GaHillBilly

John Merriman's Lecture "Imperialists and Boy Scouts" in his course "European Civilization, 1648-1945" YouTube of lecture: Transcript: http://oyc.yale.edu/history/european-civilization-1648-1945/content/transcripts/transcript15

Moderators: I'm posting this here, in I & P, because I suspect this topic will be more disturbing to many Scouters than either the 'Gay Scout' or the AGW topics. However, feel free to move it if you wish. Background: I'm working on a series of presentations about Scouting, for groups of home school parents. I expect few, if any, of these parents will have had any recent contact with Scouting. Many will come from conservative church backgrounds in which Scouting was not highly respected. But, it appears the groups will be larger than I'd initially expected. The list below, whe

Horizon, only you know if people 'like you' are the sort of Scouters I've seen locally who ignore bad behavior in older Scouts. You associated your self with those people, not me. Locally, the adults who've behaved like this have fallen into two categories: 1. Wussies, who are too timid to confront anyone, & 2. Scouter-Parents, who are protecting their sons, or sons of their friends. Likewise, the bullies I encountered personally years ago were not the BMOC types, but wannabes who hadn't made it. The bullies I've seen in Scouting, with one exception, have been nerds w

Gee, BeavAH. You're complaining about how other people argue, after you confirm for us that "Yah, as I've said, I don't know enough to comment about da science, eh?" So, you tell us you don't know what you are talking about -- something that Vol and I and Brent already knew -- and yet . . . you . . . keep . .. commenting? How come? I initially was impressed by your financial knowledge, and figured you might know enough math to understand what some of the problems were. But, then you went and spoiled it all when you came out with this little gem: "It's very hard to predict market

Horizon & Dan; I don't understand how identifying a regular poster on a Scouter forum as an anti-Scouting activist is bullying. Perhaps you can explain that to me. Horizon I don't know, but Dan, I'm disappointed. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider identifying a anti-gay activist on a homosexual support forum to be "bullying". Regarding the statement that, "The worst bullying I see is from He Man Macho Scouts and Scouters", that may well be true in some cases. But the bullying I've seen was by nerds and wussies, doing it unto others. Regarding Scouters, I'm pre

Merlyn (AKA Brian of "Scouting for All"), I've answered you which is more than you deserve. Given that you are just an anti-Scouting activist, I have no reason to reply to you further. OGE asked; "GaHillBilly, are you saying, based on your experience, that most scouters would rather allow scouts to be sexually abused rather than turn in a suspected child abuser?" No. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but rather than try to go back, I'll state as precisely what I can, here. 1. On several topics including this one, I've tried to avoid "most" in favor of "ma

"But, Merlyn, my problem with you has been, almost from the start, your dishonesty." I acknowledge that that statement has problems; it implies that I have known from the beginning that you were here dishonestly. However as you know, I have only recently discovered that for a certainty. I tried to rewrite the statement, but I haven't been able to find a succinct way to state what I meant, so instead I'll give you a list: + Not all dishonesty consists of telling overt lies. I have not accused you of lying in that manner. + The earliest perception I can recall, regarding

BeavAH, the Guardian article is a good catch. But, if you'll check back, you'll see I'd already asked for the journal article. The Guardian did link that: [ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html ]. However, none of that justifies your original assertion that JoeBob & I were listening to the "neocon echo chamber". The fact that the Mail article has been quote or referred to in neocon blogs -- NONE of which I read, AFAIK -- in no way warrants your slur. I STILL don't even know if that claim is true, though I consider it plausible. But, unless you have ev

"I'd say it's not specific, because not everyone can agree what it means. How do you know if you are being loyal the way the Scout Law means it? What does duty to God mean? Because different people, and especially different leaders, have differing interpretations of this, it makes it hard to hold people to some standard. It's certainly not a "standard" in the way that international standards are normally set." Actually, under at least SOME BSA regs on the topic, the CO should define the precise definition of these terms. Of course, I gather that few COs have ever been very involved. And,

Brent, I think Beavuh has just been taking lessons from Merlyn (aka Brian Westley of "Scouting for All) and posting ABOUT the Daily Mail article, without actually reading it. It certainly makes it easier to post, when you don't have to deal with all those pesky facts. Beavuh, since the UK Daily Mail article is too long or hard for you, here's a quote: "Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international poli

HiLo wrote "And GaHB, there's a difference between lying and misunderstanding. The latter is guaranteed with long posts on the Internet. (As you have already acknowledged.) I've already apologised for doing that, and hereby apologise for all future incidences." I do recall a sort of acknowledgment, but nothing that I read as an apology. However, you have clearly done so now, and I do accept that. So, we're good, now. BUT . . . my point wasn't about you; it was about the REACTION to the exchange between you and me. My point was that many or even most posters here -- echo

I just finished running some early morning errands, and I had time to reflect a bit on this. After thinking about it, I believe your response, LisaBob, is the one I find most disturbing. Merlyn is just a distraction and a waste of time, because I already had a fair idea what atheist and gay activists think. What I wanted to know was what other Scouters thought, and how they'd respond to various arguments. But your response, LisaBob, is typical of many other Scouters I've encountered here locally and on this forum. Before I entered Scouting, I'd never encountered the term

Hilo asked, "Do you want views you disagree with banned?" No, but I do think it's relevant to know who's party to a discussion. Merlyn's presence here, as an acknowledged anti-Scouting activist, is equivalent to a KKK member posting on an NAACP board, a PLO member posting on a Jewish board for kibbutz members. They are there, not to discuss, but as "trolls". LisaBob commented, "OK I think it is pretty creepy that you are keeping "notes" on posters" Ok. So you find that creepy. I find it creepy that people post under false pretenses. As a former forum operator myse

Hey JoeBob; Just saw that lo-o-ng article myself -- kinda impressive. Started to post it, and saw you'd beaten me to the punch. If you dig up any of the underlying journal articles, please post them. Had a thought, though. I haven't checked, but my recollection is that most of us who doubt AGW do just that -- we don't think it's been proven, but definitely think it's stupid to spend trillions on stopping something that may not even happen. On the other hand, at least some of the true believers are SURE (hello, Beavuh!) that AGW has been proved. I wonder if we could get a f

"No, Minnesota" I stand corrected. I had it right in the notes, but my memory failed me as I wrote the post. Regardless of that, your relationship to Scouting is 100% negative. As far as I can tell, you do not support anything that Scouting does, or is. The only thing apparently that you actually SUPPORT is mandating a maximal presence of atheists and homosexuals among youth. If you win your campaign against Scouting, I suppose you'd simply turn to something else, like trying to force religious colleges hire gays or atheists. You are here, not as a Scouter, but as a pro-gay

CA_Scouter, my comment is an inference from your actions. HiLo first blatantly lied about what I'd said (stupid, since what I'd said was posted) and then followed up by deliberately distorting it. You said nothing about his actions. But, when I bluntly call him on is, you rebuke me. It's reasonable to infer that you find his action (lying and distorting) more civil than mine (bluntly challenging him on it), since you responded to one, not the other. acco40, you are entirely correct that you don't know that. But I, unlike HiLo, *do* have data on the topic that can establish

HiLo, that's the second time you've deliberately misrepresented what I've said. The first time, you lied . . . but it might have been an accident simply because you replied without first bothering to read what I'd said. But for doing it twice, there's no excuse. I have never said that "I hate homos", or anything that is equivalent to that. I defy you to produce a quote to that effect. I never offered an opinion as to what your view were, beyond the fact that you want to allow gays in the BSA, for which you yourself have stated support. What I said was, that I DO NOT KNOW what y

"But I do know that the issue of homosexuality, a big one for you and the BSA, is not an issue in Australian Scouting. We have no rules about it, and I'm aware of no incidents where it was a concern within the past 15 years." It may be "no issue" for you, but the question is, WHY is it no issue? + Because you have no tents where one boy is experimenting on another boy? + Or because you don't mind that there are tents where such experimentation is taking place? + Or because you don't know, and avoid knowing what's going on? One of the things I've realized from this discuss

Gern, you're talking nonsense. OF COURSE, a ban on homosexual (or bisexual) pedophiles doesn't work when they are successful at concealing what they are. We ban murderers. But, we still have murders. Just not as many as if we didn't ban them! GaHillBilly

"since my word isn't good enough on its own" And, if I told you that TODAY I carefully and completely inspected every apple tree in an orchard of 10,000 for apple rust, will you believe me? Of course not! If you would, you aren't as intelligent as I've been giving you credit for. You're not thinking, HiLo. When you tell me you know what's going on with 10,000 Scouts, that's the best construction I can put on it. There's no way you can know what you claim to know. But, you missed my main point: I can't even be sure, if you COULD check up on the sexual activity of all

HiLo, I haven't read every post on this thread. But in particular, I find the "it works elsewhere, so why won't it work in the US" arguments so flimsy that I haven't bothered to read most of them. But, since you ask, I will. You write, "I don't expect the media to mention rampant sexual activity there." I wouldn't expect them to report anything either, regardless what happened. Why would they? And, how would they know? It's not like any MSM organization is going to have a reporter "embedded" in a troop, or do anything other than send a photographer (or videographer)

"I am pretty sure that parents in my son's troop would have a hissy fit about it." Lisa, I may not agree with you on other things, but I agree on this. Parents generally don't want to talk about sex with their kids . . . and don't want anyone else to do so, either. What has really surprised me is that it's not a liberal or conservative thing. Apparently, it's true just as much of liberal pro-gay pro-premarital sex parents as it is of very conservative parents. Most parents, as a class, seem to prefer putting their head in the sand, trying to pretend that most of the false or distorte

Spreadsheets asked, "One question GHB, how do these CO's feel about supporting an organization which allows boys who identify themselves as practicing heterosexuals, who are unmarried?" I'm not sure if you are a Scouter or not, but if you are, you'll know that many COs, conservative or not, tend to treat troops with a sort of not-quite-benign neglect. In such cases, they will only know about Scout behavior if it becomes public news (like gays into Scouts would be) or gossip or if the SM tells them. With that reservation in mind, the type of churches I'm aware of would deal with "prac

Dan, I don't doubt that there are gays like you describe. And, it's quite true I probably have experienced something closer to the worst, than the best. But none of those things to me are 'core' issues. The first issue is that you don't put people likely to sexually attracted to each other in close quarters. I'm simply arguing that you need to apply the same rules to gays that you would to male/female pairings. Thus it seems to me that the only possible way to handle this -- if gays were allowed -- is to adopt a 'one Scout, one tent' policy. The second issue, which I've tried t

Beavuh, you seem to know more about economics than science. Popper's ideas about falsification are all well and good, but much disputed. What's not really disputed is that functional science is about making useful predictions. Newton's laws allow me to predict accurately where my bullet will go, given the angle and direction of the barrel and the muzzle velocity. Add in laws about fluid dynamics and aerodynamics and I can do even better. Of course, science being what it is, and the real world being what IT is, I still have to actually FIRE the gun to make final determinations.