NJ - This one is for you. Gay debate rages on...

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

You have nitpicked over the term "avowed" for months claiming that the BSA policy is ambiguous. You bring this argument to the forefront seemingly at every possible opportunity. I am simply pointing it out. If you think that impugns your reputation, then perhaps you should stop. By the way, private organizations are comprised of individuals. Individuals are entitled to their own opinions - even after they join an private organization. When these individuals are elected or appointed to leadership positions, they get to set policy. How did they get elected or appointed? I imagine its because they represent the values of their predecessors. It's just a guess, but I think its as sound as any conjecture that you've supplied.

 

As for most of what else you have written, there's not much there I really disagree with - at least in regard to any factual statements you may have made. It's your opinions that trail behind them that I find to be faulty in logic.

[packsaddle 753]

Rooster7,

A little more accuracy on your part would help. You accused NJCubScouter of nitpicking and claiming that the BSA policy is ambiguous. I just did a search of everything NJ has ever posted and I only found the term 'ambiguous' 7 times. None of them applied to statements relating to BSA's policy on gay membership. Only one of those occurrences related directly to BSA policy and in that he said that he thought that the policy was NOT ambiguous (Adults Smoking at Scouting Events).

 

You on the other hand had an interesting statement on the ambiguity of BSA policy. I quote from Rooster7 (2 March 2002),

"I submit, that frequently the BSA manuals use ambiguous terms such as "shouldn't" verses the more definitive "can't". "Can't" is a rule. "Shouldn't" is a recommendation. Scouters (on this board and elsewhere) have made declarations about BSA policy and/or rules that have not always been backed by the appropriate wording. This is why I used the phrase "perceived BSA policy" in my first post. In short, the policy or rule is not always straightforward. Furthermore, there seems to be a disproportional amount of condemnation for some "broken rules", especially since there very often seems to be some room for interpretation."

 

NJ is usually careful of what he writes. His logic (a concept you seem not to grasp) is impeccable. On the other hand, you seem not to care about accuracy or consistency.

You are willing to accuse another person, NJ for example, of claiming BSA policy is ambiguous (which he didn't) if their statements are not in support of your opinion. But at another time you refer to "perceived BSA policy" as not always straightforward, if you are trying to make your point.

I am thinking of a term for this.....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Rooster7 11]

Packsaddle,

 

I think you are unfairly mixing debates. Not all policies are written with the same kind of purpose - and subsequently, nor are they written with the same kind of clarity.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Packsaddle, thank you. You are a gentleman as always. And you are correct.

 

Hunt, you are correct also.