Are our priorities straight?

[Christcorp]

If you were generalizing your disappointment and mentioning ALL diverse appointees, and saying the academies should simply take the best 1200 each year, and stop there, I would probably have more appreciation. I'd still argue and say that the country is diverse, our enlisted Corp is diverse, therefor the officer Corp needs to be diverse. So I'm not changing my position. I'd still argue.

But you aren't mentioning ALL diverse appointees. You are singling our appointees that happen to also excel in sports. You made it clear in your opening post, that it's ok to excel in JrRotc, cap, scouts, music, academics, clubs, work, etc. (yes, I added a few). But what that means is, it's acceptable to excel in SOME things, but NOT sports.

Let's simply concentrate on the work EXCEL. That's important, because more than 90% of all appointees did or do sports in high school. 86% received varsity letters. But they aren't all being recruited. EXCEL means to go above and beyond what the average person did. Scouts is great. Eagle Scout means you excelled. JrRotc and cap are great. Commander, hilly Mitchell, etc. means you excelled. 4.0gpa is great. 4.0 gpa in the IB program or ALL AP classes means you excelled. So why if a student athlete, was also captain, all state, Gatorade player of the year, state champion, ranked nationally, etc. you won't recognize that they EXCELLED?

Maybe it's because you think that a billy Mitchell winner, Eagle Scout, etc. can and probably are also good students, but a star athlete can't also be a good student. And maybe you'll concede and admit that maybe it's only a very small handful of athletes that aren't also good students and also have a good application and resume. But if you concede to that, then you need to again look at ALL diversity. Believe it or not, there are congressional district that can barley fill a slate of 10 names for nominations. If the BEST kid on that slate has a 3.4 gpa, and they're qualified, the academy must take them. Federal law says that each Mocs have so many slots. And as long as their nominees meet the minimum requirements, the academy must appoint one. But obviously, that means there's an applicant some place, with a better application, that did NOT receive an appointment. The same can be said for all diversities. Minorities, gender, rural, urban, etc.

Point is, diversity is good. Those who excel in a particular discipline SHOULD be recognized and considered. And sports is no different than any other activity or discipline. It's easier to get an appointment if you never did JrRotc or cap than if you never did any sports. Not because the academy wants all their students to be an intercollegiate athlete. The vast majority of cadets will never play D1 sports. But as I posted previously, sports are much more inline with the academy and military culture and personality than most other activities. Yes, even more than JrRotc and cap. So just because an individual happened to excel in sports instead of fbla, scouts, or band, doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered or recruited.

 

[Christcorp]

Duplicate post

 

[MombaBomba]

If you were generalizing your disappointment and mentioning ALL diverse appointees, and saying the academies should simply take the best 1200 each year, and stop there, I would probably have more appreciation. I'd still argue and say that the country is diverse, our enlisted Corp is diverse, therefor the officer Corp needs to be diverse. So I'm not changing my position. I'd still argue.

But you aren't mentioning ALL diverse appointees. You are singling our appointees that happen to also excel in sports. You made it clear in your opening post, that it's ok to excel in JrRotc, cap, scouts, music, academics, clubs, work, etc. (yes, I added a few). But what that means is, it's acceptable to excel in SOME things, but NOT sports.

Let's simply concentrate on the work EXCEL. That's important, because more than 90% of all appointees did or do sports in high school. 86% received varsity letters. But they aren't all being recruited. EXCEL means to go above and beyond what the average person did. Scouts is great. Eagle Scout means you excelled. JrRotc and cap are great. Commander, hilly Mitchell, etc. means you excelled. 4.0gpa is great. 4.0 gpa in the IB program or ALL AP classes means you excelled. So why if a student athlete, was also captain, all state, Gatorade player of the year, state champion, ranked nationally, etc. you won't recognize that they EXCELLED?

Maybe it's because you think that a billy Mitchell winner, Eagle Scout, etc. can and probably are also good students, but a star athlete can't also be a good student. And maybe you'll concede and admit that maybe it's only a very small handful of athletes that aren't also good students and also have a good application and resume. But if you concede to that, then you need to again look at ALL diversity. Believe it or not, there are congressional district that can barley fill a slate of 10 names for nominations. If the BEST kid on that slate has a 3.4 gpa, and they're qualified, the academy must take them. Federal law says that each Mocs have so many slots. And as long as their nominees meet the minimum requirements, the academy must appoint one. But obviously, that means there's an applicant some place, with a better application, that did NOT receive an appointment. The same can be said for all diversities. Minorities, gender, rural, urban, etc.

Point is, diversity is good. Those who excel in a particular discipline SHOULD be recognized and considered. And sports is no different than any other activity or discipline. It's easier to get an appointment if you never did JrRotc or cap than if you never did any sports. Not because the academy wants all their students to be an intercollegiate athlete. The vast majority of cadets will never play D1 sports. But as I posted previously, sports are much more inline with the academy and military culture and personality than most other activities. Yes, even more than JrRotc and cap. So just because an individual happened to excel in sports instead of fbla, scouts, or band, doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered or recruited.

It's the bad apple in a barrel thing. People hear of one bad apple and they expect more.

What I find interesting is how many people posting here have such a low opinion of cadets who do not participate in DIV 1 official sports team. They label then as NARPS which is a very pejorative term. I am not saying you have done this Christcorp. I am talking about other participants on here. Do they believe a rugby player is less of an athlete than a football player, since rugby is "only a club" and football is "an official team."

It amazes me that some people think only official DIV 1 athletes have busy schedules. There are other club sports teams and organizations that are just as demanding. The difference is they don't have the same level of support from the USAFA as the official Div 1 teams. When is the last time people heard about the football team players(cadets) scrambling to find transportation and places to stay for a game? Are people aware that falconry has to give up a summer session and stay at the academy? Do they know that there are daily practices for other club sports? Did the men's volleyball cadets magically become harder workers, real athletes, sacrificing more because their team went from a club to an official Div 1 team? The volleyball cadets are magically moved from NARP to athlete because their team is now officially part of the D1 USAFA teams?

I am tired of the "oh Div 1 athletes" have it so much harder than the any other cadet swan song. Yes, many of them do have it harder, but so do many cadets who are not involved with an official Div 1 sports team. It all depends on the level of involvement of each cadet.

The cadets talk about the Tzo gap. This thread demonstrates the Tzo gap exists not just among the cadets but among the parents as well.

 

[MombaBomba]

Duplicate post. Sorry. Removed.

 

[skismuggs]

NARP - Non Athletic Regular Person (what is "pejorative" about this?)
IC - Intercollegiate Athlete

No disrespect or put down meant, I was just using the terms that everyone at the academy uses. If you have any other "better" term you know of, let me know because I've seen these terms used on the other SAs and non SAs too. Most people understand the term, why change it or use another one to "be politically correct?" I'm not sure what post shows a low opinion of the non-athletes or the non-varsity teams. Nobody compared a football player to a rugby player as far as I'm concerned they are all athletes.

Of course it is all about involvement, there are non athletes that have busier schedules than athletes but honestly how many do that, 10-20%? The 80% watch netflix, play xbox, talk on phones, go out of the academy, etc. Again, the issue is highlighting what the minority is perceived to be doing and making it look it the majority of the cadets do. Compare a regular athlete (varsity and club) and regular non athlete who is not involved in any other activity except required intramurals and look at their schedules and tell me who has it harder/easier.

TZO gap with parents? Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting this here.

 

[Stealth_81]

NARP - Non Athletic Regular Person (what is "pejorative" about this?)


Of course it is all about involvement, there are non athletes that have busier schedules than athletes but honestly how many do that, 10-20%? The 80% watch netflix, play xbox, talk on phones, go out of the academy, etc. Again, the issue is highlighting what the minority is perceived to be doing and making it look it the majority of the cadets do. Compare a regular athlete (varsity and club) and regular non athlete who is not involved in any other activity except required intramurals and look at their schedules and tell me who has it harder/easier.

NARP has been used as a derogatory term in the past. Even though its usage has become more commonplace, it still has derogatory connotations.

My son was on the club Powerlifting team his Doolie year. He stopped to concentrate on academics and to have more time available for himself. Other than a semester as a group commander, he did little else involving the Academy. However, in that time he climbed 10 of Colorado's 14'ers, logged over 1 million feet of vertical drop snowboarding, and did free fall parachuting in Denver a lot.

My son's first semester roommate was an IC and we have heard the horror stories of our son doing all of the cleaning for a SAMI only to have the IC come back late and trash the room, only to leave it a mess for son to clean again. You can't judge them all the same.

After graduation son got his dream job and loves it, and the AF doesn't give a care what he did at USAFA.

So your daughter is busier than some others. Great. What does it prove?

Stealth_81

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

Of course it is all about involvement, there are non athletes that have busier schedules than athletes but honestly how many do that, 10-20%? The 80% watch netflix, play xbox, talk on phones, go out of the academy, etc. Compare a regular athlete (varsity and club) and regular non athlete who is not involved in any other activity except required intramurals and look at their schedules and tell me who has it harder/easier.

Great job pulling numbers out of the air. "80% watch Netflix, talk on phones, etc." Please! I'll be bold. You are sooooooooooooo far off with what actually happens it is laughable.

 

[BlahuKahuna]

Some insight from spending a couple years at USAFA and some time at USNA...

At USAFA, NARP is typically used much more negatively. It's used to differentiate between athletes and non-athletes, sure, but in my experience, it is used as a way to talk crap about people who like doing "military" things. Example: "you're wearing shirt stays as a firstie? what a NARP" or, "Only NARPS care about 4-degree training," "stop being such a NARP", etc etc

At USNA, NARP is used a lot more like it's used as civilian colleges: simply as a way to say non-varsity athlete. Example: "Do you play a varsity sport?" "No, I'm a NARP."

Feel free to ask me to explain this further, but I'm a pretty big believer that the tzo gap at USAFA is a little more hostile than a similar gap between athletes and non-athletes at USNA. I've seen time as a non-athlete, club athlete, and IC between the two academies.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

So your daughter is busier than some others. Great. What does it prove?

Stealth_81

I'd rather have my DS be swamped learning another language (Chinese to be exact), excelling in academics, shadowing physicians, leading other cadets, interviewing for medical schools for his career, volunteering in the community, etc. Others might prefer learning to be the best at a sport. A possible brilliant move if they have a shot at going pro. If not, I think there are smarter ways to hone lifelong skills. But to each their own.

 

[skismuggs]

NARP - Non Athletic Regular Person (what is "pejorative" about this?)


Of course it is all about involvement, there are non athletes that have busier schedules than athletes but honestly how many do that, 10-20%? The 80% watch netflix, play xbox, talk on phones, go out of the academy, etc. Again, the issue is highlighting what the minority is perceived to be doing and making it look it the majority of the cadets do. Compare a regular athlete (varsity and club) and regular non athlete who is not involved in any other activity except required intramurals and look at their schedules and tell me who has it harder/easier.

NARP has been used as a derogatory term in the past. Even though its usage has become more commonplace, it still has derogatory connotations.

My son was on the club Powerlifting team his Doolie year. He stopped to concentrate on academics and to have more time available for himself. Other than a semester as a group commander, he did little else involving the Academy. However, in that time he climbed 10 of Colorado's 14'ers, logged over 1 million feet of vertical drop snowboarding, and did free fall parachuting in Denver a lot.

My son's first semester roommate was an IC and we have heard the horror stories of our son doing all of the cleaning for a SAMI only to have the IC come back late and trash the room, only to leave it a mess for son to clean again. You can't judge them all the same.

After graduation son got his dream job and loves it, and the AF doesn't give a care what he did at USAFA.

So your daughter is busier than some others. Great. What does it prove?

Stealth_81

Forgive my ignorance about using the term but during parent's weekends, a few my cadets's friends seemed to proudly and smilingly tell us that "I'm a NARP" or "I'm glad I'm just a NARP now" more than a few times so I assumed that that was a regularly used term. I learn something everyday.

Not judging anyone, just like you are recounting your cadets experience, I am recounting mine, not anyone else's. Congrats on getting his dream job, I hope mine does to. And honestly I wish my cadet would do what your son did but that's not my choice to make.

Busier proves nothing. Wasn't trying to prove anything. Just gets me when the athletes always gets singled out like they don't belong there. You will never see topics that CAP,JROTC, scouts, etc took away slots from someone else, it's always the recruited athlete's fault.

Again if any of my posts offended anyone, I apologize to you.

 

[MombaBomba]

NARP - Non Athletic Regular Person (what is "pejorative" about this?)
IC - Intercollegiate Athlete

No disrespect or put down meant, I was just using the terms that everyone at the academy uses. If you have any other "better" term you know of, let me know because I've seen these terms used on the other SAs and non SAs too. Most people understand the term, why change it or use another one to "be politically correct?" I'm not sure what post shows a low opinion of the non-athletes or the non-varsity teams. Nobody compared a football player to a rugby player as far as I'm concerned they are all athletes.

Of course it is all about involvement, there are non athletes that have busier schedules than athletes but honestly how many do that, 10-20%? The 80% watch netflix, play xbox, talk on phones, go out of the academy, etc. Again, the issue is highlighting what the minority is perceived to be doing and making it look it the majority of the cadets do. Compare a regular athlete (varsity and club) and regular non athlete who is not involved in any other activity except required intramurals and look at their schedules and tell me who has it harder/easier.

TZO gap with parents? Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill by suggesting this here.

Where did you get your stats? They don't seem to be from anything I can find.

How is pointing out the obvious making a mountain out of a mole hill? Just look at the natural defensive reaction you have had on this topic. When one group of parents believe that certain cadets have it so much harder than another, that is a parental Tzo gap.
When one group of parents believe most/all *recruited* IC athletes are taking spots away from others, that is a parental Tzo gap.
When a cadet is considered an athlete only when on an official D1 team, that is a parental Tzo gap.
When one group of parents believes that D1 IC athletes have it just so much harder than any other non D1 IC athlete, that is a parental Tzo gap.

I have witnessed USAFA parents getting into a pissing contest regarding whose kid does more, participates more, works harder, has it harder, is under more stress etc. etc. etc.. And me, I am thinking that each cadet has his or her own personal struggles to work through. One may be struggling to stay off ac-pro, another may be dealing with physical illnesses or injuries, another may have time management issues, another may have difficulty with the AFT/PFT (IC athletes can have difficulty with them too since different sports develop muscles and stamina differently), another may be in a very dysfunctional squadron, another may be dealing with harassment, etc. etc. etc.. Or more likely, they are each struggling with a combination of one of more of these issues.

Who is working harder, the IC athlete with a photographic memory who needs only an hour to get a B+ on a test, or the non-IC athlete who is spending at least 4 hours studying and hoping to get maybe a C- on that same test? Who is under more stress? Who is working harder?

One of the bigger tragedies that came out of the recent drug scandal was the fact cadets were taking a drug to keep them awake and more alert during classes so they could get the A's, participate in all the activities, win awards, gain recognition and not worry about sleep. How sad is that? They felt the need to be the best and so involved that they sacrificed their sleep and health to take an illegal drug and risking their academy appointment. This pissing contest on doing it all and being it all has gotten so out of hand that cadets are risking their health and future. To me, that is the extreme where the Tzo gap can lead. "Look at me, look at how much I am doing, look at my grades! I am THE CADET." Some may not see this drive as part of that gap, but I do. When one group of people feel the need to insist they are "so much more" than another, you have a gap. And when people are willing to do whatever it takes to part of the "so much more" group, it can lead to bad decisions and tragedy.

 

[Christcorp]

I'd rather have my DS be swamped learning another language (Chinese to be exact), excelling in academics, shadowing physicians, leading other cadets, interviewing for medical schools for his career, volunteering in the community, etc. Others might prefer learning to be the best at a sport. A possible brilliant move if they have a shot at going pro. If not, I think there are smarter ways to hone lifelong skills. But to each their own.

Why does it have to be "Either - Or". Why can't it be "BOTH". In one of my previous posts, I mentioned a number of IC's who went on to grad school after graduating the academy. As luck would have it, one of the football players I was referring to, happened to show up today at the air force academy to see the Air Force vs Army game. He's currently with AFIT getting his Master's. His major is "Physics". More precise, he's working with Lasers. So, he happened to be an excellent high school student. Recruited front lineman. And graduated high enough to be offered grad school. One of our tight ends a couple years back, went to medical school right out of the academy. My son played numerous sports in high school, was recruited and played football at the academy his first year. He graduated the academy in 2012 and just finished his PhD in July.

Maybe some kids can only excel in one area such as a language, academics, or spending their time other ways. And that's fine. But some, are able to do it all. And I've only touched the surface. Like I mentioned in previous posts, there's a LOT of academy athletes who excelled in not just their sport, but also in many other areas. I think people need to accept, at the very least, that the "Jocks" at the academies, aren't the stereotypical jocks you think of who get scholarships to play sports at traditional schools and take basket weaving classes to maintain NCAA eligibility. The academies have cadets and future military leaders FIRST and FOREMOST. Athletics is 2nd. But I guess it's a bit unrealistic or unlikely that our military academy student athletes could actually also be academic achievers too.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

Why does it have to be "Either - Or". Why can't it be "BOTH". In one of my previous posts, I mentioned a number of IC's who went on to grad school after graduating the academy.

By definition, there are only so may hours in the day; 24 to be exact. Any college especially USAFA allows you fill your schedule to the brim. So now it is down to trade-offs. If you spend 30 hours a week diving or wrestling or playing hockey or whatever, there are 30 less waking hours to do something else that I strongly propose could be considered more valuable later in life. Maybe you want to take more classes, maybe your goal is to be the best you can be acedemically, maybe you want to master another language, or continue in the scholors program or ??? That certainly doesn't have to impact the ability to go to medical school, grad school, become a Scholar, or whatever and still be a D1 athlete! I never said it did and common sense tells me OF COURES they both can accomplish both. But still, doing both has to involve trade-offs; they could have done more in another topic to fill in those hours while others might chose Netflix. BUT for the majority of humans are outside of your outliers examples, 20-30 hours a week in a sport usually mean not taking as rigorous classes (Spanish versus Russian) or Management versus Electrical Engineering. The reality is some D1's are forced to drop their recruited sport because of the load and have to chose. Even for your example of the superstars (which I commend), having that extra 20-30 hours could mean more studying or language skills, more volunteering, more research, etc. So the smart med school football player might have gotten a 31 on their MCAT but could have gotten a 39 if he had more hours. That would mean he could more easily getting into Stanford or Harvard medical school versus USUHU (IF they wanted to do more research). Before someone gives me grief, USUHU is a wonderful med school but a lot easier to get into than Stanford or Harvard. Yes. Some can do them both Harvard medical school AND D1 football. But now we are staring at a 6 sigma outlier.

Specifically for my DS, he too has a craft at USAFA that fills a lot of his time. That desired commitment has impacted his ability to do other things he also wants to do. No one escapes the trade-offs. As luck would have it, he is academically gifted. But he left 3-6 points on the MCAT table because he could not find time to study. My point in the other post was addressing my sentiment that was not remotely fair. To assume someone else is coasting or not as busy because they are not in a D1 sport (the statement was "maybe 10-20%" were as busy). IMHO, that is misinformation. My point was for for the average D1 student at USAFA, they had to make trade-offs that have impacts on academics and involvement. If that is the case (and it factually happens for many) I'm not so sure it makes a lot of sense.

To reinforce a point. We are talking about averages here. I can always find you statistical outliers. In summary, It should be obvious that dedicating 20-30 hours on a sport or any non-acedemic activity during college will create trade-offs for the majority of human beings. BUT, being balanced is of strong value. I'm not taking anything away from anyone. Just don't post how busy your D1 athlete is and claim that majority of others watch Netflix and coast. Because someone can educate you on the trade-offs of being an athlete during college. There are trade-offs.

 

[MN-Dad-2016]

I should add, I am not suggesting that becoming a book worm is a better skill set that someone who accepts the trade-offs of becoming the best they can be at a sport that they love. Therefore I am not suggesting that it is a mistake to be a D1 athlete while balancing the workload demands of school. If you can balance everything and thrive at both, it's an admirable skill. Just recognize there are still trade-offs. And for some, it may not be the best decision to chase their athletics at this point in their life because of the compromises with other possibly more valuable skills. Hence, it will depend on the person.

I for one don't have a problem with the priorities of the Academy as it relates to athletics (giving out appointments for athletics even IF the (more??) athletic cadet didn't score as well in other categories deemed "more important" by others. They obviously have another skill that they bring to the table. And yes, some delivery both (brilliant and a star athlete). I do however have a problem with someone who automatically looks down at a "NARP" because they are not as statistically busy (we are talking averages). And I won't participate in roasting D1 athletes for their added value to USAFA. We need to realize that all of the cadets bring something to the table (no matter how they get at USAFA) and stop looking down at other paths.

 

[Christcorp]

You ar correct. Athletes shouldn't look down on NARPs thinking their schedule is considerably less demanding, just like NARPs shouldn't look down on student athletes thinking they are getting away with a lot or that their scheduled day is less demanding, or worse yet, that they wouldn't be there if not for their sport.

There are exceptions to everything. Same with athletes and NARPs alike. Some, we wonder how or if they really belong there. But you are quite correct that each student has to trade off some things to do other things. Even the exceptional student athlete, who also got to grad school, probably could have done better academically or in other areas if they had more time that they weren't using for sports or another activity. But this takes us back to the individual, their goals, their capabilities, and what it is they want.

It's all about balance. And that balance is different for each individual. I, and many ALO's can tell you or hoards of applicants with 4.0 gpa in the hardest classes, and 34 act, who didn't receive an appointment. Why? Mainly because that is all they really had. They excelled, but only in one area. Academics. The same can be said for the football player who is a 5 star nationally ranked player. Chances are, they won't make it to the academy either, because they didn't have anything else, like academics. It has to be a balance. Then, the academy must try and balance those individuals with balancing the diversity of the school and the officer Corp they are trying to develop. Just like many universities try to balance the diversity of their schools.

The perfect candidate, just making up numbers here, would be the 4.0 gpa high school student in the IB or all AP classes. They had 2200+ sat or 32+ act. They'd also play 3 varsity sports. Was the captain of one or more of those teams. Was also involved in 2 or more additional activities such as JrRotc, cap, scouts, nhs, fbla, band, clubs, etc. they'd also be a class officer. They were selected for boys or girls state. They had 200-300 hours of volunteer time. They were involved in community events like church, or helping the poor, or some other way to give back to the community. They probably would also have a part time job either all year or seasonally. They also demonstrated a strong family life and social life.and in some of these achievements, they would excel above and beyond most others. Maybe it was Eagle Scout, billy Mitchell, recruited athlete, nationally ranked in some other activity.

This obviously is the perfect applicant. Also, very rare and unlikely due to the finite hours in a day. But the academy looks to see how close individuals can come to this. But you have to also look and see, that it's probably better, for the academy, if an individual had all of these things but didn't excel in all of them, but only excelled in some. It would be better to have all of this involvement but only have a 3.8 gpa and 29-30 act, and maybe didn't make eagle or Billy's Mitchell. Than, to have say the perfect gpa and act scores and Eagle Scout, but didn't do any sports, few community activities, no other class involvement, etc.

In the end, it's all about a balanced appointee. Yes, there will be some appointees, both IC and NARP, who weren't very balanced. Maybe based on the diversity balance being sought after, some appointees didn't have as extensive of a resume. But again, that too can help the overall perspective of apt he school and all the students and future leaders of out military. Remember, in the end, the academy is producing military leaders. These leaders will lead an enlisted Corp that is even more diverse. Some of the enlisted have college degrees, some don't. Some came in barely making it through high school. Some rich, some poor. Urban, country, rural, 1st gen Americans. Some black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. and it's important that our officer Corp is diverse. This gives all of our cadets a better perspective on working with and leading a diverse population.

It would be nice if all of our appointees had the perfect resume I described. Some will. Some won't. Some will have to compromise some of their efforts so they can excel in some other areas. Some will only be able to excel in one area and be average in their others. And at the academy, it will be the same. Some will be able to excel in everything they touch. Some will excel in one area. Some will be average in all areas. And yes, it can be argued that individuals COULD excel more in one area if they took time away from other areas that they were spending time on. But that's the individuals choice. Based on their goals. But to truly exceed, you have to push to excel in many areas. Even when some of the individuals I mentioned who got into grad school after the academy, many of the schools reviewing them, looked at MORE than just their grades and scores. Med school doesn't simply take the highest mcat scores and gpa. They too look for well rounded applicants. In other words, if a med school applicant only had a resume of a 3.95 gpa in college and a kick butt mcat score, but nothing else significant on their application, they too might find it difficult to get accepted. I know when my son and others applied to grad school and for fellowships, they asked a lot more questions and essays. Not just their grades.

 

[murfthesurf]

Not enough WP folks here, I guess

There is at least one ;>