skeptic

In 1981, we elected them at the end of the course; it was an honor given by the patrol members to indicate who they felt was the best in their group. In our 21st Century course that I staffed as a guide, we did not have them do it. So, perhaps it is more of a local thing. My first course was the old one obviously, but it also was in a neighboring council. Surely there are other opinions and comments.

Yes, I would agree that it is related to the "you can't see me" idea on the web. In yesterday's paper, there is a good example here in S.C.. A young man in South Pasadena started a "no cussing" club, the goal to bring a bit more civility back to the everyday language we all speak and hear. He has a web site. Recently he has been inundated with all kinds of nastiness, not only on the site, but now to his home address which has been published by someone; porn magazines, litanies of four letter words, and now even death threats. The police have begun an investigation, due to the threats. Wh

While I would not condone your reaction, the guy was not setting a very good example. What's more, he was wrong, according to the uniform guide. Palms can be worn on the knot, just like they are worn on the ribbon of the Eagle badge. Oh well.

Merlyn: No one has ever suggested that others have to associate with the BSA. But, for some reason, they want to try to force the BSA to associate with them. Why?

OGE; No, the documents do not indicate they refused to pay; only that they did not even actually attempt to use it, due to their inability to even think about dealing with the BSA. The comment regarding cost in other parts relates to the huge discrepancy the GS charge to non GS users. By the way, they also give precedence to GS for use, as do the other lease holders from what I understand. Of course, as the lease holder, that makes perfect sense. Whatever; nothing but the complete isolation of BSA will satisfy these people anyway.

Let me see. I will lease this land and pay for all the upkeep, any improvements I need for our intended use as a headquarters, swimming pool area, indoor and outdoor meeting area, and campsite. When it is not in use for our specific purposes, it will be open for use by outside groups as well, as long as they meet certain liability requirements. So, a facility for youth primarily is booked up by the group who actually runs and maintains it during the time when youth are most likely to use it. But, if it is not, others still can use it. Oh, but I want to use it when it is used by the

Ed; their feelings are hurt.

Well Merlyn, that is an interesting comment. Having read "all" the available documents, and having actually used Balboa and visited the area numerous times, I am fairly cognizant of what they say, how the area is used, and so on. I also have read numerous "legal" statements and opinions by qualified lawyers and judges who disagree with the judicial decisions made by the judges who ruled up to this point. The fact that the initial ruling was made by a single judge who refused to even consider any others' thoughts or submissions reflects the reality; that this is a PC decision that refuses to

If you read the legal documents, you will note comments regarding GS, as well as others. My understanding is there are time frames with GS usage having priority over public use. Of course, the GS have bent to the PC harassment and eliminated some of their traditional rules.

Merlyn; How do you feel about the fact the Girl Scouts having similar special treatment for their members at the neighboring camp? They take precedence over outside users during certain times. Should the lawsuit be expanded to include them as well? Perhaps also the other groups with similar leases who all have priority times for their groups?

Besides the Jambo, nothing I have seen; maybe simply surviving to then. In the red and rumors of issues with SE and camp selling. I try to stay out of the politics, but it is always there in the background. And sometimes it will directly affect us on the troop level.

Merlyn: I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible. If it is the equipment and facilities that are at issue, then, we come back to why you think BSA should pay for these items and their upkeep, supervise safety considerations, and so on, yet not have some type of relatively minor priority of use for their own groups.

ssscout: The limiting factor for some is the BSA; they are a terrible and malicious organization that should be ostracized and have any privileges offered to others by the government, directly or indirectly, taken from them or not offered to begin. Merlyn has already admitted that the rights of his PC crusade (dare I use that word in relation to him?) take precedence to any logical or balanced decision.

Actually, the plaintiffs have gotten a favorable ruling from one judge whose logic defies the word. And, if somehow, this finally goes in the favor of the plaintiffs when it reaches the high court, then many other similar arrangements will have to go by the wayside at even further detriment to the public good. But, the PC will have won their egocentric "right". Meanwhile, you still cannot give me an answer to my question as to why all this effort and money cannot be used for the benefit of others, rather than to attack those that actually do. I really do not expect an answer, a

Merlyn; Why shouldn't they, since the scouts have been there and developed everything. If someone else wants a similar deal, put it on unused land. There is plenty there that could benefit from it. But, then that would require someone to come up with the money to develop it. Based on the development there in Balboa and on the beach, that would be hundreds of millions of dollars. The scouts put the money into it; why should they not continue to have the use? If others want to do something similar, then let them develop it on separate locations, rather than whine that they were not of

Okay, here is a possible resolution to this whole affair. Since in Mission Park on the beach, and in Balboa Park next to the zoo and so on, there are many acres of untended land, the city can give similar leases to a group who wishes to offer a similar program on the beach, and similar facilities in Balboa. They then can set their own requirements which would be inclusive of anyone and everyone (except for BSA groups, since they already have "their" space), no matter what their beliefs. Then they can put their own money into the development of the areas, and the regular upkeep so that they a

So Merlyn, you think everyone should get to choose when they are able to use a facility, even if it is in conflict with some other group or individual. So, when the Zoological society at the San Diego Zoo has a special set of hours for members to attend and see new things, or simply enjoy as members, someone who is not a member should have the right to participate during that time too, even though they do not meet requirements? Or, the Southern California Surfing association arranges for a blocked off beach area for their surfing contest. I want to surf there during that period, even though

Whatever the convoluted decision by these questionable solons finally is, it is still nonsense IMHO. I continue to wonder how anyone with any kind of self esteem would lend themselves to such foolish reasoning as to say they are somehow "injured" by even the thought or presence of the BSA, or any other group with beliefs with which they may not agree. How weak must their ego be if they are threatened or emotionally scarred by an idea held by someone else with whom they have not even made contact? It is much like the stupidity of a complaint by the Somis, Ca. man who threatened a suit agains

Another really odd ruling from 9th Circuit. Not only is it strange, but also 4 judges recused themselves. What does that say about this whole thing? Read in the BSA Legal link, or google it.

In ours, new Ordeal members get a service flap as part of completion of the Ordeal; but the primary flap, which is restricted to 4 per life, cannot be purchased until Brotherhood is completed. At that time, they can buy two; one for Ordeal and one for Brotherhood. A third can be bought for Vigil, and one more for completion of a local hike, approved by the lodge, to the peak featured on the flap. Incoming members from another lodge cannot buy flaps to cover past levels, so when I joined as a Brotherhood member, I was restricted to 3 max. But, as noted, most Ordeal members disappear after th

Not sure why you might feel a Vigil knot was needed. If you are active, then you should be wearing the arrow ribbon with the Vigil device on it. Why would you need a knot?

Would be great if that were the case in Southern California. Even pre-typed in doc format has much chance of showing up in print, especially if it is about something already occurred like Eagle dinners, or annual meetings. At least we can post on-line now to a blog; but it is not the same. Oh well, what can you do but keep trying.

If the pro's on this subject would simply stop the foolish "in your face" attitude, it would surely be a lot less negative. As Pack has said, Gays have been, and are in the program; but they do not seem to have had the need to make it "an issue", so it wasn't/isn't. But, both sides of the argument tend to wear blinders and are unlikely to change spots based on what is said here. Even though I agree with the current policy over "no policy"; I would prefer that it be made a CO decision on a local level. Eventually it will like work itself out. But it would likely happen more quickly if "rad

NJ; thanks for the reminder. "Sexual orientation was not an issue until sometime in the late 20th century; and then 'Somebody' made it an issue.! Wonder who that was? Also, I rather wonder why someone that is so upset about this to take away the privilege is not also suing to make the Council stop starting all their meetings with an invocation. Isn't that somehow also not legal? Inquiring minds want to know.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Here is material from the city's website regarding this. The actual termination decision in 2006 seems to not be available anywhere, which seems odd to me. Also, the final approval of the resolution is pretty sloppy if the minutes are to be noted. I also found it sad that while perusing minutes for the month of May in 2007, I could not help but notice how many comments and concerns about out of control youth were there. 11-16-06 Transmitting a resolution approving the termination of the arrangement with the Philadelphia Coucil of the Boy Scouts, or its successor, the Cradle of L