Well, I've tried to keep out of this, but . . .

This is a list to discuss college hockey.  By the most liberal
interpretation of that term, whether or not there are foreign personnel
training at West Point has nothing to do with college hockey.

Whether or not US schools have Canadians or Minnesota has non-Minnesotan on
their hockey rosters is a legit subject for discussions, but in the context
of the question, it was a red herring.

Some of the entries to this discussion have been "ad hominem," but quite
frankly I think that there were some aspects of Larry's posts that deserve
criticism and aren't "ad hominem."  For one thing, Larry's post responds to
the question as if an opinion of the strength of a hockey program has
something to do with the institution it represents or the character of the
people on the team.  It doesn't.

For example, Harvard's hockey team has been criticized for several years as
being "underachieving."  In no way does that mean that the Harvard hockey
team, or the students at Harvard are "underachieving" as students or as
people.

And I can' t think of anything less disprespectful of a sacrifice made by a
member of our armed forces than to preface it with a sophomoric taunt "(hey
RPI the guy who ruined your homecoming in 1994)" in a college hockey
discussion.

Clay