fred8033

I hate typos in my own writing.

Minor argument that is negotiable. One scout on a campout could be a patrol. We can all agree a patrol is a patrol. Regrouping into adhoc patrols or doing doing things at the troop level subverts the patrol system. When forming long-term patrols at troop meetings, two patrols is not good. Ideally, seven scouts is a good patrol size. ... BUT if on the campout, only one scout from that patrol goes on the campout, then that scout should be given the option to cook by themselves.

Liberal is in the eyes of the beholder. I mainly use it as humor. Political terms are assigned by the observer. My more old-fashioned friends call me a liberal. My new-age friends call me a conservative. I'm pretty sure I'm the same person; just not a simple label.

Ok. So we are raising moderator awareness for something that has not happened as part of silencing those who have different views? And raising red flags about in-person issues that have not happened? This whole discussion has devolved into nonsense.

... Ignoring the past ... 10 yeas ago it was clear what was plain wrong and members would have been silenced. ... Misrepresenting the complaint. ... I see no one advocating taking "actionable" steps against youth anywhere in this forum. We support all scouts and do it with a smile and friendship. Individuals people are not a policy issue. ... Changing the advocated request ... So is the action requested blocking discussion on this forum or blocking people taking actions that I've yet to see people say is happening. Earlier in this forum there was discussion of whether moderators should silence certain posters on this topic.

Scouting is fundamentally about being a member of society. Civil discourse. Acting as part of a community. Discussion is core to scouting. That's not correct. This forum debated membership changes for as long as I've been a member. Both sides have been debated. At least a decade if not 15+ years. Ahhh. The value in one person's eyes justifies their crimes. The ends justify the means. So, it's okay for them to violate the Scout Law because they "believe" their beliefs justify breaking the agreement they signed when they agreed to be scout leaders? ... But, then the policies change and the original advocates now expect purging people who disagree? This is the hypocrisy. As scouters working with scouts, we support all scouts with a smile and friendship. Keep politics out of doing scouting. As for this forum and other public discussion, it's just wrong to silence people. It's just wrong.

Agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities doesn't mean silencing discussion and alternative thoughts. Aren't you advocating for a position that would have prevented BSA from ever moving toward including girls and other orientations 10 years ago? Silencing those leaders and those discussions would have shut down the policy changes. ... This really feels like hypocrisy.

Yeah. Either this is out there stretching the argument or I've missed some fundamental militant issue. Women and girls have been part of scouting for decades. I've never seen an issue or heard of such.

Disposing of those you disagree is wrong. Some call it censorship. I call it a form of sin. People are no more disposable for their beliefs than their sexual orientation. We all need to work together. I've always thought it should be obvious that there is a clear difference between forums like this where we discuss and exist for discussion. In-person working with youth and new leaders is different. That should be completely obvious. ... We as scouters should support all SCOUTS; period. I've seen that happen over and over again even when we disagree or question the situation. ... Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting. We don't purge people because of beliefs.

Not that rare. It happens. District boundaries are not a law or contract. It's just to simplify grouping of units and to balance numbers. If your unit fits better for one of many reasons in another district, work to advocate being in that district. Get the unit assigned to that district. Flexibility - Even if you can't get your unit reassigned to that district, you can still attend roundtable and often even events in the other district. It's all about what works best. For example, all your friends might attend in the other district. Or the other district's roundtable or events conflict with standing troop date commitments. Then, attending the other district might work better long term. Challenges - If not formally assigned to the desired district, your paperwork goes to the other district. Example, advancement and awards would go to the other district.

I really don't understand where these extremist comments are coming from? It's out there. ... Society has been debating major topics for decades and will continue to do so. The "who can hit who and for what" is mid-evil. I pray that's not the frame of mind brought to this forum. ... The topics now are balanced funding for both Women's Studies and Men's Studies departments. Inclusion of women on men's sports teams and inclusion of men on women's sports teams. Mandatory paternal parental leave. Bring your son to work day. Why are more women graduating college than men? ... There is gender discrimination, but it goes both ways. It's a real topic. I just don't think it's a healthy discussion for inside a troop. ... We should be treating each other well. .... Beyond that, I'd rather see scouts spending their time sharpening a stick to cook a hot dog over a fire.

I agree with BSA's membership policies and I support them. If anything, I wish BSA's membership policies would go further. But I agree with your other points and I respect your opinion. Thank you. It's the right way to approach this.

I mostly agree. My fear is BSA does the best when it focuses on adventure and skills. Everything else is about natural learning. BSA sucks when it tries to force what should be naturally learned. Society is debating these bigger topics. I disagree with "start having the conversations", "promote education ... on gender equality" and "empower men and boys ... on gender equality". I fully believe in "creating a safe space" and "build the culture". I believe we can do that very effectively. The trouble with the first is that society is having huge debates still on these topics. If you have conversations, you better be ready to listen to others that don't believe as you believe. If you shut down people that have differing opinions, then you are not having a "conversation". If you promote, you better get ready to receive push back. We do the best by modeling the right behavior. Create the safe spaces. Build the right culture. Be kind to all. Teach everyone. Introduce everyone to adventure. I believe we can do that making BSA a natural part of social change. That's how BSA will be most effective. ... Leave the ugly debates to the rest of society. Let's focus on teaching (all) scouts how to keep the inside of their tent dry and how to paddle a canoe.

In my view, this is just not controversial anymore. The world changed a long time ago. BSA also changed; just some pretend it hasn't. We've had female scoutmasters, female summer camp staff and female professional scouters for decades. Now, we pretend to have separate boys and girls troops, but most interact regularly. They definitely interact at district / council functions. ... We are way past BSA is a boys only club. If boys-only troop wants to exist, more power to them. Go for it. If boys only patrols want to exist, fine. ... I fear a hard single-gender patrols a rule will just be circumvented just like the current separate boy troop and girl troops that are really interacting together. Scouting is about adventure, skills, fun with benefits for leadership, independence, responsibility, etc, etc. ... I do not see gender as a deal breaker.

@InquisitiveScouter ... Trademark is only if we are confusing consumers to our sales advantage. We are not selling. It's like buying a Volkswagen for your own use and putting a Jaguar emblem on it. It's my car and my choice. Probably tacky to put a Jaguar emblem on VW bug, but not a trademark infringement. Definitely not aN ethical issue. ... BUT ... If we work as a middle man and then sell the shirts to others, then it is a trademark issue. Also, it does not have to be an exact match. Different font? Slightly different wording? Does it even really need the BSA emblem there? IMHO, if it's clean and neat, I'm happy. BSA has captive customers. The pricing reflects that. Prices are too high because overhead cost for the shops is high and the volume is too low.

A Scout is thrifty. $19 versus $49. I would be hugely tempted. Looks slightly different, but just minor. The biggest issue is it does not have the red stitched BSA on the shirt. Is that bad? IMHO, I bet I could find a mom with a sewing machine that can automatically add the emblem after the fact for cheap; or free within the unit.

Yeah. There is nothing healing in this process. Whether you believe BSA was at fault or you believe BSA was trying to do more than other organizations at the time, the fact is this process is damaging to many. I really doubt lawsuits litigating incidents from 20+ years ago. 30+ years? 40+ years? Society and laws and expectations have changed so so much. The only lives changed are in the law firms and the insurance companies.

Demeaning and bullying is inferring that the many who have not heard of the term are somehow less or old or uneducated or an isolated religious sect. You can discuss the term without being mean. ... That's me being an upstander. The term was rarely used in society before the last few years. I've taken years of classes thru business, college and post-graduate work. My kids just graduated a major school system a few years ago. I am very well educated. ... The fact is the term was rarely used until recently. It's why I strongly assert it's strongly connected with a political agenda.

You asked ... What do you disagree with in Citz in Society MB? Requirement #1 ... Defining terms Terms are loaded for specific political views and objectives. Equity versus Equality is a difference that not everyone agrees with. Upstander is a made up woke term. Let's pull in conservative terms to balance the debate. Focusing on "Identities" leads naturally to "Identity Politics" which is something both the far left and the right reject. Marxist and Socialist groups criticize as it's divisional. Conservative criticize because it's prejudicial. Requirement #2 & #3 & #4 ... Leadership and ethical decision making and ... Isn't this all of scouting? How to be a leader? How to be kind? How to be considerate? Why is this reduced to a specific badge. It should be everywhere in scouting. Requirement #6 ... Wow. In my past, that would have been reaching out to a Lutheran or a Democrat. Is that enough? Perhaps we should require those from non-military families to interview those in the military to understand why they choose to serve? ... Or do we just want shallow skin deep definitions? ... At some point, we are all different than each other in some way. Requirement #7 onward ... just too much to pick apart. Effectively ... these are setup to burn a specific political view into the youth. Perhaps I'd be okay with Citz in Society if we balance the politics in others badges. Perhaps Citizen in the Nation ... New requirement ... Find the current price of a gallon of gas and break that cost apart into various piece parts. Direct state and federal gas taxes. Sales tax for the car receiving the gas. Annual license plate cost for that car. ... Taxes for the piece of land the gas station sits on. Employment taxes for the people working at the gas station. Deed transfer taxes for when the gas station bought the land. Inspection fees for building the building. .... Permit fees to build the building ... Identify all the taxes involved for the local gas station to sell a gallon of gas. Citz in the Society has some good parts that should be included in other badges. Beyond that, Citizen in the Society is teaching a specific political view that just pushes me and mine away.

100% agree. BSA requirement is for the scout to have the skill to advance. There is no requirement for the scout to be instructed. Heck, an ideal scout owns their own skill development by reading or learning thru any method they can. Is your process egregious? No. Will it be a huge red flag? No. ... It escalates as an issue when scout / troop conflict exists. I saw this every year. Scouts would escalate advancement issues to the Council Advancement Committee requesting approval to pursue Eagle beyond age 18 because the troop delayed the scout with extra hoops that added weeks / months of delay. ... I don't know if it would happen to your troop, but it does happen to other troops. ... A good CAC would can find in favor of the scout giving the scout a few months to six months because the troop did not do right by the scout.

From my experience, the right person can fix blockers / obstacles within a very short time.

Your statement is so true in so many ways. The legal process adds damage for everyone. It's hard to watch. Worse, many attorneys and their firms have already been paid tens of millions in this case. Now, it could start over. Bankruptcy cost so far well over $100 million ??? Wishing you the best thru all this.

So, 8,400 voted no and are being forced into a settlement that releases all 3rd party liability. ... It's always a few that protect the rights of many. So, it may be only two lawyers, but it's not that clear cut. ... There is always the question of whether the 60,000 voters are real or part of the massive infomercial victim expansion. It's best for BSA if this moves forward and the bankruptcy is done. On the flip side, 3rd party releases is questionable. I'd personally rather not see it exist. It allows for these massive cases that pervert the courts.

Does that include the previous invoiced and paid expenses thru the bankruptcy court proceedings over the last several years that is probably outside the 2.4 billion settlement? Other administrative costs of the settlement administrators? 1 billion of 2.4 billion is about 42%. I'm betting if everything is factored in, it is really significantly higher.

Just a note ... The SM would be the quality controller for the overall process used by the unit, but the specific facts for an individual scout. For an individual scout, the SM would only see the completed advancement records during the SMC. SMC is not pass / fail. Just acknowledgement the SMC happened. So, all requirements are signed. It would be inappropriate for a SM to block a specific scout or for the SM to say a signature is invalid. Perhaps, the BOR could inject and say a requirement was not really completed; i.e. a PLC signature is invalid. But, it's not the place of a SM during SMC to quality control an individual scout.