NJCubScouter

Rooster, using a time-honored debating tactic, says: Does my appeal to "move on" really strike that big of a nerve? Apparently so. I wonder why. Actually it's just a minor annoyance. And if readers would like to evaluate which of us has had his nerves struck, I would point out that I am not the one who started his post with the word "Aargh!"

FOG says: James Dale was an avowed homosexual when he said, "I like boys." And when was that, exactly, FOG? Or more to the point, where in any of the thousands of words that have been written about the facts of that case, does it say that he ever said it? Except for you making it up, I mean.

Rooster, didn't I see you write the word "Perspective" in huge letters in a post in this thread? Well, here is some perspective: "Move on" sounds a lot better when you are on what is, at the time, the "winning" side. (Not the side with the better argument, just the side that won the most recent victory.) Also: You are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to get involved in a conversation you don't want to get involved in. As I indicated before, the "main line" of this thread has pretty much turned into the online-discussion equivalent of the night of the living dead anyway. Even

Like saltheart, my experience in watching the boys going for Eagle in my son's troop is that this "should not" is taken to mean "shall not" or "must not." (I would say "may not," but some of us seem to have a problem with that phrase. Maybe smoke gets in their eyes?) Maybe there is more about this in that workbook they give the Life Scouts to begin working on Eagle. I have never had occasion to read one. For those of you who have, is there something more definitive about whether the project "may" benefit Scouting? I realize that if the answer is yes, that raises an issue of potential

Oh goodie, here we go again. (That was some more sarcasm.) Well, if ever there was a thread that cried out to be hijacked, it was this one. (I think Ed is already rehearsing scenes from "Poltergeist V: Jason Runs in Camp.) I don't feel so bad though, because the person who started this thread has also contributed to it's going astray. To those playing the home version of our game, I am about to talk about the "gay issue," so avert your eyes if you wish. So, FOG says: "Avowed behavior" is behavior that the person has admitted so unless he is lying, it happened. If I

Heh heh, Acco. That's different, of course. That's a rule we like, so the same standards don't apply. (For you literalists out there, the preceding was sarcasm. "We" does not mean Acco and I, but rather those persons who, even now, are no doubt drafting in their minds an indignant response to Acco's and/or my post.)

FOG, maybe DSteele was travelling on the other side of the International Date Line when he wrote his post. Maybe he figured you wouldn't read it until after midnight. Maybe he suddenly converted to Orthodox Judaism and thinks it's Friday. (Just kidding about that last part DS; but if in some alternate universe that were true, it would also be true that you'd have to do any typing applicable to something happening on Saturday on Friday afternoon, because you wouldn't be able to type anything between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday.) In other words, give the guy a break.

Youth: Ranks: Arrow of Light, Life Scout Highest positions: SPL, JASM Adult: At age 18 I became an ASM but was only active for the 8 months until I started college. As a "real" adult, I was a Den Leader and Assistant Cubmaster, and am now a Troop Committee Member.

First of all, Peter and Paul were (and I believe, still are) two-thirds of the folk singing group, Peter, Paul and Mary. Though atually Paul is the middle name of Noel Paul Stookey, but I guess they didn't like the sound of Peter, Noel and Mary. For that matter, Paul also is the middle name of James Paul McCartney. Let's see, how many mini-threads could I have started right there? Second of all, I prefer a good Snickers. I don't go with this trend toward white chocolate, it just tastes too sweet to me. I'm also big on Twizzlers (the red kind).

I didn't realize scheduling of Boards of Review was such an issue. In my son's troop, boys get pulled out of whatever the "main event" is at the weekly troop meeting for a variety of reasons: Board of Review, Scoutmaster conference, meeting with merit badge counselors, working with an ASM on advancement, meeting with Eagle advisor on projects, etc. There are various rooms, hallways, stairwells etc. to do all this in so as not to be in the way of the main meeting, though sometimes the meeting itself will just break up into groups working on different levels of advancement. For obvious reaso

That may be true, FScouter, but "mountain out of a mole mound" doesn't sound as good.

I read this bill and it is interesting, but it is somewhat more complicated than simply extending the military draft system to women. Service (of both men and women) would be "universal" (that is, everybody turning 18 would serve for at least two years with very limited exceptions or deferments), and service could be either military or civilian. However, it does appear that if military circumstances require, someone (other than a conscientious objector, which is a difficult status to achieve) could be compelled to go into military service as opposed to civilian service, and that includes wom

I believe it goes: New Forum Member Junior Forum Member Forum Member Senior Forum Member I'm not sure where the dividing lines are.

OGE, it had been my impression that the Israeli military drafts both men and women, but I did not know for sure and I did not know any of the details. A search turned up this site about Israel: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0kdq0 (Overall the site seems to take a rather dim view of Israel in general, though I did not study it that closely.) Here is an excerpt: Women and the Armed Forces: Although service in the IDF is compulsory for both men and women, inequality does exist. The exclusion of women from many military professions and all combat units guaranteed that the h

Scoutingagain, I agree with your post, I just have one question: Are there really women serving as fighter pilots? I thought that was one of the roles from which they were excluded.

Hunt, yes, it was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that prompted Jimmy Carter to propose reinstatement of draft registration (and also to pull the U.S. out of the Moscow Olympics, gosh that seems like a really long time ago.) Ironically, as I recall, the actual commencement of draft registration was delayed by a pending court case involving a claim by one or men who had sued, claiming the system was unfair because women were not required to register. This case had actually been pending since the Vietnam era but I guess it had been placed on the back burner when draft registration was s

And here is a link to a picture of the fancy shiny Scoutmaster patch from the 70s http://www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/insignia/train-sm.jpg and the regular SM patch from the same era http://www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/insignia/reg-sm.jpg My father has one of the shiny ones on a uniform shirt that still hangs in his closet. I think it is the patch he is the proudest of with the possible exception of his Philmont patches, out of all the patches he has accumulated in 65 years of Scouting. He told me that while he was still a SM, years after the shiny patch had been discontinued,

I've never heard that. It does not make any sense. The trained patch is for basic training for your position. Wood Badge does not replace basic training for your position, so why would you take the patch off -- unless you take a new position for which you are not yet trained, in which case you DO take the trained patch off -- but leave the Wood Badge insignia on. They are for 2 different things.

Janssenil (and others), I apologize for any offense I may have caused with the remark about the "alphabet soup" conditions. I did not mean to downplay these conditions, but the expression I used was a bit flippant. I guess I was conveying my own confusion about these various conditions. But my main point was to say that the boy I was referring to does not seem to have a medical condition that would cause his poor behavior. It seems to be caused at least in part by the fact that he is being pushed into an age/social group that does not quite fit yet. Dsteele is correct that he meets th

I always get in trouble when I try to speak for other people, but I don't let that stop me. When I read sst3rd's post it did not seem that he was asking who, in the abstract, should be the source of fund-raising ideas. Rather, I think he was saying that the troop is trying to assign someone(s) the task of doing actual research and analysis of different fund-raising opportunities, but there is some uncertainty as to what person or persons that task should be assigned to. I don't know the answer either, but I am sure someone does.

OK, Rooster, you've convinced me: Let's abolish draft registration for men, so we don't have to worry about also registering women. Fighting wars with soldiers is outmoded anyway. If anyone gives us so much trouble that the all-volunteer force is insufficient, we can just "push the button" and be done with it. In fact, it seems to me that eliminating our capability to draft anyone would be a great deterrent, because it would mean that if we really find our backs against the wall, our enemies will be vaporized. Convincing the enemy that you're crazy is always a good way to avoid a fight.

Rooster, as some others have suggested or hinted at, my personal preference would be that NONE of my children be placed in a situation where they have go into combat against their will. Another thing that is unfortunately worth considering here is that as much as we'd like to put it out of our minds, we are all in harm's way every day to one degree or another anyway. War is no longer something that is totally "over there somewhere" anymore. The people who thought they were just going to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, or who were on a plane going wherever that someone decided

The Scoutmaster, SPL, ASPL (all the same family) brushed him off when he wanted to talk about it. Hmmm. Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else's ears perk up at "all the same family"? Like in a "Danger, danger, Will Robinson" sort of way. I am sure there are many troops where the SM's son is SPL, and it's ok assuming that the SPL is elected as the book says. (I was one of those SPL's, and until a month ago our SM's son was SPL.) But when you add in that the ASPL is in the same family, presumably the SPL's younger brother, and the SM is their father, I begin to wonder whether the tr

Rooster, I am not advocating that women be in "combat" positions -- at least not against their will. Right now, as I understand it, women cannot even VOLUNTEER to be in a "combat" position, and I am somewhat ambivalent about that. But women can, and do, a whole host of military occupations, right now, some of which do take them close to the action. In addition to the traditional role of nurse, women drive supply trucks, they fly aircraft such as cargo and fueling aircraft (though not fighters and bombers), they serve on ships that could be attacked, they are intelligence officers and mi

I wasn't sure exactly where and how to jump into this. My perspective is not as one who has any experience with or direct knowledge of the military, as I know little other than what I read in the papers or hear from other people. I do, however, have daughters age 21 and almost 17 and a 12 year old son, so draft registration is a subject of interest to me. I think KoreaScouter has given me the opening to jump in here, though apparently not on the side he favors. He says: Considering that we have more men registered than we can ever use, why register women too, unless it's to peg th