NJCubScouter

I think it stands for Uninvolved Chimera (chimera in the sense of being mythical.) I do not believe our troop has had a UC in the 14 years I have been on the committee. In theory there is an ADC assigned to our unit along with a lot of others, but I don't know who the current one is and have never seen him/her (or any of his/her's predecessors) at any of our meetings. We do have one ASM who, for awhile at least, was UC for a few other nearby units, but not ours. Which, in my opinion, is probably just well. When we have needed help from outside the unit, it is usually not the commissioner corps that has been able to provide it.

Laurie Partridge.

This article confirms that, and also has some commentary on some defunct merit badges: http://www.metv.com/lists/11-boy-scout-merit-badges-that-no-longer-exist

While we're on the subject of 60's tv, I see Jim Nabors died. Were there any Boy Scouts in Mayberry?

We're talking about parents here, not girls. We have at least 100 recent threads about girls. Ok, it's probably only about 10-12, but that's still a lot. As for the Great Pink T-shirt Conspiracy, my response is probably the same as it was a couple of months ago when you brought up the exact same point. (Though wasn't the shirt purple then? Maybe it was both, like tie-dye.) Maybe you're right, they added a pink t-shirt to their catalog because they already knew they were going to have more girls in the BSA. Or maybe they started selling a pink t-shirt because they thought they could make money from a pink t-shirt. See, I'm at least as cynical as you are, but my cynicism leads me to the conclusion that virtually everything that National does (at least, everything they do on purpose) is about money. Or to put it another way, sometimes a t-shirt is just a t-shirt. If your point is that the BSA doesn't communicate very well with its volunteers, and sometimes acts in a misleading manner, it is not that am too naive to see it, it's that I am too jaded to be surprised by it or (usually) get upset about it. I've gotten used to it.

It's not that kind of shop.

In the previous software, when writing/editing a post there was a way to toggle back and forth between, and I really don't know what to call them, so I will call them "source code mode" and "preview mode." For example, in source code mode you would see things like [.quote] and [.i] (the periods are not there in real life, I just wanted to make sure the software did not see those as actual commands.) Obviously those would not be visible in preview mode, you would only see the effects of the command. Now everything seems to be in preview mode and there doesn't seem to be a way to change it. I see there is an icon on the right side of the "toolbar" that does act as a toggle, but it switches between one view of preview mode and another. Am I missing something?

Let's please remember that the original poster came here to get ideas on HOW to solve a particular problem. Like most threads in which people do that, some of the responses raise questions about whether there is a problem in the first place. That is not against the rules, but I think some of the responses here have been unnecessarily harsh. We are supposed to be "helpful", and provide that help in a "friendly" way.

I agree with all of that. All I am saying is that it seems, in this case, that the BSA has used a definition of "family" that is different from the common definition.

You can choose to predict the future based on magazine covers if you wish. I choose not to.

I have seen most of those pictures and articles. What I have not seen is any specific words either in those articles or anywhere else that say that the program is changing to expand the role of parents. Have you? (Other than just the word "family", I mean.)

As I said in another thread, I think that when the BSA used the word "family" in the context of this change, what they meant was sons and daughters, not parents (other than for Cub Scouts.) Apparently they decided they didn't want to say "girls" very often. The standard, National-issued announcement for councils to send out about the meetings in the summer did not include the word "girls," although some councils changed the statement to include "girls." Of course, when the CSE was onstage or on-video giving a speech about it, he couldn't really avoid using the word "girls," so I don't understand why they even tried to avoid it in the first place. And then their choice of a more "innocuous" word backfired on them, because evidently BSA forgot that the word "family" actually does include parents. It does make you wonder.

There is no reason why not, as long as they don't use the words Scouts, Scouting, etc. don't use the same names for their ranks, etc. Although I agree with Calico, the protection for these words really comes from federal trademark etc. law more than from the "Congressional charter." (Which, contrary to popular belief, does not mention any specific words that are protected, and of course "Scouts" and its derivatives are shared with GSUSA. Except, apparently, for Spiral Scouts. That group has been around for more than 10 years and the BSA has never sued them as far as I know - unlike other "Scout" groups that the BSA has sued over the years. I have never understood that. Though I have never actually seen a Spiral Scout in person and, at least at the moment, their web site is down.

Please stop arguing over who did what or who said what and just discuss the issues.

Ah. Pretty much the opposite of what I thought.

I think DuctTape is correct. I also think we are talking about two different kinds of "charter."

Congrats (in advance) to Son # 2! I am just curious about standby status, I have never heard of that in connection with a BOR. Does that mean they have several Scouts scheduled for EBOR's and that if they finish with them quickly enough they will be able to take your son? Great news Cambridge!

HTML 5? Back in my day we only had HTML 1, and we were happy to have it! And we walked to school, uphill, both ways! Not like these kids today, I'll tell you...

Recent posts is back! (Although it is called Latest Posts now, but same thing.) Thanks for the upgrade Terry!

So when are you filing the lawsuit?

Presumably the differences are: (1) No religion believes it is immoral to be a girl; (2) With some exceptions (I suppose Orthodox Judaism would be one), religions generally do not believe it is immoral for the genders to intermingle with each other in public. Unlike "the last changes", the debate on the "girls" issue has not been on moral grounds, but rather on whether the program will remain sufficiently effective for boys after the change, or for some people, after the changes that some people think are going to happen as a result of this specific change.

Are you citing that in support of the idea that the BSA is legally prohibited from providing programs for girls? If not, then I don't get the relevance. If yes, then we don't really know whether you're right or not until one or ore persons/entities file lawsuits challenging the activity that is allegedly outside the charter, and the issue is decided against the BSA. (I'm not sure who would have standing to file such a lawsuit.) It's interesting, though not dispositive, that nobody has filed such a lawsuit in the 46 years that the BSA has offered programs for female youth. Or, if someone did file one, it apparently did not succeed. (Actually, if that's the case it might be dispositive depending on the circumstances.)

Have we become a radio show? Welcome to the forums, and thanks for all you do for the Scouts!

Exactly. He is similar to George Washington in that regard, with either of them you can usually find a quote that supports whatever you want to say. The "what would B-P say" game has been played many times in this forum, and the great part is that everybody wins, every time! Because each player decides his/her own score, and because it is almost never possible to prove who is right and who is wrong, because B-P is not around to ask him the question.

Well, since you asked... there actually is a logical answer. The answer may vary from state to state, I can only give you the New Jersey version of the answer. The sentencing range for armed robbery in NJ is 10 to 20 years. The "presumptive sentence" is right in the middle, 15 years. In deciding whether the sentence is to be higher, lower, or exactly 15 years, the judge is required to consider 13 aggravating factors and 13 mitigating factors, which are listed here: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-44-1/ I will only mention one factor (actually it shows up on both lists), the person's prior criminal history. If the armed robber has no juvenile or adult criminal record at all, and all other factors balance themselves out, the sentence will probably be less than 15 years. If the person has been convicted of armed robbery three times before, and let's throw in that the police can't find whatever he stole and he won't say where it is, and that he shows no remorse for his crime, he is probably a candidate for 20 years. And so on and so forth, for every possible combination and severity of 26 different factors. Not sure what it has to do with A Scout is Obedient, but there it is.