Lol
I said:
[Q]As for changing policies, one could argue that many generations ago, the college accepted everybody and midshipmen drank, partied, and caused havoc all the time. Now, the people that the the college attracts are hard-working individuals who want to be secluded to study and shape themselves for four years. (Well, not really secluded.) So, the argument that can be made is that with these new future officers starting their 'careers' here who are aware about the situation they will be in--ones who can actually follow directions and not go crazy--WHY should the navy go as tough on them as they did on the drunk hooligans who ran amock many years ago?[/Q]
and HerrLURP said:
[Q]I think the Academy is better off this way...I never quite understood how yelling and screaming at someone was supposed to motivate them to want to follow you, except out of fear. Now upperclassmen have to be more creative and inspire the young'uns in a much more professional, "lead by example," fashion.[/Q]
I meant the same thing he said. I said drunks and hooligans because that's what many famous midshipmen of the past were (as teenagers.) When you named some of those people, you actually proved my point.
To be PC, I added that future midshipmen don't have to drink or be hooligans to be successful and possibly even do greater things incomparable to the great things of the past! (It's not just PC, it's true.) I don't want to gloralize drinking just because McCain happened to do it when it was the norm to do it. So what? We all know that they were drunks and hooligans, to put it as shortly as possible. But it doesn't mean we can't have smart, good leaders who are also not hooligans and not drunks, right?