On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:39:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

Navy over Army 37 to 7.

That's 12 in a row.

Navy gets the best players. Simple.

If you had a choice between the two academies, which would you choose? I'd take the Navy over the
Army every time. Ships and planes versus tanks and mud? No choice.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:39:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

Navy over Army 37 to 7.

That's 12 in a row.

Navy gets the best players. Simple.

If you had a choice between the two academies, which would you choose?
I'd take the Navy over the
Army every time. Ships and planes versus tanks and mud? No choice.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:00:22 -0600, Califbill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:39:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

Navy over Army 37 to 7.

That's 12 in a row.

Navy gets the best players. Simple.

If you had a choice between the two academies, which would you choose?
I'd take the Navy over the
Army every time. Ships and planes versus tanks and mud? No choice.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

There you go.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:52:58 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:00:22 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:39:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

Navy over Army 37 to 7.

That's 12 in a row.

Navy gets the best players. Simple.

If you had a choice between the two academies, which would you choose?
I'd take the Navy over the
Army every time. Ships and planes versus tanks and mud? No choice.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

The short answer is there is no good way to die, whether it is face
down in the mud, in a flaming plane crash or bobbing in the water,
eaten by sharks.
Safest is probably a ground crew member in the USAF bit that is also
the most boring and the slowest increase in rank. I knew E-5s at
Andrews who were on their third hitch. (with the promise the E-6 was
coming right away as soon as they sign)

I also knew a guy who got his E-7 in the CG for signing up for his
second four.

I never knew one person who joined a specific branch of the military 'cause it afforded a 'better
way to die'. Of the three, I'd take a round to the head and be face down in the mud over the other
two.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On 12/16/13, 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:20:55 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:52:58 -0500, wrote:


As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

The short answer is there is no good way to die, whether it is face
down in the mud, in a flaming plane crash or bobbing in the water,
eaten by sharks.
Safest is probably a ground crew member in the USAF bit that is also
the most boring and the slowest increase in rank. I knew E-5s at
Andrews who were on their third hitch. (with the promise the E-6 was
coming right away as soon as they sign)

I also knew a guy who got his E-7 in the CG for signing up for his
second four.

I never knew one person who joined a specific branch of the military 'cause it afforded a 'better
way to die'. Of the three, I'd take a round to the head and be face down in the mud over the other
two.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


As I said, there is no good way to die.

At that point you are looking at the opportunities for advancement.
living conditions and the general culture.



Well, *that* explains JohnnyMop and FlaJim. They joined up and
got...culture. The kind that grows in a Petri dish.


--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:20:55 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:52:58 -0500, wrote:


As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

The short answer is there is no good way to die, whether it is face
down in the mud, in a flaming plane crash or bobbing in the water,
eaten by sharks.
Safest is probably a ground crew member in the USAF bit that is also
the most boring and the slowest increase in rank. I knew E-5s at
Andrews who were on their third hitch. (with the promise the E-6 was
coming right away as soon as they sign)

I also knew a guy who got his E-7 in the CG for signing up for his
second four.

I never knew one person who joined a specific branch of the military
'cause it afforded a 'better
way to die'. Of the three, I'd take a round to the head and be face down
in the mud over the other
two.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


As I said, there is no good way to die.

At that point you are looking at the opportunities for advancement.
living conditions and the general culture.

Yep, but you got to live cleaner while a pilot.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:36:36 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:20:55 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:52:58 -0500, wrote:


As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

The short answer is there is no good way to die, whether it is face
down in the mud, in a flaming plane crash or bobbing in the water,
eaten by sharks.
Safest is probably a ground crew member in the USAF bit that is also
the most boring and the slowest increase in rank. I knew E-5s at
Andrews who were on their third hitch. (with the promise the E-6 was
coming right away as soon as they sign)

I also knew a guy who got his E-7 in the CG for signing up for his
second four.

I never knew one person who joined a specific branch of the military 'cause it afforded a 'better
way to die'. Of the three, I'd take a round to the head and be face down in the mud over the other
two.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


As I said, there is no good way to die.

At that point you are looking at the opportunities for advancement.
living conditions and the general culture.

I'll bet that's not what the football players being recruited by the service academies are thinking
when they sign on the dotted line.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:55:41 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:12:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:

At that point you are looking at the opportunities for advancement.
living conditions and the general culture.

I'll bet that's not what the football players being recruited by the service academies are thinking
when they sign on the dotted line.

Of course they are. They get an academy education, get treated like
rock stars while they play, officer privileges after that and have a
slim chance of turning pro when their 5 years are up

Ah, I was thinking 'military' advancement and culture...not pro football. What a dummy.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:36:59 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:02:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:55:41 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:12:16 -0500, John H.
wrote:

At that point you are looking at the opportunities for advancement.
living conditions and the general culture.

I'll bet that's not what the football players being recruited by the service academies are thinking
when they sign on the dotted line.

Of course they are. They get an academy education, get treated like
rock stars while they play, officer privileges after that and have a
slim chance of turning pro when their 5 years are up

Ah, I was thinking 'military' advancement and culture...not pro football. What a dummy.


Most academy players are going to be career officers and advancement
is their main concern. They think they have a chance to be flag
officers.
Maybe it wasn't clear what you were getting at.
If you go to college to have a pro football career, you will not want
the hassle of a 5 year military commitment. You have to be interested
in a military career or you would take an easier ride.

Luddite mentioned the Army losing to Navy for the past 12 years. I commented that it was because the
Naval Academy recruiters (for the football team) get better players than the Army recruiters
(football) do. My rationale was that the Navy provides a more 'fun' job than does the Army - boats
and jets versus tanks and mud.

You're taking something here way too seriously!

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 12:00:22 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 20:39:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

Navy over Army 37 to 7.

That's 12 in a row.

Navy gets the best players. Simple.

If you had a choice between the two academies, which would you choose?
I'd take the Navy over the
Army every time. Ships and planes versus tanks and mud? No choice.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

As my neighbor who flew a B-58 Hustler bomber said. He wanted to die
clean.

The short answer is there is no good way to die, whether it is face
down in the mud, in a flaming plane crash or bobbing in the water,
eaten by sharks.
Safest is probably a ground crew member in the USAF bit that is also
the most boring and the slowest increase in rank. I knew E-5s at
Andrews who were on their third hitch. (with the promise the E-6 was
coming right away as soon as they sign)

I also knew a guy who got his E-7 in the CG for signing up for his
second four.

I was an REMF in the USAF. Slow rank achievement, but as I told my older
SeaBee brother. I worked in an air conditioned electronics shop at Travis
AFB while he slept in a tent at China Beach. But fortunately the
government takes care of his health problems as he is an Agent Orange vet.
Unfortunate because he has AO health problems. I did not want to spend a
life at sea, so turned down an offer to get me in the California Maritime
Academy. Family friend who was a top graduate who made the offer did not
go to sea. Was the harbor master at Saigon.