packsaddle

MattR, that one does look closer to my suggestion. Here's the thing about these surveys: if BSA is trying to find a pattern or trend in the responses then everyone should get the same set of survey questions. The one I got was different from all of the ones I've seen so far in this forum. From someone who is familiar with 'meta-analysis', the more variables that are introduced into the data being analyzed, the more difficult it is to have confidence in any resulting pattern or trend that 'appears' from the analysis. If these surveys vary from council to council or region to region and on top of that, as you suggest, the leaders get different ones from the parents.....there is little about this process that make sense to me.

Your post from earlier in the morning can be viewed by selecting the 'Latest Activity' button at the top of this page. I'm not sure how long it will remain available for view but I just found it there, ICAII.

I'm hoping the COR will support the current leadership and stand solid with you and the other leaders. The concerned parent is always free to make their own decision. But regardless, please keep us informed as to how this all plays out for you.

MattR, I have great respect for forum members so I take your arguments seriously. You're right, I was even a young campaigner for Barry Goldwater! In comparison, Perot was a comical afterthought, lol, even though I sympathized with his frustration with the Republican party. But I have seen so many committees, participated in so many retreats and brainstorming workshops and mindless planning sessions that I have a healthy contempt for weak leadership - and that is what seems to be painfully obvious in the high ranks of BSA, at least with respect to this decision. When weak leaders are unable to make a hard decision sometimes they try to run away from it by delaying or holding meetings to gauge opinion and impacts. It is a sign that they either don't have a solid set of principles or else they are afraid to stand up for them. Which of those is a good thing? IMHO, the survey is a time-wasting tactic in the hope that WE will make the decision so obvious for them that they 'have no choice' as a defense, regardless of how they eventually decide. NJCubscouter has often wished for people to just do the right thing. Weak leaders are afraid of the 'right thing' no matter what that happens to be, if they know they're going to 'take some heat' for it. I do give them credit, at least, for not creating a new form to fill out. Thanks for that!

Question 1: Would you rather membership to be determined at the national level? Question 2: Would you rather membership to be determined by your unit and CO? That's simpler and more direct. The fact that the survey asks all that other stuff seems to indicate that 'they' want to shirk responsibility and 'blame' someone else for the eventual decision under the disguise of trying to gain a deeper understanding of what the membership is thinking. Do you think their survey creates greater clarity for someone? If so, please explain. As Ross Perot says, "I'm all ears".

Well, that is a different survey from the one I responded to. That is a short list of 'situational ethics' scenarios and I'm at a loss as to what general principles BSA is supposed to derive from the 'consensus' responses. This is an example of how uncreative and thoughtless a committee can be (I might also mention cowardly). They really hope that the lack of clarity they themselves have within the BSA leadership will somehow become clarified if they just pose the right scenarios so that everyone can see the clear truth the same way. Good luck with that.

The survey for this council consisted of only a couple of questions. I hope it was the same one to which others responded. I have to admit...it did seem like BSA is hoping against hope that this corner they've painted themselves into will suddenly turn into green pastures of membership harmony and agreement. It smacks of weak leadership. Or I guess I could be reading into it my own critical view of the leadership.

The 'ghost in the machine'? I'm going to be a bit worried when the site puts random characters together to form an image of Merlyn's avatar, lol.

'Grasping at straws' is the phrase that comes to mind.

Merlyn, I was told that Terry's still working on 'bugs' which, as seems painfully obvious, are numerous in the new site. I'm not sure how long it will take.

Scouter-Terry has been working on fixing bugs in the website...really since the new site came up. I suspect it's taking longer than he expected. Just try to keep some patience on hand. That's what I'm doing anyway - 'cause I sure know this stuff is way out of my field.

Look out world! Collision on the way soon. A picture is worth a thousand words. Dogs and cats sleeping together1: http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/f/2/collegehumor.7a3fb2df3a5f247cde9ad712fb95b8cb.jpg Dogs and cats sleeping together2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wwat1efmj88/T9R3Kzh3lQI/AAAAAAABRqk/Q3SqWbYxvPI/s1600/Dogs+And+Cats+Napping+Together+(1).jpg

IT would sure be nice to actually QUOTE someone when you use quotation marks.

Sentinel947, I'm not sure how the pain will be allocated. But I will ask our ROTC people here and let you know how they reply. I'm thinking it should work the same for you. Answer to my question: Congressional pay and Presidential pay are NOT AFFECTED by the sequester. They won't feel a thing.

I thought I'd bring this old chestnut back to life since the Tea Party has succeeded in confirming my prediction that their plan was NOT to have a plan and was rather merely to let the sequester take hold. The whole thing was supposed to be so awful that it would provide incentive to compromise and govern. Wrong again. Does anyone know how much Congressional pay will be cut as a result? I have plenty of old friends in the federal system who are going to be hurt badly as a result. As much as I enjoyed the work, the people I worked with, and the command structure of the Army, I count myself lucky to have had the opportunity to leave that workplace and enter the dreamworld of academia. I understand that at least one forum member is in the federal system and others are dependent through contracts. How is all of this going to affect you?

Peregrinator, have you ever heard of evmori, a forum member who used to post fairly often?

DUhhhhhh Tried that in several Forums I get a Pop Up Says....You are not Authorized So anyone have any Idea why I can not start a topic any forum anymore? It just worked for me. Did you try holding your mouth like this?

But I have to credit him with at least being honest about it.

"...the Methodists; a somewhat liberal (at least in recent times) religious body." Heh, heh, a Baptist minister once informed me that a Methodist is merely a Baptist who can read. I asked him how that one went over from the pulpit? He just laughed and laughed.

We might fight and fuss over nearly everything else but this is something that OGE and I seem to be in complete agreement on. Teasing between the boys themselves is not good but between an adult and a boy it is, I think, just plain wrong. I think it's destructive among the boys as well. The only time I think it's ok to tease, is between two individuals who are close enough to know each other very, very well (like between me and my daughter). And even then there are lines that the two of us don't cross - we know each other well enough to understand what those are. But between an adult and a boy, sorry, that's out of line. Period.

acco40, you're spoiling their fun...bringing in facts like that. Let them play.

That thing is a the shadow of a backpacker on the trail in the Spanish Peaks Wilderness of Montana. About two weeks out. It is my silhouette against the trail. The first snow had already fallen but that afternoon was warm so I had draped my jacket over the pack frame which explains the shape.

Krampus, first of all, a 'non-profit' isn't necessarily something to which contributions are deductible. They are merely non-profit. If they do happen to have a status that allows contributions to them to be deductible, they are accepting a subsidy from ALL of us who pay taxes. They should not. If their charitable actions have sufficient merit, then those of us who would pay less tax will step up and contribute more, since we will have more disposable income. Churches, for example, consume public services such as infrastructure, fire protection, etc. They should support those the same as the rest of us. If they can't operate their programs efficiently enough to survive with the added tax burden like the rest of us, they shouldn't survive, same as the rest of us. If their members are sufficiently charitable, they won't let that happen, If not, then that's fate.

ghst, to begin withl, that 'problem' is speculative. It is just as likely that IF there is some such controversy, it will be focused on that particular CO and NOT the rest of us. It's their problem, not BSA's. Local option, local responsibility.

I would welcome an end to ALL tax dodges, no matter what or who they benefit and the entire current tax code, to be replaced by the Fair Tax. That would level the field and give the maximum 'local option' to every individual. If the tax advantage is the margin which causes a person to choose to do good charitable things for others, then I have to question the depth of their commitment to those things.