaps he/she was a foreign student, I thought it was interesting that he was sitting.</p>
<p>Z. I might have to agree with USNA09 re: working. The mids are considered active duty; they receive working assignments within the hall. They do receive pay. If injured within Bancroft they are entitled to certain benefits. There are active duty officers within the environs fo the hall. [It's not just the mids who could be offended.] Sounds like Bancroft could be considered a work area.</p>
<p>usna09mom, I do not appreciate your remarks. Perhaps it would be wise to exercise a bit more maturity before making ad hominem attacks while failing to address anything in my post. I would hope that an adult would be able to refrain from stooping to such a level in the future.</p>
<p>"zaphod,
now that you mentioned it, I also saw some "soft porn" magazines in the midstore...gross"</p>
<p>That is the type of comment that not only doesn't make sense, but is simply disrespectful of the mids. If someone wants to buy Maxim, why is it up to you to decide that they cannot?</p>
<p>And for someone so fond of debating semantics, "soft porn", by which one would mean "soft core" is defined as such:</p>
<p>"Softcore is a form of pornography that is less explicit than hardcore material in depicting or describing sexual behaviour. Generally softcore does not depict sexual contact other than simulated.</p>
<p>While both softcore and hardcore feature extensive nudity and sexual situations with the intention of arousing the viewer, the key difference is that softcore does not include any of the following hardcore elements..."</p>
<p>back to the original topic of this thread...(and making an attempt to reach my 300 post!) -- be sure to give teachers the address. Many gave me their emails so that I can send them my address at the academy. Afterall, without their recommendations we would not be there.</p>
<p>Wow, I guess that I am a really awful mom! I actually bought my son a subscription to Stuff magazine. Yes, there are some pictures of scantily clad women, but, I submit that there are similar pictures in Victoria's Secret catalogs. It is mostly sophomoric humor and silly cartoons. My son did comment that he had left a pile in the hall to be thrown away while he was moving and he was asked by the LT to box 'em up, so there is some regard for the sensitivities of others. </p>
<p>Seriously though, and as a woman, there are plenty of things to be offended about. A classmate possessing a "soft porn" magazine is so far down on the list that it would only be cultivated heartburn for the female mid who chose to be offended. I really don't think they have time to be offended about their classmates' recreational reading material. That said, of course I am talking about reading material in the room, not items which may have originated in the magazine and which are put on display. Of course, that would probably fit the criteria for creating a hostile work environment. So, if your kid is on a ship and has mail duty and some E-3 is getting his subscription to Playboy and she has to deliver it, will she be offended? </p>
<p>As a teacher, I sometimes selectively hear or see things. I can't fight every battle, and I need to sift through, prioritize and sometimes blatantly ignore misdemeanors or use a "I'm sure you didn't mean..." approach to make it through days and actually get some instruction done. I'm sure it's the same at USNA. The guy downloaded porn. He knows he's not supposed to. USNA has made it very clear that no one is supposed to. The mission of USNA, and of parents, is not to produce adults that only do the right thing under threat of punishment, but adults that do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. You have to look at the objective. They could spend inordinate amounts of time to check each mid's downloads, or they can teach. Probably more effective make the rule, state the consequences, and rely on the young people to do the right thing. I personally would not like to have Naval Officers who can only operate in a narrowly defined set of parameters and who are easily offended.</p>
<p>I was offended when we were stationed in Naples and Petty Officers were routinely sent to get the mail bag from the post office. I would watch the guys go, then come back and haul the thing up seven flights. What did the female do? Go the the post office, have some guy carry the bag up the front steps, then call up to the office and have them send a guy down to haul it up. The guys should have said no. You want to do the job, do the job. You want to be offended about what is in the mailbag, well, ...</p>
<p>Standing watch at USNA hardly constitutes "work" in any real sense. While it certainly does from the standpoint of your average college student, it hardly makes Bancroft a unique place where the mids "live and work".</p>
<p>While they're out in the Pacific, the comparison falls completely flat. Mother B isn't in the Pacific.</p>
<p>As for officers being offended, I can assure you that they've seen MUCH worse on naval bases, (let alone overseas), so if the example is true, that officer needs to be issued a clue ASAP.</p>
<p>I simply reject the notion that Maxim, et al, are "porn" of any stripe and therefore worthy of some special consideration in the Midstore.</p>
<p>Hi, Bill! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe there are specific rules about downloading "copyrighted materials and pornography." Is the mere possession of such images on a computer, purchased by the mid, a proper subject for inquiry? That is, if they were not downloaded through USNA servers [unlikely as that is], can he have possession of such images? Interesting question.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would hope not. While I can understand that USNA doesn't want its network and bandwidth used to download pornography, if it gets onto a Mid's computer some other way, I would hope USNA wouldn't care (provided, of course, there is nothing truely ILLEGAL involved).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Speaking of the rapist, wonder if he was permitted to participate in graduation? [Presumably he fulfilled his academic requirements] Commissioned? [Commissioned so he could be court-martialed?]
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesn't have to be commissioned to be court-martialed. I wouldn't be surprised if they withheld the diploma as well as the commission pending the final outcome.</p>
<p>
[quote]
". . . displayed in the open . . ." Do you mean leaving the magazine [a legally produced magazein] about on his/her desk or do you mean the posting of a foldout on the mid's bulletin board?</p>
<p>Wthin one's own room, on one's bulletin board, is that in the "open." Does the display of a Maxim photo, which does not involve nudity, create a hostile work environment if it is displayed within one's own personal work space. A work space that may or may not be visible to members of the opposite sex during the normal course of their duties. That is, does a mid's bedroom constitute a part of the work space?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Having lived there, and aboard ship, I can assure you that anything that can be seen from a public place (and rooms are not considered private), is fair game. I would understand and even agree that most displays of scantily-clad ANYONE and ALL displays of nudity of any kind arre innappropriate for display in a barracks (Memories of Patton come to mind! ;) ).</p>
<p>However, having the mag on the desk while the Mid is in there doesn't count. All he has to do is have the good sense to put it in a drawer or throw a shirt over it if offense is suspected. That should be enough for the "offended" party.</p>
<p>Hell, we have people running around this country who get offended at the mere SIGHT of a BIBLE (subversive material, to be sure! :rolleyes: ) on someone's desk. How far do we take this lunacy?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmmm. . . this is what lawyers are for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With respect, THEY are the main cause for this idiocy.</p>
<p>Who said anything about being offended? Actually we were laughing about how pathetic porn is and a poor substitute for real relationships with the opposite sex!</p>
<p>Momof1,
Youre painting females in the Navy with a pretty broad stroke. Were all the Navy men hardworking and industrious and the female petty officers slackers? </p>
<p>I know that Shoguns daughter is ranked pretty near the top of her class at West Point. I also witnessed Sea Trials in Annapolis two weeks ago. I have great photos of Wheelah, my daughter, other females in her company and the Brigade keeping up with and sometimes surpassing the males after 16 hours of non-stop grueling physical challenges. These women are pretty amazing! Or maybe it's just because they're in the Color Company! ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who said anything about being offended?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, huh... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Lawyers only do what people are willing to pay them to do. We only reflect what a society is. Like police that you love to hate, who you gonna call when troubles fall upon you? Try to imagine a society without lawyers--isn't that what you want?-- that would be a society without the rule of law.</p>
<p>Police that are overbearing, judges that don't listen, legislators that are lazy, marines that kill civilians, lawyers who "abuse" the system . . . it's too easy to blame them when, in fact, the public has nobody to blame but themselves.</p>
<p>If called upon, I would defend a mid's right to possess Maxim magazine in their rooom. Likewise, I would take on as a client a woman that was offended by such a display. Depending upon the legal stance upon which they choose to rely, I would take either side. </p>
<p>The only difference between many lawyers and non-lawyers is that we will admit to being prostitutes, servicing either side as long as they pay us, while non-lawyers are loathe to make such an admission, maintaining the illusion that their scruples are without price.</p>
<p>You are the first I've heard admit that. Ever. It's always been the, "We're just doing what our clients want us to do!" line. The fact that the most dangerous place in the universe is behind an ambulance (due to all the lawyers chasing it), seems to escape them.</p>
<p>I'll refrain from telling you what I think of what has become of your profession because this thread has already veered too far off its intended course, but suffice it to say that Shakespeare was right.</p>
<p>Didn't say that. Just sayin' you gotta remember your objective. If you wanna do the job, do the job. Goes for everyone. That said, getting distracted by someone else's magazine seems like a waste of energy. But, sounds like that wasn't what you were talking about anyway. </p>
<p>And talk about painting with a broad brush, pretty judgemental there on the reading material. Shall we put the brushes down and call a truce? Evidently many of us misread your post as a slam on the availability of such magazines to mids. Well, you exercised your right to pass it by. Good job. </p>
<p>I think I'll go back out and enjoy my 20 hours of sunshine! :)</p>
<p>That's fine . . .I just don't think you would be any happier with a society that had no lawyers.
Some might say there are already places without lawyers: Much of Africa, parts of China [China simply didn't have a body of law until the mid-1980s, I guess it has served them well].</p>
<p>Ethical ones would do. Entirely too few of them, I'm afraid. Hardly any.</p>
<p>Same with politicians, now that I mention it.</p>
<p>Bill, just because Z said he doesn't like what most lawyers have become doesn't mean that he wants to abolish them. The Founders of this nation rebelled against the British government, but that doesn't mean they wanted no government. To straw man his argument into one against all enforcement of law by hired professionals is to merely display how weak of an argument you have against what he said.</p>