Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yaworski

I find it interesting . . .

Recommended Posts

that Bob White, et al find it offensive that I don't consider most women Scouters to be "chicks" or otherwise sexually attractive to me. One would think that the touchy-feely generation would have applauded my enlightened attitude toward women.

 

Perhaps I should have proclaimed that I found the the hottest babes at Scouter training events and recommended that young men become Scouters to get dates.

 

Oh, the mixed messages that you guys send.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why I bother, but...

 

Yaworski, who exactly was it who critized you for saying "I don't consider most women Scouters to be "chicks" or otherwise sexually attractive to me"? Or any words to that effect? What day was the post? What time? I don't see it.

 

Here's what I did see: In the topic, "Talk About a Reversal of Fortune," eisely made a statement, "I don't care what the motivation was for the DE's taking woodbadge." We all (including you, Yaworski) knew what he meant. He meant it doesn't really matter whether a DE goes because he wants to or because his CE/SE told him to, as long as he goes. (Or she.) You then, with sarcasm hardly befitting the rather mundane subject of why DE's go to Wood Badge, said "So if he was there to pick up chicks, that's okay by you?" Eisely, quite reasonably, responded "Female scouters also take woodbadge training, although I personally don't think of them as chicks." If you thought that was a severe criticism, you are oversensitive. (Maybe you're really a sensitive liberal in disguise.) Then you made the post that I think set off BobWhite, which out of deference to him and others I will not quote. It contained an acronym which I have seen before, but only once and it was on this board, I believe, or perhaps the Scouting board on AOL. I don't get offended so easily as others, I just think it's stupid, and especially has no place in this type of forum, where a lot of people will be offended, and justifiably so. The acronym does contain our language's most famous swear-word used in a sexual way (as opposed to one of the many other meanings of the word, as in SNAFU or FUBAR.)

 

Obviously, BobWhite was primarily responding to that acronym and its meaning, along with the general tone and other vulgar language that you use in some of your posts, when he started his thread about you. I don't see any reference in Bob's post about your opinion regarding the appearance of female Scouters. I don't think he cares. I sure don't.

 

If there is another post that you think is relevant, please identify it. Or don't, I don't really care that much. But you talk about the "truth" so much, let's see if you know what it means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Joisey,

 

In his ramblings, Bob White took exception to my use of an acronym which is used to describe the attractiveness of women. He is offended by the word represented by the letter "F" in that acronym which is the same word the is represented by the "F" in SNAFU and FUBAR. No matter, what the context, that word is considered offensive but the acronyms are considered acceptable.

 

Perhaps, you and others would have been less offended if I had said, "There are few women at scout functions with whom I would like to engage in reproductive activities."

 

Nah, that's probably still offensive to you but I bet that few, if any, would be offended if a woman said, "the hiking instructor was broad of shoulder, narrow of hip. A regular stud muffin. Yum."

 

Classic double standard.

 

BTW, I'm wondering why you don't use your real name. Are you embarassed by it?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yaworski (notice I don't play games with your name):

 

You are a funny guy. You read into other peoples' posts whole paragraphs that are not there and are not even meant, while at the same time you complain that other people read into your posts things that you clearly do mean.

 

Without citing chapter and verse, I did not say I was offended by the statement in question. Most of your statements that I find offensive are insults directed at forum members. Also, I for one have no interest in who you would like to engage in reproductive activities with. (I think I need the triple-G, the Good Grammar Guys, to send out a towtruck on that one.)

 

As for why I do not use my real name, not that it's really any of your business, but what the hey. Other than the fact that it is sort of a tradition among many people online, I made a conscious decision when I joined this forum (as I have with other Scouting forums) that I wanted to keep my opinions separate from my real-life Scouting activities. I knew that I would be posting about controversial subjects, including, well, you know what. I do not discuss that subject with other leaders or parents in my son's Cub pack, and I did not particularly want some parent or kid reading this forum and having my opinions become a subject of discussion in my "real life." There is also an open question, which has been discussed in this forum, about what the BSA's "policy" is (or will become) regarding leaders who "publicly oppose" that other "policy." I am not interested in becoming the "test case." It's just not worth it. For me, Scouting is my son and his pack and eventually, his troop. This forum is just a diversion, and also a way that I might learn some information to help me be a better leader. (Not this thread, of course.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I wanted to keep my opinions separate from my real-life Scouting activities."

 

So what you are telling me is that you have no courage in your convictions. You want your real opinions to be unattributable to you so no one knows what you really think. Sound like you embody the principle of "a Scout is Brave."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yaworski: "So what you are telling me is that you have no courage in your convictions. You want your real opinions to be unattributable to you so no one knows what you really think. Sound like you embody the principle of "a Scout is Brave."

 

I haven't been posting much lately, but your comment here needs a comment. You jump on NJCubScouter for not using his real name, instead following a time-honored tradition of using an Internet nickname. Yet his member profile will identify him pretty well to those in his district, so he is clearly not hiding his identity. Unlike you, of course, Mr. "a scout is Brave." I don't see much bravery on your part. Let's see a full name and full information in your member profile, such as your district, council, and scout duties. And maybe the women in your district will then know how you consider them and rate them.

 

BTW, I use my real name, and my profile is detailed. Not bravery at all, but I find that by being open, I take care as to what I post, because anyone, including the scouts that I serve, may read what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments, BobRussell. I just want to point out that when you say people from my district could identify me from my profile, actually I tried to make my profile vague enough so that would probably not happen. All my profile says is that I am an Assistant Cubmaster somewhere in the Patriot's Path Council, which covers 4 counties and parts of others (in the most densely populated state in the country), that I used to be a Den Leader, and that I was a Boy Scout and held all the standard youth leadership positions.

 

That has to describe a couple hundred guys, right? A couple dozen at least? (Why does this sound like "Get Smart"? Is the next line, "Would you believe, 2 former unit commissioners in a row boat."?)(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let's see a full name and full information in your member profile, such as your district, council, and scout duties"

 

Touche. Mark Yaworski (www.yaworski.com), NCAC, Senaca, I have no duties except questioning authority.

 

 

However, I am known throughout internet communities by my last name. Not hiding behind a handle so no one will know that I don't like poofs in Scouting or that I do like poofs in Scouting or whatever I think that may or may not be PC. There aren't many Yaworskis in this country and only one owns yaworski.com

 

(This message has been edited by yaworski)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, many of us on the net assume a 'mon de guere' (sp). This is not that there is something to hide but we are not fortunate enough to have an unique name. This is a forum that allows us to express opinions and thoughts without (hopefully) causing direct, personal responses. Question authority please, but do it within acceptable (common) norms. Once opinions become a target for ridicule and abuse then the forum no longer becomes an open one and is then used by those who are 'acceptable'. And is therefore no use to anyone except the few.

 

Off the soap box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is not that there is something to hide but we are not fortunate enough to have an unique name."

 

Huh? Sorry, I don't buy it. You hide your identity so that if you express unpopular ideas in your home area, no one will know who you are. Pretty simple. It was otherwise, you'd be "Jim Smith of Frostbite Falls" and not "red feather."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, this "names" business is very simple. The rules of this forum allow a member to choose a user-name that either does or doesn't reveal his "real" identity.

 

I followed the rules.

 

I wonder, Yaworski, whether you follow the rules. Your use of the word "poofs" is a slur against a group of people, it just doesn't sound so offensive to us in the US because it is generally not in use here. You probably get some leeway from the forum moderator because of that. (If most of the people on this board were British or Australian, the result might be different.) If, however, you use this term in a Scout setting, there you are breaking the rules, in my opinion. The BSA excludes avowed gays, but (bless it's little heart) doesn't approve of calling them names.

 

Of course, that's probably not really relevant to you anyway; you told someone else that you have no Scouting "duties," which to me means you have no position anywhere in Scouting, since every Scouting position has some duties. Just so everybody is clear, that would mean you are not a Scouter at all.

 

Signed,

 

Chaim Abraham, ben David (my Hebrew name, the "last" name being my father's first.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right. Calling homosexuals "gay" is "calling them names." They are "homosexuals" and should only be called that. To call them "gay" implies that heterosexual people are unhappy.

 

As for the rules of the board about names, that really has nothing do with whether you're willing to stand behind what you've said. Is your "Hebrew name" the name that folks in your neighborhood call you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yaworski says:

 

You're absolutely right. Calling homosexuals "gay" is "calling them names." They are "homosexuals" and should only be called that. To call them "gay" implies that heterosexual people are unhappy.

 

I think you need to brush up on your lexicography. According to the online Webster's dictionary I just consulted, one of the meanings of "gay" is "homosexual." So "gay" is correct, regardless of whether any particular gay or straight person is happy or not.

 

I know, I know. You probably think the dictionary writer is a "poof."

 

As for the rules of the board about names, that really has nothing do with whether you're willing to stand behind what you've said.

 

I am. My name has nothing to do with it.

 

Is your "Hebrew name" the name that folks in your neighborhood call you?

 

I suspect that almost everybody else knew I was making a joke. If not, oh well, I'd better give up the idea of going into comedy as my third career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think you need to brush up on your lexicography. According to the online Webster's dictionary I just consulted, one of the meanings of "gay" is "homosexual." So "gay" is correct, regardless of whether any particular gay or straight person is happy or not."

 

The dictionary only reports usage, not correctness. If the HOMOsexuals of the world decided to call themselves "Cub Scouts" and the dictionary reported that, would that be correct?

 

I get the impression that you like HOMOsexuals and would be in favor of having one as Cubmaster.

 

"I suspect that almost everybody else knew I was making a joke"

 

Joke? I know many Africans that have an African name and a "Christian name." Many people in my church have a Baptism name that is different than their legal name. Why would a Hebrew name surprise me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scouters in my home area know who red feather is. In that respect I am 'unique'. I chose the name to ensure that those who I interact with in this area would know who I am. Don't really care or necessarily would want those outside the group of scouters that I respect and have worked with for the last 10 years (some longer) have all the particulars on me. Just as I do not want every organization and group have my life history as part of their database. As far as updating my profile , have been trying and have failed to do it properly for some reason. Would you go so far as to insist that I post my SSN to allow 'proper' background checks?

 

YIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×