FScouter

The government cover-up conspiracy is not a corn-ball conspiracy?

Individual troops determine whether or not they emphasize outdoor activites. If troops decide to eat cupcakes indoors, that is solely their decision.

I doubt that BSA authorizes anyone to change the design of a knot or badge or medal or whatever and sell it.

It's a sad day when society finds entertainment in such drivel. Did you read the comments at the end of the story? This is not the mark of a great country.

Thanks for having the guts to speak up. There is always the question of "mistake" v. "understanding". Incorrect usage is so common it's starting to look more like the latter.

"Yeah..it's a big no-no." C-mon. Everyone knows the "rules" are just guidelines. The guy at Roundtable wearing the pink epaulette loops said so.

Ahfen ganef brent dos hittel.

I don't think you "do" anything. You have a little knowledge now that may add some context to the boy's behavior or reaction to situations.

OGE, you're starting to get "it", but not quite there yet. If you have an opinion that is different, you're just being anal retentive. And mercy on you if you try to make a point of logic, let along mention any BSA publication (they're just guides you know). So, it's A-OK to display old rank patches as long as that is what your boyhood troop did, but don't dare put more than 2 or 3 embroidered knots on your uniform. Get it now?

The BSA tradition is: "Members may wear only temporary patches (no badges of rank) on the back of the merit badge sash." Under "Excess Insignia" - http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/InsigniaGuide/03.aspx

Confronting or telling someone a particular thing is wrong really is the expression of an opinion. A rule, regulation, or law is the opinion of a lot of people, a majority, that have together decided a position. Pointing out the rule is really a reminder that this is what weve all agreed do. Of course there are those that have their own opinion and arent going to change it to match yours, or the match what was agreed upon in the rule.

The certificate doesn't mean anything. Arguably, the marriage itself doesn't mean much either. Rather it is the commitment behind the marriage and the certificate that means everything. Too often today we see folks running off and frolicking around and having sex and doing whatever feels good at the moment. And after awhile dumping the momentary object of their affections and moving on to some other exiting creature that happens along. There is incredible pain and hurt and damage that occurs from this. Witness the jilted wife who stormed into the committee meeting with accusations of adultery. Who's to say what's going on in the heads of these two? Are they committed to the well-being of each other, or just playing around for the time being? In 5 or 10 years you will know, married or not. Right now, today, what evidence is there of a loving and caring, and healthy relationship, beyond the cutesy stuff? Marriage isn't everything, but it does show that there is some sort of commitment to each other beyond a little romp. So, whatever it is, our boys are observing and learning how it is that adults behave. Make it a good lesson.

Two points brought up that should be clarified and exampled: That there are sponsors for merit badges... and That over the last 5-10 years merit badges contain "politically correct fluff"... Anyone?

Periodic required maintenance.

The Presbyterian church does not forbid a congregation from hiring a gay pastor. Most don't - a few have. Pastors are hired all the time, all over the country.

Its for the boys... Its all about the boys... Scouting is not for adults... "Scouting is to serve youth"... How about - its about making the world a better place... The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values found in the Scout Oath and Law. Adults are a big part of that.

Kudos to the DE that said "NO". A Boy Scout Camporee is for Boy Scouts and I don't think it has much to do with "rules" or safety. In our troop, boys have said many times over the years they don't like a bunch of little kids running around at their Camporee. The district Camporee folks try to accomodate Cubs the best they can but it results in dumbed down events, competitiions that are unbalanced, and accomodations for the little kids that simply make the whole affair look like a little kid thing that older Boy Scouts don't want to mess with. The worst part is the overnight aspect with mommies and daddys and sisters and brothers all coming to be a part of it too. Cubs have Pack Family Camp. Boy Scouts have Camporee. They're not the same animal.

"I will come up with some rules of things that are not allowed at scouting events." The downside to this is that you will forget to list something or two, and thus those things become "allowed" because they're not on the forbidden list.

"For most of human history we had abstinence based cultural values, and they worked pretty well." "Government spends huge amounts of money to try to make sexual liberation values work..." Parents these days (some parents) don't know anything about cultural values, and don't care about abstinence. That's why they have a bunch of kids that don't care either. There is no government conspiracy - it's people doing what they learned from their elders. Teach your children well.

We moderators take the heat when a discussion topic get closed, deleted, or in this case moved out of view for a cooling off period. Its really the forum membership that has the control here. The content of posts is what determines the fate of a discussion. Each poster chooses to either keep the discussion alive or to kill it every time he hits the submit button. In this case we had an insulting post that linked another forum member with masturbation, to which no fewer than six others including myself jumped in. Despite admonition from Packsaddle, the insults continued. So yes, a moderator pushed the moderate button, but who really makes it happen? Frank

Psychologist, heal thyself.

"I suspect that we may be challenged by some folk about BSA's recent re-statement of their discriminatory membership policy. I'm looking for suggestions for an appropriate response that is professional and informatory, perhaps with references to BSA literature and such. What suggestions to you have?" Any further thoughts on how to respond?

"I suspect that we may be challenged by some folk about BSA's recent re-statement of their discriminatory membership policy. I'm looking for suggestions for an appropriate response that is professional and informatory, perhaps with references to BSA literature and such. What suggestions to you have?" Any further thoughts on how to respond?

"I suspect that we may be challenged by some folk about BSA's recent re-statement of their discriminatory membership policy. I'm looking for suggestions for an appropriate response that is professional and informatory, perhaps with references to BSA literature and such. What suggestions to you have?" Any further thoughts on how to respond?

"Well who ever at national wrote those memos should go to jail..." Things that were done or not done 30 and 40 years ago are regrettable and tis a good thing we've come a long way since them ol days. Those folks are likely all dead by now, so let's move on eh? ...