evmori

Always Go West!

We can beat this up all we want. I think what it comes down to is priorities. The BOR wants the Scout in full uniform or they won't even hold the BOR. That is flat out wrong and their priorities are in the wrong place. A BOR isn't about what a Scout looks like. It's about who he is. He could look like a million bucks and be the biggest moron on the planet!

You've got to be kidding me! A horseback ride is exactly what it says it is - riding on the back of a horse! Duh!

Thumbs up! And yeah sherm I do enjoy a good argument! You got a problem with that?

Well if this is about that global warming conspiracy then I'm out! I don't participate in conspiracies!

What does AGW stand for? Another Goofy WEBELOS?

It seems that we've beat this one to death in previous threads. but I have a slightly different question. What is wrong with the EXPECTATION that a Scout (or Scouter) who is known to own a uniform should wear it, properly, to a BOR? It seems to me to be no different than the EXPECTATION that a job applicant show up to an interview dressed professionally. We do tend to beat this one to death but to refuse to hold any BOR because the Scout doesn't show up in uniform is just wrong. I agree he should wear his uniform if possible but what if shows up in a suit & tie? Of even nice casual clothes? Until the uniform is required by the BSA, send a Scout packing from a BOR because he didn't show up in his uniform is adding to the requirements and wrong.

I always wear my uniform when I sit on any BOR. Let's not forget, there is no requirement for the Eagle candidate or any other person involved in an EBOR to wear the uniform. Requiring one is adding to the requirements.

OK Every 4 years. That way no one gets missed. Showing it every year diminishes the effect it will have and could possible turn it into a joke.

I know it's not about the birds & bees NJ. The "Time to Tell" video is decent but showing it more than every 5 years is pointless.

Should it be made mandatory for each unit to show the video on a regular, say annual, basis? I don't think it would be a bad idea. I also think the video should be shown to the parents first so they can excuse their child if they wish. I also don't think it's going to become mandatory. And how about this: Mandatory YP training (the adult course) for all parents? Not going to happen either, but something to think about.) YP is very important. But I don't feel it is our or the BSA's job to tell boys about the birds and the bees. That is the parents job. Showing the video is more of a CYA maneuver than anything else.

The only way we will know the outcome is if it is favorable. I doubt if anyone will post the negative outcome.

Yup. No sex with kids. I don't think discussing this is up to the unit leaders. That's the parents job whether they want to do it or not. It really amazes me how parents want to blame everything that happens to their kid on someone else!

This is a web forum, not a court. No one is obligated to post anything here. The original poster owes us nothing. And Ed, two days ago you were certain this was all a scam! No, Lisa, the original poster doesn't owe us anything. But letting us know what happened is just common courtesy which is something that seems to be lost today. And I still think it's a scam until proved otherwise.

Actually, Lisa, what Scoutfish posted is very realistic. It just might no seem practical to you. The behavior you mentioned needs to be stopped and it is up to the adults to stop it. This is way past letting the PLC handle it. Time for a new beginning.

Well, Eagle732, as I posted before, this isn't just a matter of making sure all the requirements are checked off. I's bet mdsummer's little Johnny did something he shouldn't have & got caught. Why do I say this? Because this has been going on for over a year and National has had this on appeal way to long to just be making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. And since you know this SM, Eagle732, you should be able to lend a little insight into what is actually going on because I don't think we have even half of the facts.

Ahh! Active! Big difference from Scout Spirit. And like I posted in a previous post, if this was just a matter of active, this appeal would have taken less than a week. There is something else going on here that is a lot more serious than being active.

The laws are different in each state concerning sodomy. For this particular charge it appears they chose an ordinance to hang on this guy that had a level of specificity. He alledgedly do not simply touch or molest a child, but possibly engaged in a specific sex act. We often see "sodomy" (which I think in some states is defined as anal and/or oral sex) attached to charges of rape as well. No, the sex-police don't check to see what hetro or homo couples are doing in the privacy of their own homes. I'm not sure what your point is, WAKWIB, but it appears you didn't read the entire story. This individual admitted to engaging in sex with underage boys and videotaped it! Sounds like a total perv to me! The boys in jail will like him!

Who was she supposed to turn to for help, her Troop Committee that enforces a Troop rule that in order to show Scout Spirit a Scout must have X % of attendance at Troop meetings and Y % of attendance at Troop outings? Her DAC, who would given the appeal? Her DC, who has more than a passing relationship with her SM and who eventually chaired the District appeal? Tell me who she was supposed to turn to? ljnrsu, You know for an absolute fact this is the way midsummer45's sons Troop operates? You know this how? If I'm not mistaken, midsummer45 is located in the Maryland area and you are in northern Jersey.

Fully investigate all the details? What that tells me this is way more to this than we were led to believe by midsummer45. And if it is taking this long, this isn't just a matter of having all the check marks in the correct place.

I will apologize once all the facts are out and it is proven this is a sham! I don't think we will ever know all the facts. 1234567 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Not a criticism ... just pointing out that YP rules still apply to a SMC. Yes they do! I and I would bet YP was not violated.

I always thought "State of the Art Equipment" was this is really pricey stuff but no one knows if it really works.

Buffalo Skipper, Gotta remember that he is not required to bring anything to a SMC. And let us not forget this is a "participate" requirement not a "pass/fail" requirement.

Sounds like these guys are just your typical bullies who have gotten their own way and will continue until they are stopped! I agree the adults should be handling this one and it should be "this is the last straw" approach. One more time & they are history. If you lose adults leaders because of this then maybe they aren't the ones you want in the 1st place.