FScouter

"I find it hard to believe those against pranking others have never participated in it." I've been "pranked", and laughed at, and poked, - and no, I've never participated in that kind of "harmless fun". I think it's a kind of sickness that anyone gets pleasure out of putting another person into that kind of stress just to watch them squirm. Kinda like pulling the wings off a butterfly or burning ants with a magnifying glass. Look at that butterfly try to fly with one wing! Ha ha. But if Jesus did it, then it must be OK.

Cool. So Jesus was a prankster, eh? Sent Peter out on a snipe hunt. Har, har, har. Reminiscent of Godwin's Law. We see now a corollary of sorts to Godwin's Law. When you cant think of anything else to support your position, invoke Jesus or God for support. And then accuse the other of being a heathen. Im convinced.

Take the camp director's golf cart when he's not looking, but instead of carrying it up two flights of stairs, take it around back, wash it, wax it, and do a complete detail job. Instead of hanging dirty socks in somebody's tent, wash them, fold them, and leave on his sleeping bag. Why must "pranks" cause damage, or inconvenience, or otherwise upset and disturb the peace of mind of another person?? The whole concept is rather sick. Off now to prank the elderly neighbor woman while she's off at a doctor appointment - going to weed-whack around her house. Can you top that?

Does the answer as to "who" opened the discussion make the comments and thought processes invalid?

Well OGE, we were told you are "not normal or healthy" and need a mental health professional to resolve it. Guess that's not considered "discussin' others" since it was pointed directly at you, eh? Not a potshot either, unless you're a pot.

What difference does it make what name you attach to the event? Do it and have a good time.

It's called "when you can't think of anything to support your position, then trash the opposing opinion instead."

Oh, for Pete's sake!!

OakTree didnt ask those questions, nor did anyone else, (except your straw man.) Nobody (except you) has suggested banning all pranks. Fits in nicely though with your earlier comment that ...emotion-laden tales told from only one perspective to try to get people to side with yeh [being] just a tactic is the un-honorable tactic of building up a straw man of positions, falsely attributing them to your opponent, and proceeding to tear it down. Skip the rhetoric. Lets hear instead how a snipe hunt is a positive and beneficial activity for troops to engage in so beneficial that it outwei

There's more to breast-feeding a four year old than meets the eye. Steinbeck ("Grapes of Wrath") had a clue - in the book's closing scene, Rose of Sharon and the mysterious smile that appeared on her lips.

"I can write the same deeply emotional tale about many lads experience with summer camp swim checks, feelin' the same hurt and shame and tears wellin' up inside, being confined to the equivalent of the kiddie wading pool in humiliation, swearin' that they'll never again participate in an organization that treats people like this." Hmmm.... If the purpose of summer camp swim checks is to belittle, humiliate, embarrass, and make a kid the unwilling source of laughter from the rest of the group, then maybe they should be eliminated. But that is not the purpose of a swim check is it?

If the worker needs to bring food and water, then he should also bring the nails he needs to hammer, and paint, and paintbrush too.

Tires make a swishing sound through water the road. If the water makes no sound, it's ice.

What is different about "ice" from "black ice".

Consider it fuel for the engines used to do the work.

"Yes this is real and needs to be dealt with......" Why does it need to be dealt with? Go camping - best way to deal with it.

"I was told it is required..." Just ask the person that "told" where you can read all about it... meanwhile have a fun campout.

Why wait for the election to be over? Yank those suckers up the moment they appear.

It could be, just a thought - he's not much interested in changing the website.

"We have some of these leaders wanting him to step down and if he does not then they may leave the troop." That seems to be the solution frequently offered by the indignant public. We see it used against anyone in some kind of position of authority or leadership be it a politicion, corporate officer, teacher or administrator or whatnot. How is it that quitting solves a problem? And, adults threatening to quit if the boy does not borders on childishness.

Unless there appears to be a modicum of civility and honest point of view, posts with the apparent purpose of berating other forum members are at risk of being deleted.

"Various BSA officials will say all kinds of things. Even the darndest things sometimes . Mostly they're doin' their best, but they're human like everybody else." Applies to well-meaning Scouters and forum members as well... As the Beav says, units "can" do anything they want, and there are no BSA cops to enforce Scouting policies. If units want to raise money for other charities, they "can" certainly do so. But the practice is clearly against BSA policies and that is clearly stated in the publications and the unit money-earning application. The point is that a group of unifor

We don't "lock" topics. But those that opine in a nasty manner may get their posts deleted. And those that want to continue with a respectable discussion may do so.

People get their "knowledge" from the inner recesses of their brains. It's a human characteristic to assemble a few factoids and fill in the gaps with fabrication - the purpose being to create a view of the world that supports one's personal opinions. We see it in Scouting all the time.

That's part of the conspiracy cover-up. Make people believe the "lone shooter" story -diversion from the truth. Wonder how much he got paid to write that..