Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Lisabob

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I looked at a couple that got a lot of discussion in local media so far. In one, a leader admitted to police to raping a boy and molesting his brothers. In another, a leader admitted to police to molesting 10 boys at a camp. In both cases, strong pressure was brought to bear not to press charges in order to "save the good name" of scouting. In one, a former scouter who was convicted of molesting children says the local BSA kept calling him with volunteer requests for years after he was done serving his prison sentence, and he had to tell the BSA to stop contacting him. There are likel
  2. Eagle732, I didn't say you wouldn't post it about your own scouts. I said I hoped you wouldn't. I do think it is unethical to do so and I do think it was unethical for you to have done so in this case. And now, to quote the great Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."
  3. Well since somebody asked: the banner I'm getting says that if you vote for a particular ballot proposal in my state, then sex offenders, drunk drivers, and felons will destroy your children's futures by molesting (or killing) them on school buses and in schools. The latest one says something like "when it ruins lives, it matters." Uh, no. There are honest reasons to be for or against the actual ballot initiative in question, but this ad (which is also running in other media forms like TV commercials) is such a transparent ooga-booga scare campaign, not grounded in reality, that I have
  4. I'm just curious. Does anybody here form, or change, their views on political issues on the basis of random banner ads on websites? I ask because there are some hotly contested ballot initiatives up for a vote in my state this year, and for whatever reason, I'm seeing banner ads for one side of one of the ballots on this site all the time, now (yes I realize you are not all seeing the same banner). Maybe I'm naive, but I can't imagine this is a highly effective method of persuasion. I'd think that in this highly commercial media age, people basically tune out such web banner ads, reg
  5. Minors deserve more protection than adults. And I am not at all convinced that the "public figure" definition used by the courts in libel & slander cases (for example) would fit this situation, even if we were talking about legal adults. Honestly I am pretty discouraged by the fact that some scouters seem to be just fine with treating a boy who could just as easily be one of their own scouts in this way. This isn't some anonymous person on an internet forum spouting political views. This is a youth, who has grown up within our scouting program, who is now trying to handle difficu
  6. Eagle732, it does not matter that it is unprotected or how much time it took you to find. It does not matter what the boy posted on his facebook page or whether you agree or disagree with his actions. What I am saying to you is that it is unethical for you, as a Scouter, to intentionally post a child's information on a public forum in order to invite ridicule of that child.
  7. Eagle732, would you post the page of a scout and a minor from your troop on a public web forum? I hope not. So why are you posting that boy's page? Please take back your post.
  8. Well this doesn't happen that often, but I find I agree with JoeBob. Particularly this part: "If your DL is threatening to quit over this, you probably need a new DL anyway... "
  9. Sentinel, you are missing the point. It isn't about whether NBC conveys the minutia of what one does to become an Eagle. It is about whether the BSA is now attempting to apply its standards for adult leaders to youth members. But before we jump the gun on this, I wonder whether this is merely some goof ball SM interpreting things as he sees fit, rather than official BSA policy.
  10. Yes Barry, all puppies. I give no quarter, no matter how disgustingly cute a puppy face. In fact I am partial to puppy-fur coats.... Well pack, you've got me beat there. The only way I could have voted for (or against) Nixon would have been through some serious voter fraud, since I was still in diapers when he resigned. Not to blur the lines between threads too much, but you've now expressed remorse for your choices of both Nixon and GW. Been hoodwinked a couple of times, there, eh. Maybe in future you should vote against your own better judgment? I do believe that means you o
  11. Just so we can get it out of the way, I'll stipulate now that I'm probably also a terrible parent who has ruined her child's life, I'm a hater of PTA meetings, I failed to show sufficient school spirit at homecoming events in high school, and I'm most likely mean to kittens and puppies, too. As, of course, are all of us who are "pushing a gay agenda" here at scouter.com
  12. Well I got a good laugh, thanks. In the space of the last three or four days I've been called a bra-burning feminazi, a communist, a "GD SOCIALIST!, " a fat cat union boss who wants criminals and sex offenders to run public schools, a thug, a bleeding-heart, card-carrying, ACLU-loving liberal out to poison the minds of our young people, and a few other choice labels. Now apparently I push a gay agenda, on top of it all! I'm probably out to demolish marriage, too (you've been warned, people)! You all had better watch out because single-handedly, I am destroying society as we know it. Funn
  13. I agree with Eagledad that the kids want to know if the adults get it. It becomes a bit of a trust issue - if they don't think you get it, they won't trust your evaluation of their efforts, either. One of my son's former SMs used to praise the heck out of every kid all the time no matter what heinous thing the little darlings had just gotten caught (red handed) doing. Yeah, I know, praise in public, scold in private, but he also never did the latter. Every kid seemed to have endless chances with no repercussions for screwing up (no matter how seriously). Got to a point where some of
  14. Barry, perhaps we're talking past each other. What I got from your post was that you felt somebody's freedom of religion or speech was under threat. For that to be true, there would necessarily have to be a governmental actor involved since, by definition, the freedoms of religion & speech as described in the 1st amendment are protected from governmental threat. In this situation, I don't see any government action going on, so I don't see how it makes sense for you to invoke the 1st amendment by referencing freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
  15. Barry, I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that people keeping their thoughts on controversial issues to themselves, as opposed to taking out their political anger on cub scouts, has anything to do with the first amendment? Because THAT would be ignorant. The first amendment guarantees people the right to be free from GOVERNMENT impingement on speech and religion (within certain widely drawn boundaries, as identified by the courts). In the situation BD describes, there is no indication that GOVERNMENT is involved. In this situation we are talking about private (non-government
  • Create New...