packsaddle

Another option: I come to my senses and get out of politics.

I get what he's asking. I'm hoping that it was intended as humor (looking at that smiley thing). The problem is the word 'ideals', as if someone is advocating for certain selective pressures as some kind of ideal situation. Fact is, we've been resisting selective pressures throughout all of our history, or at least trying to control them.

Arlo Guthrie, where are you when we need you? Edit: I'm old, children long gone, and I'm ready to be part of 'group W'. "you can get anything you want...."

Never had this issue before but one way to approach this would be to invite one of his parents to take a leadership position. They will know far better than anyone else what might be harmful.

Looks like I'm back on the internet after all.

Thanks Merlyn, the world is insane. AZMike, right you are,

Those vanishing baby photos could be explained by zealous prosecutors who view them as kiddie porn. We took the photoschildren of our and show them to no one...mostly for that reason. But the ones of ME, I'm thinking of posting them on the internet to see if someone can be prosecuted for exploiting themself. To me the irony is that in this day of almost anything goes with regard to certain aspects of human sexuality, on the other hand we seem to have become even more prudish about other aspects.

When you offer that suggestion, get it on video...I'd like to see the reaction, lol. But my reaction would be, "been there, done that". Futbol, huh? The idea that you can't use hands to move the ball is almost as weird as American football. But I 'get' the 'religion' part. Where I am right now the 'religion' is cricket. The locals watch it with such passion and even after all these years I'm still clueless.

Sorry, here is the link: http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/410760-an-experiment-involving-atheists-buddhists-christians-jews-etc

I can't disagree with you. It's at this point that Ronald Reagan would be saying something like, "there you go again, Packsaddle" but the words of TheScout have rung true so many times, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together". And we demonstrate the truth of his statement in nearly every discussion of this type. I do understand that without provocation, there is less likelihood of or need for defensiveness.

Pack18Alex, Scouter99 and others, this is taking on characteristics that were not allowed in that experimental thread. I sense aggression and defensiveness in this discussion.

In some areas of the tropics the spectre of the candiru fish is enough to prevent 'skinny dipping'. In the South, I stopped it when I first learned about snapping turtles. A few years back we had some Russian visitors. When we visited the lake, I had only turned my attention elsewhere for a few minutes and when I turned back there they were, big hulking Russians stripped down and dashing into the lake. I guess they don't have snappers in Moscow. Or candiru fish.

Just to let you know...I'm thinking of applying the standards of decorum that were established for MattR's experimental topic recently...if this topic continues to be a discussion that would fit in a 'faith and chaplaincy' forum. Play nice.

Here's why they have been determined to be illegal in some places and not allowed by many organizaitons: "According to the Quality Control Systems Corporation, from “1982 through 2008, there have been 724 fatal rollovers of 15-passenger vans in which an occupant of the van was killed in the United States. These crashes killed 1,153 persons and injured an additional 1,957. More than six thousand persons have been involved in fatal rollovers as drivers or passengers in the vans, of whom only 305 were known to be uninjured in these crashes.†The Quality Control Systems Corporation's statistics were drawn from data from the 1982-2008 Fatality Analysis Reporting System database and “involved model year 1981-2008 vans manufactured by Ford, Dodge / DaimlerChrysler, and General Motors / Chevrolet.â€Â" from: http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/15-passenger-van-rollover-lawyer-attorney-lawsuit

Daped01, thanks for bringing it back to life instead of starting a new one. Interesting to see the names in that old discussion. At one time I thought our council was unique in their inability to keep accurate records. It's a hard lesson to learn that, of all people, you even can't trust the BSA council to keep records accurately. We learned this many years ago and we don't rely on anything outside of the unit, haven't for years. If BSA consolidated all our councils into one for this state it would be just fine with us. I once inquired as to the source of all the error and they responded that they had tremendous turnover in those clerical positions (low pay). So my thought is that if they got rid of some of that bloated, overpaid superstructure, they could afford to have better record keeping. I'm probably delusional about that though, lol.

Fred, the right thing to do might be hard but it is still the right thing to do, and BSA didn't. Hindsight is all we have when dealing with historical events. That and regret, if we didn't do the right thing. If you think that's cheap, that's your opinion.

Fine tobacco, tired fingers, and loose straps. 'Old' just doesn't quite say it sometimes.

Nothing over 12 passengers unless it is a real bus. Our CO has a bus that carries 16, I think, and that is ok. Caravans are not good. There is a greater risk of accidents, as I am told by my insurance guy, compared to driving individually. We never caravan.

Well stated, RememberSchiff.

OK, someone please explain how someone can be a secular humanist who believes in god.

In this state (and I have no idea how it works in others) if someone has a suspicion regarding a child, they can report that suspicion anonymously and there WILL be an investigation...by the police if necessary. No victim statement or complaint is needed to initiate this process. I agree with RememberSchiff.

I asked about the standard when Scouter99 invited NJ to go join BPSA simply because he expressed an opinion. In post 21, Scouter99 made his response all about NJ by starting with a complaint and following with various other statements including that 'agent' description. All in all, it was a fairly open attack on NJ. At least that's the way I see it. He didn't mention anyone in the parade which was the subject of the OP until the very end.

Sentinel, I think TwoCub understood how these things 'evolve' in these forums. The reason this went in the direction ti did, IMHO, is because TwoCub is a really nice guy and would like to see this bully improve and become more scoutlike. His request for assistance led some of the respondents to begin to question why so much attention was being paid to the bully, to the apparent neglect of the victim. The rest, as they say, is history. For the record, I finally untangled some of those plaques and OGE and I were united with respect to a related topic of hazing. Whether hazing or bullying, I have never understood why some get pleasure from inflicting discomfort or pain on others. If TwoCub can discover a way to get through to his problem scout, I hope he'll report to the rest of us so we can benefit from his experience as well.

Yes we are talking about members expressing opinions. NJ expressed an opinion and you invited him to join the BPSA. That is what I responded to with my question. Here's your response in part: "When it gets to the point that you want to ignore the rules and make ridiculous equivalencies to progress a political movement? Yes, I think it's probably best that one save himself the agony and find the organization he should have joined in the first place: One that shares his values, where he will be happy. You and are are discussing the very Super Moderator who shut down a thread because he doesn't like what people think about the heroes of his pet movement, is that where this forum is, pro-gay or shut up?" Aside from the subsequent ad hominem attack on NJ, it is clear that you objected to his opinion and invited him to join another organization. And now you're trying to shift your response to the gay pride marchers, which is not what I asked about and clearly not what you responded to originally. So I ask again, is this the standard that we apply now, that any member who expresses an opinion contrary to BSA policy is invited to leave? Really? I ask this because that is what you did. BTW, within the last week or so I shut down a thread and permanently banned a forum respondent. You may be unaware of this. The moderators have discussed actions like this and we have agreed to 'sign' any action like it and hopefully have input from other moderators as well. In the distant past, my dim memory is of one thread (I can't remember what it was about) being deleted by FScouter. I think that might have been before your time, I could be mistaken about all of the details it's been so long ago. But your diatribe attacking NJ had to have a response. You made a direct accusation and we have asked you to back it up with some evidence. Your inability to do that is evident. Edit: FYI the thread you referenced is still active if you'd like to respond.