<p>
</p>
<p>That window was donated by the Class of 1869, not 1969. However, like you, having seen that every Sunday morning for 4 years, our class developed a special affinity for the chapel and we are in the middle of a fund raising drive to renovate it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It certainly is 2007 and frankly, usna2010, your naivete astounds me. For someone who was totally appalled with zackaw' initial post, you certainly have taken the baton and run with it, beating the subject to death.</p>
<p>Zackaw, for the love of God do not reveal your name on this forum, especially after the previous round of posts. If the Cadre get hold of this, and you'd better start praying that they hadn't (though I'm afraid there's little chance of that), you will find your first few weeks on post very interesting.</p>
<p>I would also highly recommend you prevail on the moderators to allow you delete your name. Of course if this is all a joke, and you're setting up your buddy Zack, well that's a different matter; though I expect payback will be both brutal and prolonged.</p>
<p>Zap, care to elaborate on what kind of fun might be found behind door number 1 if Zack's postings are discovered by the upper classmen?</p>
<p>^^^^^
This thread should give Zack a good idea of what's in store for the plebes who have been foolish enough to post personal info on the web:</p>
<p>
[quote]
It certainly is 2007 and frankly, usna2010, your naivete astounds me. For someone who was totally appalled with zackaw' initial post, you certainly have taken the baton and run with it, beating the subject to death.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps....</p>
<p>but sometimes it takes beating it to death to get the message through to some who either lack the ability or refuse to listen. And totally appauled is absolutely correct. And some subjects deserve the beating. As for being astounded- I am equally astounded by your "misguidance" on this one- who, if not alumni, are in a better position to guide and mentor? At least I try instead of watching the shipwreck and criticizing those that would try to correct it.</p>
<p>The only thing niave is the continued mindset that women deserve something less at USNA. That it comes across loud and clear from someone joining the class of 2011 - encouraged by thinly-veiled alumni comments that continue the bantor and fail to correct- is beyond MY comprehension. They are MIDSHIPMEN for goodness sake....I don't give a crap what chromosomes they were born with-they are deserving of respect! </p>
<p>But you know- you are right. Let this young man take his arrogance to I-Day and let the system do what it will. He will learn - the hard way if necessary. Leave it to the parent in me that tries to do a course correction when the ship is headed towards the rocks... but hey, there are those who would rather watch the wreck happen! So enjoy the show! </p>
<p>To each his own. On this one we will have to -repectfully- agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Good luck with your window restoration. It is a beautiful window.</p>
<p>I often reflect on the Midshipman window... the one bestowing 2 commissions... one to God, one to Country. It is by far my favorite.</p>
<p>I think the Naval Chapel needs another just like it... this one with a skirt on it.<br>
Have a glass of merlot- it might help you to digest that one. ;)</p>
<p>Zackaw, for the love of God do not reveal your name on this forum...</p>
<p>I cannot believe you hung yourself out to dry (so to speak) in this manner.??</p>
<p>Zach- from your PM, I think you know what you have to do.</p>
<p>Make the adjustments, and move on.</p>
<p>as for the concerns posted-
The cadre are there to help, not harm.
and with everyone "away" from the yard this week, I doubt anyone is taking time away from their leave to wade through the postings on CC.
And my lips are sealed.</p>
<p>"The cadre are there to help, not harm."</p>
<p>Hahahahahahahahaahahah! Of course they are, in their own unorthodox ways.</p>
<p>And they will certainly help Zack to understand the meaning of "decorum" and "propriety" in ways he never dreamed imaginable. I would guess he'll also learn the value of discretion somewhere along the way.</p>
<p>But really Zack, you will survive those lessons and many more if you keep your ears open, your mouth shut, and your eyes on the goal. Best of luck.</p>
<p>
<p>Since you are continuing the discussion, I assume you are not ready to agree to disagree. Or are you just trying to get in the last word?</p>
<p> [Quote] who, if not alumni, are in a better position to guide and mentor?.
</p>
<p>The leadership at the Academy who see the entire situation and not just some misintreperted miniscule snippet and then try to make a mountain out of it.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
The only thing niave (sic) is the continued mindset that women deserve something less at USNA. That it comes across loud and clear from someone joining the class of 2011 - encouraged by thinly-veiled alumni comments that continue the bantor and fail to correct- is beyond MY comprehension. .
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I have totally missed this one. Please explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion. I saw nothing whatsoever from his question to support this assumption.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Good luck with your window restoration. It is a beautiful window.I often reflect on the Midshipman window....
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't say anything about restoring a window. OEM funding pays for the basic chapel exterior, safety features, etc. Our donations will go to renovate the entire interior of the chapel. And incidentially, the stained glass is included.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I think the Naval Chapel needs another just like it... this one with a skirt on it. .
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>No matter how appropriate you think it is, I doubt if they will ever have a window honoring the meddling misguided moms.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Have a glass of merlot- it might help you to digest that one.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>No thanks. It might be that a little less merlot consumption on the part of some might lead to more coherent logical posts.</p>
<p>I have read this post for the past few days and this has turned into one of the most convoluted threads ever............</p>
<p>First, a sponsor, allegedly videotapes midshipmen in his home having private moments with their significant others - apparently consenting adults.</p>
<p>Somehow this got twisted around that the midshipmen were wrong - so does that somehow make the the video excusable? Gee - Kinda like blaming a woman for being raped.
This future potential plebe (according to his other posts has not made up his mind yet) -Zack - asks is it so bad for a couple to share private moments - anywhere at all - and he is made to be the bad guy here as well..... I would not blame him if he decided not to go to the Naval Academy after all.</p>
<p>If a couple needs private time and their sponsor is willing to allow them that - what they do with it should be no one's business. If they were videotaped sitting on a bed talking or watching TV - that should be scandalous as well.
The Videotaper is the ONLY bad person in this story.<br>
I am sure they certainly aren't going to find any private time on the yard since intimacies in Bancroft are prohibited - so do we prevent midshipmen from forming any opposite sex relationships at all? Maybe it would be better if they got it on in the bathroom of a bar in Annapolis???
Maybe this thread should have stayed on topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And there are others, with even less of a clue as to what goes on, trying to scare him into thinking that there are upper class lurking with nothing better to do, planning his demise. Anyone that unprofessional and immature would never be allowed on plebe detail. Every time one thinks it cannot get more convoluted, someone proves me wrong.</p>
<p>Zack, relax, you are no different than any of the other 1250 candidates showing up in a little over a month. Good luck.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since you are continuing the discussion, I assume you are not ready to agree to disagree. Or are you just trying to get in the last word?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was, and I'm not. I was done. But you have managed to draw me right back in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote: I said:
The only thing niave is the continued mindset that women deserve something less at USNA. That it comes across loud and clear from someone joining the class of 2011 - encouraged by thinly-veiled alumni comments that continue the bantor and fail to correct- is beyond MY comprehension. . </p>
<p>(to which the reply)
I have totally missed this one. Please explain to me how you arrived at this conclusion. I saw nothing whatsoever from his question to support this assumption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where to start...</p>
<p>lets start here...
[quote]
"You had a very pertinent and valid question to which you received a totally inappropriate answer."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...this after making comments to "squeezing off to meet needs"
NOT APPROPRIATE.</p>
<p>But lets move on...</p>
<p>
[quote]
that "the how to is probably a valid question"....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is not a valid question.
A valid question would have been "what is the academies policy/ies on sexual conduct... amongst midshipman, with civilians,".. etc... THAT would have been a valid question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote: "you have nothing to be sorry for."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He most certainly has. His comments were vulgar and degrading. But let me remind you... it took 2 posts and 2 PMs back and forth before the light bulb finally went off:
[quote]
My words also came off as immature and offensive to women, who are much more than just fulfillers of our manly needs."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is not acceptable ON ANY LEVEL for women ANYWHERE to be subject to ANYONE talking about their "needs" and "squeezing off," nor do we need to be told that women are "more" than "fulfillers of" whatever.<br>
It is NOT APPROPRIATE.<br>
And to have a USNA alumn label the "question" as "valid" is beyond me.<br>
And while YOU may not feel an apology is in order for such vulgarities, it most certainly is to THIS mom.</p>
<p>but lets do continue.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"midshipmen....[with the] luxury of a significant other with an apartment right outside the main gate..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yes, you remind me that I, too, live in a glass house.<br>
But I will also tell you that my Mid does not go around CC posting about his "needs" and what he does about them. Assume what you will.</p>
<p>And just to let you know, lest you be misinformed, plenty of downtown annapolis...servena park...tidewaters... let me see, what other ones have I observed of late....arnold... are rented by "Mids," "mid groups" and "mid parents," and with the exception of the latter, much against the rules as I know them. </p>
<p>Our son RESIDES IN BANCROFT HALL. And while at times it causes me angst, he is a visitor of an ESTABLISHED ANNAPOLIS RESIDENT. But that is MY ISSUE to deal with as a PARENT... not yours. As her parents have pointed out to me, she is free to rent, reside, and attend school where SHE pleases....and NOT where I, and certainly not where you, think she should. So while you may classify it as a "luxury", it is certainly not something I would be advocating to anyone, let alone "how to" make up for the lack of one. </p>
<p>But heck... lets carry this further, because I fail to appreciate your need to bring it up repeatedly... how do you respond to the Mid that has called annapolis "home" for years... and dates the girl next door? Heck... he too can just walk home! How about the Mid who is dating the girls from the campus-next-door.... and how about the mid from x company that is dating the one from y? How about the mid who, one day walking along the street, hooks up with the girl working in the coffee shop at market square? Oh... and she resides off State Circle.... </p>
<p>So while you bring up "living outside gate 1," it is a non-issue. There is opportunity for those seeking it. A sponsors home is not one of them... IN MY OPINION... unless they, the sponsors, deem it otherwise. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't say anything about restoring a window. OEM funding pays for the basic chapel exterior, safety features, etc. Our donations will go to renovate the entire interior of the chapel. And incidentially, the stained glass is included.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will refer back to your earlier post...</p>
<p>
[quote]
That window was donated by the Class of 1869, not 1969. However, like you, having seen that every Sunday morning for 4 years, our class developed a special affinity for the chapel and we are in the middle of a fund raising drive to renovate it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My mistake... i took the "it" to refer to the "window"... but good for you and the class of 1969. God bless and Godspeed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the Naval Chapel needs another just like it... this one with a skirt on it. </p>
<p>No matter how appropriate you think it is, I doubt if they will ever have a window honoring the meddling misguided moms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with the moms, that you refer to so kindly as meddling. It has EVERYTHING to do with the 30% OF MIDSHIPMEN THAT WILL BE PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE LIKE THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS. Enough said. I think your slip is showing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>No thanks. It might be that a little less merlot consumption on the part of some might lead to more coherent logical posts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, it might make some old goats realize that the academy is changing, that a little sense of humor goes a long way, and that even well-intended alumni can get a bit off track now and again... as can parents.</p>
<p>now you can have the final word. </p>
<hr>
<p>
[quote]
The Videotaper is the ONLY bad person in this story.
[/quote]
in the story, yes. In the postings that followed, no.<br>
There is no excuse for illegal videotaping...none whatsover. </p>
<p>And I, for one, did not suggest that midshipmen be refrained from, or expected to refrain from, sexual relations with others. I posted, quite clearly, that abstaince does not work...this time, in my professional opinion.</p>
<p>And as a matter of principle, it does not mean that mids, as guests in a sponsors home, should be disrespectful of it....and that includes having their S/O over for a quickie, UNLESS that is allowable behavior in that home. </p>
<hr>
<p>
[quote]
And there are others, with even less of a clue as to what goes on, trying to scare him into thinking that there are upper class lurking with nothing better to do, planning his demise. Anyone that unprofessional and immature would never be allowed on plebe detail. Every time one thinks it cannot get more convoluted, someone proves me wrong.</p>
<p>Zack, relax, you are no different than any of the other 1250 candidates showing up in a little over a month. Good luck.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the scary thing is that these exact comments were sent to this young man about 5 hours ago... so you are running a bit behind....how is it possible that we agree on something??? I must be slipping........</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would not blame him if he decided not to go to the Naval Academy after all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Give him a little more credit.
He will decide what is right for him.
And if he is right for the academy.
It works both ways.
Sometimes it is a good fit, sometimes it is not.
It depends on where his priorities lie.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I tried to read all the posts, but after a few pages everything just kept basically getting repeated. I do have one thing to add though... There is a reason the virgin cannons in T-Court are never fired</p>
<p>This is the only question on his original post. Therefore, it, by default, is "the question". As queenbee stated, the thread somehow got twisted around to where the midshipmen were in the wrong. zach noted this and had a very valid question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is not valid and pertinent about this question?</p>
<p>Let me remind you that, reading the homepage of CC, this is a student forum where we, as parents and otherwise, are guests and, as guests, should conform to their vernacular. IT IS THEIR FORUM. Allow them to be comfortable and express themselves as they see fit. I have found that they are damned good at policing themselves.</p>
<p>usna2010, thanks for allowing me to have the last word. I have had about all the fun with it I can handle. You have also made several totally incorrect stereotypical assumptions about my beliefs. My total focus on this entire thread was my perception of a candidate being treated unfairly. My personal beliefs about everything from premarital sex to women at the Academy are totally irrelavent, were not expressed, and any assumptions on your part are totally without merit.</p>
<p>To comment on the "original question"... If your sponsor parents deem it acceptable in their house, and there is complete consent, then whats the issue? As mids we get briefed on this all the time by people as high as the Commandant and the Supe. On this issue, I specifically remember the Dant (old one) in a rather jovial manner say that as long as consent exists, then there is absolutely no problem with having sex. Actually, in the manner the brief was presentied, he was almost encouraging it. I know this may shock the morals of some, but like it was stated earlier this is 2007 and not 1969... </p>
<p>Furthermore, It can in no way be seen as "dishonorable" as honor does not even fall into this category. The appropriateness of the action is much more of a personal perspective, but to default, the administration has explicitly stated that this behavior is perfectly acceptable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You did hear about the midshipman stopped on Stribling by a tourist on the way to PE class and asked why he was wearing white works when everyone else was in working blues. His reply was "Ma'am, we are the only ones that are still virgins."</p>
<p>HAHAHA... unfortunately the Supe retired whiteworks a few years back. I think it was after 2005, if you didn't want to wear blues on PE Days you now have the option of cammis with a blue rim. Needless to say, almost no one actually wears the cammis for PE</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, back in my day one had to steer clear of T-Court on the weekend due to those damned cannons firing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No WAY!! My firstie year, I "had PE" every day. Didn't look cool but was the most comfortable uniform in the book. Fortunately, the OOD never checked for PE shorts.</p>