acco40 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 packsaddle, I agree with most of your post, and that reminds me ... A priest and an atheist were on a fishing trip together. After awhile the atheist gets a nibble and then a huge jerk on the line from a whopper of a fish that pulls him into the water. The atheist thrashes around and screams to the priest, "Help, I can't swim. Save me!" The priest answers, "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" (This is an old joke. I guess I could modernize it with Holy Spirit.) The atheist goes under but bobs back up and upon hearing the priest states, "Please, just save me, save me!" The priest again answers his cries for help with, "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" The atheist mutters, "Maybe I do. Help. Save me, save me!" And lunges for the boat. The priest picks up the oars and rows the boat away from the atheist's reach and agains states, "Do you believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" At this the atheist finally announces, "I do, I do!" The priest then calmly rows the boat away and says, "You're saved." Regardless of what many feel about the religious and sexual orientation issues with the BSA. It provides an outstanding program for our nation's youth. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water Merlyn.(This message has been edited by acco40) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 Ed mori: merlyn, in your one post you state "the KKK legally discriminates, yet it would be just as legal for them to use a HUD grant to solicit membership in THEIR club." Why is this legal & the BSA use of the same funds illegal? I said "it would be JUST AS LEGAL" (as the BSA's use of a HUD grant). If the BSA (a private, discriminatory club) can use a HUD grant to solicit membership in their club, so can the KKK, as they are another private, discriminatory club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Just I follow up. Bob White wrote to Merlyn "You have shown you have little to no knowledge of our mission, aims and methods and you have shown an alarming lack of knowledge on the volunteer and professional structure of the organization." Merlyn responded "Where? What, exactly, have I posted that shows this?" In October 2002 in a thread about an atiest scouter who had his membership removed, Merlyn repeatedly referenced a high ranking spokesman for the BSA. As the thread progressed it turned out he was refering to a local volunteer named Glen Scmidt. Glen is a District Chairman, not high ranking, there are about a thousand District executives in the country. Glen is not a BSA spokesman, he is not even a BSA professional and he has no authority to speak for the BSA. Merlyn also speaks of a District Commissioner Chair, and there is no such position. Point made. BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 8, 2003 Author Share Posted February 8, 2003 Bob White: In October 2002 in a thread about an atiest scouter who had his membership removed, Merlyn repeatedly referenced a high ranking spokesman for the BSA. As the thread progressed it turned out he was refering to a local volunteer named Glen Scmidt. Uh, no. My first mention was here: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=19496&p=4 Where I wrote this: "Anybody that doesn't believe in god isn't a good citizen, and that if an atheist found a wallet on the ground they would pick it up, plunder the money and throw the wallet back on the ground." --Glen Schmidt, Chief Seattle Dist. Comm. Chair You'll note I identified him by name immediately, it didn't "become known" later in the thread, as you claim. Glen is a District Chairman, not high ranking, there are about a thousand District executives in the country. That seems to be a difference of opinion on what "high ranking" means; there are hundreds of members of the House, but I'd still say each member is a high ranking government official. Glen is not a BSA spokesman, And I don't see where I called him a BSA spokesman; I know the BSA's official spokesman has been Gregg Shields for many years. he is not even a BSA professional and he has no authority to speak for the BSA. And I didn't say he was officially speaking for the BSA; I used him as an example of BSA bigotry against atheists. Merlyn also speaks of a District Commissioner Chair, and there is no such position. I said that once or twice, mistakenly expanding the "comm." abbreviation to "commissioner" instead of "committee". And if you're still worried about me "wasting" my time here, don't worry, I've been keeping very busy lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Merlyn, you wrote RE: Atheist leader to be expelled from BSA Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2002: 12:37:36 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And didn't you question how Schmidt got to be a high-ranking BSA official with such an opinion?" Yet on 2/8 you write "That seems to be a difference of opinion on what "high ranking" means; there are hundreds of members of the House, but I'd still say each member is a high ranking government official." A congress is a high ranking government official, a District Committee Chair is not a high ranking BSA official. He or she is not even a BSA official. They are a local community volunteer. My point being it might help to take the time to better understand who and what you are fighting against. BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 BW, I just did a search for the string "spokes" and only found the most recent entries in this string, for ML, where he's using it in response to your recent entries - can you direct me to the specific original entry where he mis-attributes spokespersonhood? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 sure littlebillie, it's in the text of my last post. There are several pages to the thread. BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 BW, sorry, I still don't find where M_L says that he's a spokesman or spokesperson or spokes anything. I'm really trying to be fair to everyone, so if it the comment in question was in fact originally attributed to a "spokesperson", it sets a certain stage, and that's one thing, but if the spokesmanship was added after the fact, that's quite another. regardless, it is the unguarded comment that frequently is our only true measure of many of those in the public eye. 'Heimie town' comes to mind, for example, and much of the recently released Nixon tapes as well - examples abound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Merlyn staes that the individual is a high ranking BSA official, and uses his quotes as the views of the BSA. Schmidt is not a high ranking official, he is not spokesperson for the policies and views of BSA, and his training methods and opinions were his own not the BSA's. The things Schmidt said do not even appear in BSA leader training. Merlyn however did not represent Schmidt as one volunteers opinion, he represented him incorrectly as a representative for the BSA. My point in all this being Merlyn has little understanding of a program he seems to hold great hostility towards. I believe my dealings on the board with Merlyn have been far more fair and balanced than Merlyn's approach to the BSA program. Just one person's opinion. BW (This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 10, 2003 Author Share Posted February 10, 2003 Merlyn however did not represent Schmidt as one volunteers opinion, he represented him incorrectly as a representative for the BSA. I most certainly did not. I clearly stated (from the OUTSET, not later as you falsely claimed) WHO I was quoting, and pointed him out as an example of the kind of bigotry found in the BSA. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization when it has members like yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Merlyn, We see it differently you and I. I wonder if the funding would bother you as much if we allowed you to be a member? How much of your hostility is born of citizenship and how much is anger you brought on yourself from making a choice to reject the rules of the game and then being mad because you aren't allowed to play. I personally have difficulty accepting abortion as a version of birth control. I am not happy that my government funds it. But that is the law. Although I don't like the law, I don't judge, punish, or chastise the people who agree with it or have abortions. Why, because that is not my responsibility, I leave that to a higher authority, one that you don't believe exists. So since you do not accept the higher authority, you take on the responsibility to judge, punish and chastise the people with whom you disagree. That's a lot of hostility to carry. Ever wonder why the BSA doesn't think you should teaching children? We will have to agree to disagree here Merlyn. You see nothing positive the BSA has to offer, and I see nothing positive that you choose to offer. BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 How much of your hostility is born of citizenship and how much is anger you brought on yourself from making a choice to reject the rules of the game and then being mad because you aren't allowed to play. If you'll bother to notice (which I doubt), I've been talking about the Boy Scouts' unethical practices of getting public funding for their supposedly "private, discriminatory" club, as illustrated by the Old Baldy lawsuit. The BSA doesn't seem to want to "play" by the government's rules on HUD grants. That's a lot of hostility to carry. Ever wonder why the BSA doesn't think you should teaching children? Solely due to my religious views, just as a white supremacist wouldn't want a Jew teaching his children. If a Jew got angry at that attitude, I suppose you'd brush HIM off as having "a lot of hostility" and say it's no wonder those white supremacists don't want those nasty Jews teaching their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 "If you'll bother to notice (which I doubt), I've been talking about the Boy Scouts' unethical practices of getting public funding for their supposedly "private, discriminatory" club, as illustrated by the Old Baldy lawsuit. The BSA doesn't seem to want to "play" by the government's rules on HUD grants. This is still just a personal opinion and has not been determined to be true by a court of law. You seem stuck on treating accusations as fact. The only fact so far is that they have been accused of wrong doing, it has yet to be proven that they did anything wrong. You have a nice rant going it's just a little premature. I think most of us are willing to leave it in the hands of a real judge, and if there has been mistake made I'm sure that the BSA will accept whatever penalty is handed down and continue their mission for youth. If the charges are false, then I'm sure you will continue to rant and the BSA will continue its mission for youth. Your comparison of the Scouting organization and it's volunteers to white supremists exemplifies your total lack of knowledge about this organization and what it does. Anger has a way of distorting one's vision I suppose. Best of luck in your continuing litigations, Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutParent Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 People in a free country have the right to have private clubs and should have the right to include in its membership those it wants to...period. I see nothing wrong with men having their own clubs or with people of similiar moral beliefs having a club. Atheists do not fit into the membership requirements of this group...so what...make a club for atheists and apply for government funding. Don't destroy this one make your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Your comparison of the Scouting organization and it's volunteers to white supremists exemplifies your total lack of knowledge about this organization and what it does. No, it exemplifies your total lack of comprehension on what an "analogy" is, and what it's for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now