NJCubScouter

Wikipedia says: "A ballistic knife is a knife with a detachable blade that can be ejected to a distance of several yards by pressing a trigger or operating a lever or switch on the handle." According to the article, the LEAST powerful type (spring-propelled) is capable of firing the blade about 16 feet at 39 mph. They also come in air-, gas- and explosive-propelled. And here's one now, thanks to the same site: I can kind of understand why people would be skittish about these things. P.S.: If I'm calculating this right, 39 mph is 57.2 feet per second. So if it is only going 16 feet, it is getting there pretty quickly.

I can't imagine our council eliminating the districts. I agree that it would be a nightmare. My biggest personal part of the nightmare would be EBOR's. Our district holds them in two different "central locations", one of which is not so central. If there were one single "central location" for our council... well actually the way our council is shaped, some of the most "central" locations would be in another council. And no matter where it is, it would be a long, long way for a lot of people.

I think we may be getting off the subject.

It seems to me that if you have a troop where all (or almost all) of the boys and parents do not want girls in the troop, they will probably not do the maneuver that many have mentioned on here (and that some people say they are already planning to do) of having an all-boy troop and an all-girl troop "on paper" but a single "coed" unit in reality. On the other hand if everybody (or almost everybody) is ok with having a coed troop, then that may be the result. As I have said in the past, I do not believe a coed troop is best for the boys, but if that is what the parents and Scouts actually want... In a way, I have it easy. My son aged out from the troop 8 years ago, so I don't have to worry about the impact on him. I am not a Scoutmaster or ASM so I will not have direct responsibility for "managing" whatever impact this change may have. I am Advancement Coordinator. Am I willing to do BOR's for girls? I'd have to say yes, I am.

The article by Ms. Ireland also quotes her as saying: "The only difference between me and my brother is that, as a girl, I am not eligible for official membership or recognition in the Boy Scouts." So she knows she is not actually a member and that as far as the BSA is concerned, she is not earning these ranks. She is not being deceived here, nor is she claiming to be - nor do I see how she could ever claim to be. While I don't want to go into an analysis of your legal theory, I don't think these facts would bode well for any attempt by her to pursue the idea that you have mentioned. (And there is no indication that she is trying to set up a lawsuit anyway.) Besides which, we don't really know what the BSA, or the Greater New York Councils, knows about her and "her troop." Even assuming that someone called this column in the Washington Post to the attention of either National or the council (which probably seems likely), it's been four days since it was published. We can't assume that they aren't going to take any action - if only to write a letter making clear to both her and "her troop" that at the present time, she cannot be a member or be awarded any ranks.

Did any of the Scouters who said they would create "paper girl troops", and have what are really coed troops, happen to mention whether they have asked the boys and parents in their troop what they think about this? One of the concerns expressed in these threads is that boys and their parents would leave if their troops went coed. So it would be interesting to know what actual boys and their parents have to say about it.

Evidently they were referred to as both, because Miami Chief's quote was correct. And now that you mention it, the quote coming from Grand Moff Tarkin is kind of strange, because he himself used the term "governors." That's enough of this, I think.

Even then, they wouldn't really know what is going to happen until it happens. Overall it sounds to me like the meetings in the councils have mostly been a waste of time. It does not sound like they have been very well attended, the invitations from some of the councils did not really say what subject was being discussed, and it also sounds like many of the local council officials were not all that interested in getting feedback which is contrary to the direction in which National seems to be headed. (Unfortunately I was unable to attend my local meeting.) So if the BSA wants to know what current Scouters actually think, I don't these meetings accomplished that.

I don't know what you mean by the troop is "working with her on her quest for Eagle." If that has been mentioned before, I must have missed it. I'm not sure what significance any "working with" would have. She is not a registered member of the troop or of the BSA, and she knows she isn't. She knows she isn't currently eligible to earn Eagle or any other Boy Scout rank. Presumably the troop has not submitted any advancements to council for her. So I don't know what the troop is doing that would even warrant any attention from the BSA, much less a revocation of their charter.

Because Miami Chief was quoting "Star Wars." Actually he was reacting to a previous "Star Wars" quote by The Latin Scot.

I didn't realize there was a difference between the services. The page I linked to said E-3 and it did not seem to be Navy-specific.

As I have said before, BSA National is doing this because it wants to, not because anyone is forcing it to. They see higher membership and higher revenue. Whether they are seeing correctly is another question, but they are going to act based on what they think is going to happen, not what anyone here thinks is going to happen. I really don't think a 16-year-old girl has BSA National quaking in their boots. As for her "lawyer parents", I don't know. I doubt it. I don't think they have filed a lawsuit, have they?

This site confirms that: https://www.thebalance.com/advanced-enlistment-rank-3354305 It is not an official military site but it seems to know what it is talking about.

The BSA seems to be taking the approach of "If you build it, they will come." Well, it worked in a fantasy film, so what could go wrong?

I assume you mean the letters "BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA" over the pocket. They fall off all the time. I'd say that well over half the boys in the troop have at least one letter missing, and in most cases multiple letters. It looks ridiculous. I still have the "old" shirt (whatever version they were selling in 2000 when I bought it) and the letters are sewn on so they aren't going anywhere. I guess the current shirts have the letters pressed on in some way, but not so they stay on very well. I inherited one of the red jackets (probably purchased in the early 70's), they are great, but I need to lose about 10 more pounds before I can really wear it.

"Mr. RememberSchiff, I can't find my chip!" "It's probably with your handbook."

My "theory", if you want to call it that, is about motivations, not predictions. Two different issues.

I think that's different. That is a decision based on actual experience with specific Scouts. Based on stories that have been told in this forum, and my own observations back in my daughters' GS days, sometimes girls are not accepted into a troop because they are not part of the "in crowd", or not really friends with the existing troop members, do not go to the "right" school, etc. Of course the "official reason" is usually "we're full", but quite often that's not the real reason. I am not painting all GS leaders with this brush, but there are some.

Meanwhile, back here on Earth... But who knows, in 10-15 years we could have exactly that. Along with the flying cars.

Don't the Girl Scouts wear their badges on a vest? Of course, I may be a little out of date, both of my daughters quit the Girl Scouts more than 20 years ago.

I have no comment on celebrity front-persons or beer, but I sense no groundswell in favor of getting rid of merit badge sashes. And where would the Scouts wear their merit badges? I have seen photos of non-U.S. Scouts wearing rows and rows of MB's on their sleeves, but I think the sash looks better.

One might view that as a "fortunately" rather than an "unfortunately."

If you take out the "sneaky" part, which is really a different issue from what action the BSA should take, I think this writer has created a paradox. She is saying the BSA should let in girls but shouldn't "steal the lifeblood" of the GSUSA. Melodramatic metaphors aside, those are really the same thing. You can't let in girls without potentially letting in girls who would otherwise be in the Girl Scouts. As for "sneaky"... regardless of what the correct decision may be, the way the BSA has handled this, and particularly some councils (see the thread I started, "A letter from my SE"), has been sneaky. Including the apparent attempt to "hide" a survey on the Internet. Who thought THAT was a good idea? That's like me putting a meatball in my dog's dinner bowl and expecting it to be there for more than about 10 seconds.

I doubt that the BSA's thinking on this is that specific. They want to increase membership significantly. I don't think they care whether they are "offsetting" past, present or possible future losses, or losses caused by the loss of a major CO vs. "regular" losses due to any number of factors. They just want a lot more members, and I can see why increasing the potential membership base for Cubs and Boy-Scout-age programs by somewhere around 100% might seem like an attractive option. Whether it "works" or not remains to be seen. A lot of people have been making predictions, but I don't see the point. Nobody really KNOWS what is going to happen in the future.

I think you mean, it DID eventually happen. Right?