David CO

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Or, that those who do “believe” those numbers are your “opponents.” Well, feel free if that’s the case.

Please stop twisting my words.  They are my political opponents because they want greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I think I made that very clear.

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

Oh, numbers!

The numbers are always given to indicate a need for greater government involvement in all of our lives.  I don't want greater government involvement in my life, or the lives of my family.  So I reject the numbers.

Is this rational thinking?  Perhaps not.  

I am aware of the fact that there are people who want to have greater government involvement in all of our lives.  Many of these people are more than willing to fake numbers in order to get what they want.  So, I tend to be very suspicious of any numbers that tend to support the political viewpoints of my opponents. 

Is this rational thinking?  Perhaps so.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

deleted for being out of date.

Oh no!   Fred was deleted for being out of date!     I am out of date.  I hope I don't get deleted, too!  

45 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

And why would National be in the business of political purges?

Why indeed.  But they are.

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

@David CO, Bet they didn't know you were Catholic. They don't like Catholics either.

Yes, they knew I was Catholic.  

On 8/4/2021 at 9:05 AM, qwazse said:

I’m not sure why it’s so hard to believe. Although, I’m kind of glad you weren’t in school with wannabe klansmen. Their reaction to the way the world was going (and would, in fact, become): “Unbelievable.”

The KKK tried to recruit me back in the early 80's when I was a member of the local public school board.  It is just like you said.  They recognized me as someone who didn't like the way the world was going, and would eventually become.  They offered me their support.  They were seductive and charming.  Not at all like what you see in the media. 

It was a temptation, but I turned them down.  I know better than to make a deal with the Devil.

I should note that all of the horrible things they said would happen to education and scouting have actually happened.  They were wrong about many things, but they weren't wrong about that.  The world really has gone to Hell in a handbasket.  I don't regret my decision, though.  The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

What?
 

Barry

No.  Not Watt.  Watson.

(with apologies to Abbott and Costello)

6 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Don't bother with a lot of remarks or negative comments directed to me because I probably won't read them, but I hope this raises some real and honest discussion.

I understood this to be referring to personal attacks.  The OP is clearly asking for "real and honest discussion" of the issues.  

Personally, I don't see the point in continuing a discussion that is now a dead issue.  It's over.  Homosexuals are now allowed to be members in scouting.  I don't expect that to change.  

The only decision left for people with traditional moral/religious beliefs is to decide on their own membership/support of scouting.  That is a personal decision for them to make.  

3 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

Perhaps I am the only one left that doesn't think the gay lifestyle is "morally straight " and that girls have a place in the Boy Scouts.  

Not hardly.  I don't think many of the members of this forum, or of scouting in general, have changed their minds on these issues.  If there seems to be less discussion about it, it may just be that BSA no longer considers it to be an issue.  The national council has decided on the matter and there is little point arguing about it.  It's a done deal.  

I do think those who are on the winning side of these issues have been less than magnanimous in their victory.  Having won the policy issue, they could afford to be a little less hostile with those who are still disappointed in their defeat.

3 hours ago, qwazse said:

IF you dig through some of the older topics, there are posts of erstwhile scouters summarily removed from the program asking about how to lodge appeals for reinstatement. (There was no such process.)

Many of those people were banned from scouting for non-sexual reasons.  I knew someone who was banned for protesting a camp closure (Owasippe) while in uniform.

I thought there was something blatantly unfair about the process.  The council guys could appear in uniform to speak in support of selling the camp, but the opponents were told they could not wear the uniform.  Double standard.

I believe he was banned for opposing the sale, not for wearing the uniform.  That was just the excuse they used to get rid of him.

Some people are talking about the IV files as if everyone who was banned from scouting was a pedophile.  This is wrong.  

9 hours ago, ThenNow said:

1) 11 year old Scout was discovered going through his teenage sister’s intimates. His father reprimanded him.

That is hilarious.  The rest of it isn't funny at all.  But I can't help but laugh at this part.  

I grew up in a very large family.  All of the kids, who were old enough to do so, helped out with the household chores, including laundry.  Washing, drying, and folding.  We even had a laundry line out in the back yard where all of our "intimates" were hung out to air dry.  We didn't have central air conditioning, and summers were too hot to run the electric clothes dryer.

Maybe this is another example of changing cultural norms.  

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. I give. You must be right. I thought perhaps something was missing from what we’ve heard all the other times. Fear not. I’ve been resoundingly put in my place. Or not. Never mind.

Um. If, let’s say for gee whiz sake, a Boy Scout was sexually abused by his SM (and technically others) at the ripe old age of age 10 in 1972. Just to pick a random scenario. Did that fella live through this mystical period of laissez faire attitudes toward child molestation? To this question, I mostly certain request the honor of your reply. A lot of people were “alive” in this timeframe. Some of us actually “lived through” it. Big difference.

I think you have proven my point.  You ask for a reply.  You say you are serious.  Then you respond with smart aleck remarks.  I can't have a serious conversation with you. 

14 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I am pretty sure that cultural norms of the time wasn't:

Hey did you hear about Joe down the street?  He raped the little Smith boy.  Oh yeah well lets make sure the police don't know about that!!

Please don't use my name in your hypothetical stories about rape.  I don't think it was coincidental, since you were responding to my post.  Using my name in that way is insulting and unscoutlike.

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’m seriously asking the question. I guess we revert back to the “different cultural norms of the day” argument?

No.  You are not seriously asking the question.  

Those of us who were around in those days know that the cultural norms of the day were different.  We lived through it.  We remember how it was.  

56 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

The tenor of questioning both a recounting in a widely circulated press outlet and by implication us, isn’t just a random assertion about faulty memory or impure motive. You put the stink on us, as well. 

Ironic.  Some people turned a blind eye to child sexual abuse in scouting because they feared that exposing these crimes would, by implication, tarnish the reputations of good scouters.  Now we are being told that we can't question the statements of anyone who claims to have been abused in scouting because exposing a few fraudulent claims might, by implication, subject those victims who were actually abused in scouting to false accusations of dishonesty.

No.  The stink is not on us.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I would go to any means to stop them. 

I know there are security people who will come in and sweep an area for electronic eavesdropping devices.  I've never been in a high security occupation that uses such services, so I am not knowledgeable about the particulars.  Do you happen to know about this stuff?  

How much means ($$$) would it take to stop them.

3 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Everyone would be well-served to become educated on the "spy cameras" and what to look for.  

I don't think so.  Not everyone needs to become an expert on counter-surveillance.  It sounds like more effort than I'm willing to put into it.

I know there are some really creepy people out there.  I see indications of it all the time.  Whenever I look up a celebrity on the internet,  I see a link to photos of them barefoot.  I'm not sure why some people are so intent on seeing other people barefoot.  I suspect it's a foot fetish thing.  Very strange.

I also don't understand this attitude about nudity.  There are billions of people in the world, and roughly half of them have the same anatomy.  There is nothing unique about human anatomy.

I think it's strange that some people are so obsessed with anatomy.  I also think it is strange that some people are so obsessed with concealing it.  I'm willing to go along with the normal codes of decency, but there is only so much effort I'm willing to make to thwart those who use extra-ordinary means to violate them.

1 hour ago, ShutterbugMom said:

I will also suggest they start trusting the kids with the phones according to the scout law.

You might check first to see if your Chartered Organization has a cell phone use policy.  

42 minutes ago, Oldscout448 said:

So yeah, I let my kids go to OA functions, Jamborees, Philmont, Provo summer camp... They came back tired, sunburned and more confident.

I am very glad to hear that your kids are OK.  Not everyone was so lucky.  Some were scarred for life.  

5 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

What is the point? Not everything in Scouts revolves around the unit. Not a unit activity, not the responsibility of the unit. 

If we have learned anything from the scandals and bankruptcy, it is that BSA cannot be depended upon to safeguard our kids.  The Chartered Organizations need to step up and take responsibility.  We can't rely on any other outside group to do it.  Safeguarding our kids is our responsibility.

6 hours ago, MattR said:

there's nothing inherently wrong with the rules.

I totally disagree.  The problem is the rules.  Stupid rules.

5 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

The CO doesn’t follow Scouts everywhere the go, nor are they responsible for them everywhere is unfounded.  To think they should is crazy and very controlling.

I don't like this 24/7 thing either, but this is the world we live in.  Recent events make it pretty clear that institutions are not immune from responsibility for actions that take place outside of their watch.  It is not so far-fetched to imagine that a CO might face problems as a result of OA elections. 

Instead of complaining about unit non-participation in OA elections, OA would do better by adjusting its rules to allow OA elections to take place without any unit or CO participation.  OA created this problem and OA can fix it.  

There is no need for OA members and unit scouters to clash over policies that OA could easily change.  This should not be my problem.  Take it to OA.

4 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

The CO has no authority, responsibility, or influence on these non unit Scout activities. 

Once again, you are making my point.  OA is not a unit activity.

7 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

Confused by this. So  if unit elections are out, how does a scout get into the Order?  

It is none of my business how OA chooses to elect its members so long as they leave my unit out of it. 

On 6/16/2021 at 8:47 AM, carebear3895 said:

Absolutely! I actually can't wait to get back into the green

Are we talking about $$$ here?  I'm sure it will be real nice to start out-earning the neighborhood kid who mows lawns in the summer.