<p>Wheelah is correct in her definition. Theproblem is that some mids are applying that term to more and more people. That is, as I understand it, the term “joe” was applied to those where the most egregious–and offensive–in their application of every rule, i.e. they look for every opportunity to fry others for even the most minor of infractions.</p>
<p>What I am suggesting is that more and more people are being called “Joes” when, in fact, they don’t really deserve the term.</p>
<p>To clarify.
What I have disappointed in is that few people really seem to be trying to “push” themselves, either honorably, physically, or mentally.
Many–at least in my opinion–seem to be trying to “get by.” The honor concept seems to be more of a bother than a standard; we all have examples of serious infractions–some have been mentioned on this board–that did not seem to resutl in serious punishment to the mid involved. That is unfortunate.<br>
While current administration talks about restoring integrity, etc., etc., some of these infractions have occurred this year.
Yes, I don’t know all the facts. But when persons accused of sexual assault are still int he Brigade, well, it does make one kind of wonder what in the heck is going on?</p>
<p>So. . . your observations may be correct. It’s not so much that whomever you are referring was [based on past definitions] a true “Joe” as much as he/she was just being labeled as such by one [in this case a varsity athlete] who didn’t beleive he/she should be held to a standard higher than other college athletes.</p>
<p>As long as you don’t have an expectation that all mids are these honorable, all-stars who excel at everything and lead a straight-arrow life [refer to the drunken mids for reference] then you will havea better frame of reference.</p>