Hello?
Somebody said:
Nothing wrong with being inquisitive... most people do have a problem when you use a lower base of knowledge (ie, book knowledge from 1997) to constantly correct and attack their higher base of knowledge (ie, actually being there 2004). This attitude will get you kicked in the junk, or at least punched, metaphorically of course. Well, at the very least people won't like you.
Through my limited navy experience I've found that I've learned the most from asking people further ahead of me questions. But I've never told someone "but the books says this... you're full of @#$@. And here's why: 1) The book says that the F-4 is the frontline fleet defence fighter, soon to be replaced by the F-14.... I don't know what this Super Hornet crap is you keep talking about" etc.
In closing, everyone has been in the position of not having experience. The difference is that they didn't act like Integer.
In the first page, I was attacking the FAULTY LOGIC of the arguments, not the ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES. People were giving examples of things that could have been representative of something else, as proof of something that wasn't even clearly defined. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing.
That is until some evidence came up. A midshipman gave his own experiences to answer Ace's questions. (Not surprisingly to me, his words confirmed the research that I shared early in this thread.)
So we actually have some evidence (people's experiences), but how about defining what we are talking about? When we discuss changes in political correctness/hazing/punishments, what is the TIME PERIOD we are discussing? I gave my research about the Navy becoming more PC over a couple of hundred years, citing that drinking, for example, isn't tolerated any more at the USNA. For another example, I don't think Ace knew that, according to historians, the USNA is more squared away now than it has ever been.
I might not be in the service, but historians aren't either, and it doesn't take a seaman to study history. As for the past five years, I added even more questions into the mix once I learned that there might even have been changes in that time period, as well!
Somebody said:
Nothing wrong with being inquisitive... most people do have a problem when you use a lower base of knowledge (ie, book knowledge from 1997) to constantly correct and attack their higher base of knowledge (ie, actually being there 2004). This attitude will get you kicked in the junk, or at least punched, metaphorically of course. Well, at the very least people won't like you.
Through my limited navy experience I've found that I've learned the most from asking people further ahead of me questions. But I've never told someone "but the books says this... you're full of @#$@. And here's why: 1) The book says that the F-4 is the frontline fleet defence fighter, soon to be replaced by the F-14.... I don't know what this Super Hornet crap is you keep talking about" etc.
In closing, everyone has been in the position of not having experience. The difference is that they didn't act like Integer.
In the first page, I was attacking the FAULTY LOGIC of the arguments, not the ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES. People were giving examples of things that could have been representative of something else, as proof of something that wasn't even clearly defined. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing.
That is until some evidence came up. A midshipman gave his own experiences to answer Ace's questions. (Not surprisingly to me, his words confirmed the research that I shared early in this thread.)
So we actually have some evidence (people's experiences), but how about defining what we are talking about? When we discuss changes in political correctness/hazing/punishments, what is the TIME PERIOD we are discussing? I gave my research about the Navy becoming more PC over a couple of hundred years, citing that drinking, for example, isn't tolerated any more at the USNA. For another example, I don't think Ace knew that, according to historians, the USNA is more squared away now than it has ever been.
I might not be in the service, but historians aren't either, and it doesn't take a seaman to study history. As for the past five years, I added even more questions into the mix once I learned that there might even have been changes in that time period, as well!
