<p>Don’t take it so hard …nor personally. We’re all relative dip shots … 
</p>
<p>And definitely don’t go away. You make too much sense and do so w/ grace and mercy. :eek: Extra credit given especially to humble vets. ;)</p>
<p>I just want to say how unfortunate this whole situation really is, and in the last week, I’ve seen just how nasty rumors can bring down a whole command.</p>
<p>I thought I was pushing the envelope a little bit by giving some of my opinions as an insider to the Honor Concept at the Naval Academy, and I’m not afraid to reveal my identity because the information I’ve shared does not violate anything private. In reading both articles to the Capital and the Washington Post, it is clear that somebody gave these newspapers access to specific data on Marcus Curry that only a handful of people are allowed access to. If it was a midshipman who shared this information, that would be quite alarming because there are no mids who can access these accounts that hold the data that was released to the papers. From my knowledge, no midshipman can go through another midshipman’s entire military and academic record without getting those print-outs from a higher authority. Only a select amount of midshipman can view HONOR records, but I don’t think ANY can see an extensive conduct record.</p>
<p>We are dealing with people, human emotions, and human mistakes. It is unfortunate that Mr. Curry has been made to be the disgrace of the Naval Academy by these tabloids. In my opinion, the Naval Academy is not for everyone, and if you are separated, it does not make you an awful person. If you smoke drugs, you are not a bad person. I do feel for Marcus here because these articles contained incorrect information about him that he or the Naval Academy never consented to being released, and even worse, the information is NOT CORRECT, and makes him look even worse-that’s not fair no matter who you are. </p>
<p>In speaking of human emotions, I feel that there are very few people who have spoken to him on a personal level on what has really happened here. My estimation is that he doesn’t understand how to separate his responsibilities as a football player from his responsibilities as a midshipman. In my interaction, he is a respectful young man and he shows one thing that other midshipman don’t when they get in trouble -CONTRITION. He recognizes that he does wrong. It is important for leaders to understand the potential in their people, and I suspect that the administration feels that Marcus has the potential to serve as an officer in the United States Navy in a pretty high capacity. I can only speculate that MIDN Curry was retained because he is an asset to the Naval Academy on the athletic field, for sure, but I am sure that a large component of their reasoning was actually that Marcus is well-liked individual within the Brigade who has the POTENTIAL to serve well. We have made it a point here that we are going to develop midshipmen who have the potential to be remediated and those who cannot be remediated will see the door. This is the one area that is black and white.</p>
<p>On the flip side, I attended a heated honor board this afternoon that demonstrates that the midshipmen are taking all honor cases seriously, and the board found a high performing midshipman in violation of the honor concept almost unanimously. From the midshipman perspective, we have gotten weary that our decisions are not taken at face value, but we continue to do what’s right in these boards and hearings in hopes that the senior officers will agree with the midshipmen that THEY APPOINTED via striper board. When you’re an O-6, nothing says that you have to listen to the midshipmen or the chain of command, but it would be nice to know that our decisions are going to considered more so than they are. The relevancy and awareness at USNA RIGHT NOW is at an all-time high (I feel) and everyone here wants to make sure that people are being held accountable. If nothing else, I say this again and again, if the MIDS had FULL POWER of the honor system, you would not see anyone get a 2nd chance because our generation has been labeled as “soft”…I’d like for some of these grads to sit in on these hearings when the Regimental Commanders forward first time offending plebes to the Commandant for separation. There has been so much pressure on recent classes to match the level of discipline that other classes have the we are not giving any leeway on the midshipman level of decision making…but the old addage goes with my experience in admissions: Someone smarter than you decided that you should be here, and someone smarter than you will decide if you leave.</p>
<p>I’ve been reading the thread from serviceacademyforums on this topic, and one poster from VMI and an old USMA grad brought up some interesting points that I wanted to clarify here.</p>
<p>At USNA, the Brigade is not woken up to drum roll anyone out of here at 0 dark thirty in the morning. </p>
<p>The difference now is that most people in the chain of command at USNA know about the ongoing honor investigations, so when they hear of someone found in violation, it gets publicized to the whole brigade. Back “in the day” at USNA, honor proceedings were held under lock and key, even from the chain of command. If someone was allowed to stay, no one even knew that a violation occurred. The only time you heard that there was an honor violation was when somebody got the boot. There were many midshipmen walking through the halls of Bancroft who were retained, thus, no one was made aware of their offense because he or she got lucky and the SUPE would decide to retain.</p>
<p>The Naval Academy Honor Board kicks out just as many people as the other service academies do (I have the statistics to prove it). Our boards are different because you get to plea guilty or not guilty to an honor accusation. As I understand it, the other schools don’t give you a chance to plea, they just launch the investigation, which promotes even MORE LYING at an honor board if the person is trying to avoid guilt. In our system, you plea guilty, and there is no honor board, you go straight to the adjudication process. However, if you plea “not guilty” and you go to an honor board, and then you are found guilty, you will definitely see the boot. The one thing that all the service academies have in common is that if you contest the accusation, and the honor board votes you in violation, you are most likely gone. The way we do things, a plea of “guilty” shows CONTRITION and remorse, and when a midshipman is able to realize wrong doing, and teach others to do not what he did, it is encouraging to see. There are people who have gone through the honor remediation process and I am so happy that they were allowed to stay because their entire demeanors and attitudes changed. I would rather serve with some of these people who have gone through a strict remediation process knowing that they have learned from their mistakes than serve with someone who has a clean record who hasn’t been caught. There are many mids who fit that bill running around in the brigade. I have seen a couple of remarkable cases of remediation and before I took over my position this year, I was a huge skeptic of it as I was all about kicking people out as a deterrant, but I can see the miracles it produces.</p>
<p>I’m not a softy by any means, and I am ruthless in my investigations and my BIO’s are candid and brutal in their presentations to the honor board on the scrupulous questioning and preparation for each board, but I will say that I have met a couple midshipmen who have completely transformed their lives when given the second chance. An honor system based off of fear does not cultivate honor in any way, and it produces sheepish officers who never question authority. At the Naval Academy, we have placed importance on personal ownership of the system by having a person admit their guilt or contest their accusation before the honor board. Mids are aware that if they want to test the waters before the brigade honor board by saying that they are not guilty, they know the consequences will more than likely be the boot.</p>
<p>In this case, Mr. Curry admitted guilt the very first time he was accused of an honor violation, and was given a second chance. The remediation he received was not adequete, as the remediation program has been completely overhauled-you can only be remediated by an O5 or O6 if they feel that you can be remediated. Mr Curry did not get a chance to sit down with a senior officer, if I recall last time.</p>
<p>Does it make sense to be accused of an honor violation, then hold a board to see if that person is guilty if they are willing to admit their guilt up front? I think it is more dishonorable to hold the board knowing that the cadet might be lying at the board to try to get themselves out of a situation. Honor Boards at USNA are a big deal because they don’t happen that often. An honor board occurs when a midshipman is confronted with an honor violation, and that midshipman continues to contest the allegation. On most counts, that midshipman will be separated if the board finds he or she guilty.</p>
<p>The “soft” honor system comes in when a mid admits guilt on the spot of an accusation. If you are not a 1/c, you will most likely be retained if this happens. The new instruction that I’m sitting down with the 'Dant on Monday to discuss will explicitly state that all 2nd time offenders will be dismissed from the Academy WITHOUT exception.</p>
<p>This is drawn out, just wanted to clarify why USNA does things procedurally different than some of the other schools, but know that if a board needs to happen and a mid is found guilty, it’s almost guaranteed that the boot is forthcoming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So “Zero Tolerance” when it comes to using drugs is not really Zero Tolerance. Very well.</p>
<p>Precedent now allows every Midshipman one long deep toke on the blunt, a positive drug test, a claim of “guilty but accidental,” and retention from a clueless Superintendent who bought the Brooklyn Bridge.</p>
<p>No Luigi, if you read one of my other posts, you would have seen that Mr. Curry was not processed under the honor system for this, it went straight to the Commandant and the SUPE as a CONDUCT VIOLATION.</p>
<p>You can argue that he lied to the SUPE during the adjudication, but we have no proof of this.</p>
<p>Actually, there have been mids separated since this Curry incident over drug abuse and other run-ins with the law outside of DoD.</p>
<p>I’ve monitored this site on occasion for some time, but never felt inclined to register and join the conversation, but following this thread has prompted me to make a response. I will not pose my reply to any poster in particular nor will I question their bonafides. However, if anyone wants to question mine I will state unequivocally that I’ve seen the elephant, I’ve carried the casket, and I’ve presented the flag. My service has been no more (and certainly much less) than other Marines through the history of our Corps I have simply fulfilled my oath and done my duty.</p>
<p>With that being said, I can’t let some of the statements I’ve read go unchallenged. Being elevated to Flag isnt always a function of merit nor does it confer omniscience. The history of our Naval Service shows this time and again. When our current leadership proclaims Diversity to be their highest priority their judgment, independence, and credibility has to be called into question. Abrogating a portion of your moral authority for expedience naturally leads to the type of command climate that has permeated the Academy as well as the Fleet a climate that has lost focus on the mission and allows for the lowering of standards in order to achieve some vaguely defined feel-good goal which does nothing to enhance combat readiness. This is the climate that fosters these types of incidents. And make no mistake, it is an Officers moral authority, more than any other quality, which compels his men to willingly sacrifice in both peacetime and especially while prosecuting a war. </p>
<p>I am on the Yard quite often and spend a lot of time talking with Mids. I am always gratified to see that the majority of the Brigade seems to be just what we expect them to be the best and the brightest that this great Nation has to offer. However, close observation also shows some signs of relaxed standards. A quick anecdote to illustrate my point: just last week I witnessed a Firsty dressing down a plebe in public. What made this particular incident more appalling was the contrast between the two. The Firsty female was overweight, her uniform was unsat, no military bearing or presence whatsoever; Plebe male was extremely fit, uniform impeccable, and was properly and proudly standing at attention. Now, the plebe may have indeed earned the reprimand, but not in public and not by someone showing such little regard for the uniform she wore or the Service she represented. And this was no isolated incident. This is indicative to me of a command climate that has set aside its primary mission which should be creating officers capable of operating in and withstanding the demands of leading Sailors and Marines in combat. Instead we see the primary mission has become to make the Academy more closely resemble the demographics of the country. Perhaps our leadership has forgotten that when you have incoming fire you dont give a damn about demographics. For the sake of our Naval Service and our Nation, we must reclaim our true Mission. </p>
<p>Further, I am particularly troubled with those that believe you can remediate a basic lack of Character. Im not talking about the Mid who gets in a dust-up out in town on occasion, the alpha-type who pushes the regs to see how far he or she can, or the one that answers back to an upperclassman when his capacity for dumb sh#t has been exceeded. The one who takes responsibility for their transgression, takes the hit, serves the punishment, and moves on with their integrity intact is just the type you want leading your troops when things start to get exciting. This is the type of junior officer who troops will follow. No, what Im talking about is the inherent lack of Character displayed in this current incident not accepting responsibility, blaming others, making excuses, shirking your duty - and you arent going to magically acquire it in a classroom or seminar. Why is it so important and why must the Academy emphasize its true importance? Because success in combat is not a function of how many show up but of who they are. Throughout human history Character has been the great force multiplier - it is the foundation of decision making in combat and courage in the face of adversity. I spoke earlier of moral authority and Character is the bedrock foundation of that principle. Lord Moran expressed this as well as anyone ever could when he wrote: </p>
<pre><code>“Courage can be judged apart from danger only if the social significance and meaning of courage is known to us, namely that a man of character in peace becomes a man of courage in war. He cannot be selfish in peace and yet be unselfish in war. Character as Aristotle taught is a habit, the daily choice of right instead of wrong; it is a moral quality which grows to maturity in peace and is not suddenly developed on the outbreak of war. For war, in spite of much that we have heard to the contrary, has no power to transform, it merely exaggerates the good and evil that are in us, till it is plain for all to read; it cannot change it exposes. Man’s fate in battle is worked out before war begins. For his acts in war are dictated not by courage, nor by fear, but by conscience, of which war is the final test. The man whose quick conscience is the secret of his success in battle has the same clear cut feelings about right and wrong before war makes them obvious to all. If you know a man in peace, you know him in war.”
</code></pre>
<p>For those who may think I am putting to much emphasis on combat, please remember it has been a constant companion to mankind since the dawn of recorded time. I do not glorify it and I do not wish for it. Every warrior prays for peace, since the burden of war falls heaviest on those who must fight it. But if there is to be war, then we must not fail to prepare our next generation of junior officers starting with a moral foundation, based on character and integrity to be effective and courageous leaders at the moment of truth. This is the Mission. Anything else is a fools errand that will, in the end, cost us dearly in the expenditure of our most valuable resource the men and women who have volunteered to take up arms in defense of our Nation.</p>
<p>Semper Fidelis.</p>
<p>“Duty then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things … You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less.” - Robert. E. Lee</p>
<p>Thank you! A man of honor, a voice of clarity. WOW!</p>
<p>Readers are waiting, thirsting for your 2nd post! </p>
<p>Again, thank you for your insights and your service to our nation.</p>
<p>Hey Marine! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!</p>
<p>I echo that - thank you marine for your fine service and your honor and intregity to speak. I too look forward to your future posts!</p>
<p>Yes, I too am looking forward to your future posts. Perhaps you could clear up a few things with one of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Navy fitness report system and thusly, the promotion system is based solely on merit. Of course, all officer promotions are confirmed by Congress but very seldom do they contradict the service’s recommendations. Not sure exactly what you are insinuating. </p>
<p>By labeling diversity simply a “feel good” goal, I think perhaps you have jumped on the bandwagon of a racist sexist anonymous blogger who has an agenda and does not want to acknowledge the real reasons behind the present diversity incentives. As an aside, in your unit, when you are “facing the elephant”, what do you do with the young Marine, who, not really understanding anything about your leadership objectives, constantly criticizes your each and every directive? How many times does he question your authority before you, in essence, tell him to sit down and shut up? Of course, in a very positive and professional manner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think a corollary of your belief is that character cannot be taught. Surely, you do not belief that ones character is derived genetically. Surely, it is developed somehow. Perhaps you are implying that it is an early childhood type of thing, being developed by the age of six maybe, or maybe even the age of twelve. Or are you insinuating that on I-Day, one’s character is cemented in stone and no further development is either warranted or desired?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an interesting observation. How did you arrive at your conclusion that there is a lowering of standards? Is it simply the fact that there are more minorities on the Yard? I think you used the Firstie dressing down the plebe as your example, but I could not ascertain exactly how it applied to diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We all know that the Academy is a “laboratory” where one learns leadership and where one learns to establish priorities as an officer. We also know that some individuals are more genetically disposed to excess weight issues than others. Some athletes are predisposed to certain weight requirements. This being a snapshot view by you, I suspect that you have no knowledge of any of the issues that preceded this instance. Are you saying that any officer with less than impeccable personal grooming standards, be it a female recovering from a pregnancy or an engineering officer emerging from the bowels of the engineering room, should sequester themselves in their stateroom and forfeit their responsibility to lead?</p>
<p>And we all know the old Indian axiom about the six blind men who “saw” the elephant. Perhaps here also, Adm Mullen and Adm Fowler are seeing something quite different than those who are critical of this program.</p>
<p>Marine:
I am humbled by your very thoughtful post. You are a fine example for peers and a credit to your profession. Thank you.</p>
<p>GoNavyXC, thank you for your posts. They are very enlightening and informative.</p>
<p>First off, without violating the trust to which you have been granted, you seem to contradict yourself. You imply that an insider leaked the details of the Curry case to the bloggers. Then you state that they have the facts all wrong. This sounds, from the outside, more the product of the Bancroft rumor mill than that of a conscientious planned leak. If it were indeed a planned leak by someone with knowledge of the situation, and leaked falsely, ulterior motives would be a very great concern.</p>
<p>There seems to be an effort lately to use the number of honor offenses as the moral and ethical report card for the makeup of the overall Brigade. I don’t think this is possible and I would not even begin to venture a guess as to a comparison of the moral fiber of the midshipman today compared with the “good” old days.</p>
<p>Overall events in Bancroft Hall today are a polar opposite of the way things were back in 1951 when the Honor Concept was initiated. Back then there were many more methods of dealing informally with minor offenses. Actually, if one had the records available, I am sure that they would discover that there was a time when the vast majority of honor violations that were brought before the board were cheating issues, initiated by the academic departments. Everything else was ‘handled’ informally by the Brigade.</p>
<p>The kinder and gentler Brigade of today has much fewer, if any, effective methods at its disposal to enforce honor. Also, we all know that depending on the Company, the Class, and even the individual, standardization could be somewhat of an issue. Probably many in the past were run out that deserved to stay and vice versa.</p>
<p>Modern standardization can be good. However, today, when reporting an alleged offense, one must also make a decision, an ultimate decision, as to whether that individual is redeemable, since any honor board carries the distinct possibility of expulsion. I know that in the old days a basically ‘good’ kid who had a slight propensity, when under pressure, to downplay his acceptance of responsibility for his actions and tend to exaggerate the circumstances thereof somewhat, and who would probably respond positively to repeated come arounds in rain gear over sweat gear over SDBs to shove out with a rigged rifle in a hot running shower for a half hour or so would never be sent before an honor board for possible/probable expulsion until all informal methods proved a failure.</p>
<p>Plebes come under intense pressure, either physical, mental, or a combination of both brought on by impossible scheduling demands. This pressure will peal away the nice fa</p>
<p>Incredibly accurate, detailed, truthful post, Marine. Thank you for posting it. Your insights into the Yard, the current state of affairs there, and the accurate portrayal of the climate are a welcome addition to the forum.</p>
<p>There are some posters here who believe that if the volume on the radio is turned up loud enough, that those odd sounds coming from the engine will magically go away.</p>
<p>And they believe when obvious honor, character, and LEADERSHIP problems at the USNA appear, that an ignorance to the failure of the leadership is the best course of action. </p>
<p>After all, they wouldn’t be Admirals if they didn’t deserve to be Admirals. No one in the USN has ever been promoted who didn’t deserve it. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>No need to respond to the ■■■■■■■■, your post speaks volumes. And judging by the responses to your post, everyone gets it, everyone understands.</p>
<p>Except Nero, who continues to fiddle while Rome burns.</p>
<p>:cool:</p>
<p>Only those who are meritorious are elevated to flag rank? Politics [and political correctness] play no part in the decision? </p>
<p>The air is rarified at the senior ranks and very little air is availalble to those who do not learn how to move with the political winds [What was the name of the General who predicted it would take 300,000 troops–more or less–in Iraq and was summarily dismissed because he did not agree with then Secretary Rumsfeld. Shinseki was his name. Now he is Secy. of Veteran Affairs.] One who starts moving around in those ranks is competent, for sure, at one thing: Becoming familiar with and friendly to those who can promote him/her. One does not get promoted to that level simply by being competent. The streets are littered with competent, unemployed people.</p>
<p>Does that necessarily mean they are incompetent warriors? No. It also does not mean they are competent warriors, managers, planners or, in fact, that they stand for that which is right. </p>
<p>Where were all these righteous and competent leaders when it came to adequately planning, staffing, and executing the Iraq campaign? [This is not an argument over whether or not we should have invaded Iraq; that we can leave to another thread.] Rather, it is clear that we have been Iraq–and lost way too many young soldier and sailors–as a result of not going in to win. Who stood up and said to their civilian bosses [the ones who could promote them] that inadequate resources are being planned for? Who stood up and said to their civilian bosses that resources will be drained from Afghanistan? A presumably competent soldier did and what happend to him? He was fired. THEN, as I suggested earlier, he was picked up for a non-scheduled position by a different administration.</p>
<p>The point is that, as one’s who seek to preserve their career over that which is “right”, those in senior command positions [including Fowler] frequently place their career interests ahead of the interests of others. Fowler is simply doing what he has probably always done: carrying out the mission given to him in a way that furthers his career. [Even if it is at the end of his career.] </p>
<p>ONe one level, you can’t criticize him for being a good employee. Even the military needs good employees. On the other hand, don’t lionize him either.</p>
<p>Bill, without getting into specifics, I agree wholeheartedly with about 90% of your post. Maybe you are changing your argument and/or maybe I misunderstood your original post, but a savvy highly competent individual who is able to work within the system is not my idea of the Peter Principal at work. The Peter Principal, to me, involves incompetence and your above description is anything but incompetent. As a matter of fact, being able to be effective with all facets of our leadership structure is something we are graded on ever since our first kindergarten report card under “plays well with others”. Of course, some may bend a bit too far in compromising their values as will some who remain stubbornly ineffective, but as outsiders,who are we to judge. It is not lionization necessarily to assume that they are most likely to make the best decision available and without our having all the facts that they have at their disposal, not fair to judge them. It was a very high level of competence which got them to the level that they are required to work closely with elected and appointed public officials. There is a very good reason that they do not answer to public opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I can …I think I can …I think I can! … </p>
<p>Luisimo! Your comment is cause for screen-cleaning! :D</p>
<p>Whistle Pig, Luigi, reading between the lines, it seems that your opinions are that honor and character are things that can be determined by popular vote.</p>
<p>mombee, what you cannot seem to grasp is that the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy is gullible and clueless when it comes to ascertaining the believability of a Midshipman who, without ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT, lied his way out of an offense that should have seen him expelled… </p>
<p>Conduct violation, followed by an honor violation. But 7.3 yards a carry!</p>
<p>It seems that you and the Supe (and many other people over the age of 40-50 or so who don’t have kids in the 16-25 age range) have absolutely no clue about how drugs are used today by young people, including the use by a certain Mid at the USNA. </p>
<p>EVERY, yes, EVERY Mid there knows the story about “accidental ingestion” is a lie. 100%, every one of them. Because they all know how a blunt is used, when a blunt is used, where a blunt is used, why a blunt is used, and who uses a blunt. Each and every one of them knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to smoke marijuana from a blunt and inhale deeply enough to test positive, without knowing what you are doing. Midshipman Curry knew exactly what he was smoking, and he lied about it. You can all it a conduct violation, an honor violation, or a combination of both - but the key is that there is no way he “accidentally” smoked it. Period.</p>
<p>The Supe bought it, which is proof of his incompetence, proof of his lack of common sense, and is the reason he should immediately resign and be replaced by someone not as gullible.</p>
<p>Despite your obfuscations, deflections, redirects, and other posts attempting to change the bottom line, it remains - Admiral Fowler disregarded the investigation and expulsion recommendation of the Commandant by accepting the story as truthful, when everyone in Annapolis knows is a lie.</p>
<p>And a clueless Superintendent has no business running the United States Naval Academy.</p>
<p>Fiddle away, Nero. Or turn up the radio volume, mombee. The results are the same.</p>
<p>“There are no Americans in Baghdad, we crushed them at the airport, the infidels are not here.” = Baghdad Bob, Iraqi Minister of Information</p>
<p>“Remain calm! all is well!” - Chip Diller (Kevin Bacon), Animal House, as the riot at the homecoming parade ensues.</p>
<p>:cool:</p>
<p>
Luigi, the internet is a wonderful thing. Perhaps you should learn how to use one of the search engines. I have learned a lot of very interesting things.</p>
<p>For example, a ‘blunt’ is not necessarily a handful of marijuana crudely wrapped with a tobacco leaf as some would wqant us to believe. It can be a commercial cigar with a rod inserted down the center creating a void in which marijuana can be packed. Common sense would indicate that the potency of the cigar, the diameter of the cigar, and the diameter of the void would all come into play as to the detectability of the marijuana. Since the purpose of the blunt is to be able to camouflage both the act of and the odor of smoking marijuana, perhaps it is effective.</p>
<p>Since I have never heard of anyone crumbling up marijuana laced brownies and smoking them, I viewed your comment that he would have to inhale to get the THC into his system with skepticism. Here is what I found out. It is not necessary to inhale at all. THC in the smoke can mingle with saliva and be swallowed creating the same effect as eating a brownie. But would the levels be detectable? I found that modern testing is extremely sensitive and that levels for certain clients are set to a high enough level to rule out second-hand smoke and to ensure personal consumption. To be as certain of your convictions as you seem, I assume you know the level to which USNA was testing. Do you mind sharing it? Common sense would indicate that it might be a very slight amount since Midshipmen should not be frequenting locations where second-hand ingestion is an issue. </p>
<p>All in all, I learned enough that I could not make an accusation beyond a reasonable doubt about the lack of common sense, the gullibility, or the incompetence of an individual who has given his entire adult life to the service of his country. It appears though that waiting for the facts places me in a distinct minority on this forum since the popular conception seems to be not only to find guilt but to link it somehow to diversity issues.</p>
<p>I used to have a name plate on my desk that had my name on the side facing the guest chair. On the other was “Remember Imhof’s Law”.</p>