Beavah

Yah, I was goin' to go back and edit what I wrote to include Gunny's point, but now I'll just ditto him. War is da last resort, so if yeh get to that point yeh are in it to win it. Yeh know what victory is, victory is somethin' that will genuinely solve da problem, and yeh are committed to doin' what it takes to get there. Beavah

If Obama was NOT trying to divert blame for attacks on our embassies to a video, why did he bring it up so often before the UN? Yah, I dunno. Maybe because protectin' embassies is a very current issue, where our national interest aligns with international law and da UN Charter and it was da perfect place to highlight to the world an example of how extremist Islam is an enemy shared by all civilized people? So JoeBob, do yeh think America is to blame for the attacks on our embassies? I'm just not seein' where "blame" comes into it at all, eh? ------ Sentinel947, CalicoPenn pegged me about right, eh? I'm what used to be called a conservative, back when bein' conservative was identified with wisdom and intelligence. I'd never call myself a liberal, but it's true that some of da modern pseudo-conservatives might call me that because, yeh know, I believe in science and in makin' sure our grandchildren have da same woods to hike in that I did. Used to be that was what conservative meant. I'm not an interventionist, and I'm opposed to obtuse exercises in nation-building. Part of that is that I also don't believe da U.S. has to cozy up to dictators because we're scared of communists or Islamists or any other -ists. I was delighted when da Tunisians took out their dictator on their own. I think all freedom-lovin' people should be proud when a nation like Egypt throws off a dictator who has ruled by emergency decree for 30 years and is tryin' to replace him with a legitimately representative democracy. I'm as proud of da young folks fightin' against tyranny on da streets of Homs as I am proud of da young folks who stood against tyranny at Lexington and Concord. Da U.S. should be a friend to those who seek liberty. That doesn't mean that we intervene, eh? There is measure to which da tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots, not by outside powers. I reckon it does mean that we offer at least our moral and diplomatic support, and perhaps, under limited circumstances, other support when requested. I reckon, after all, that we do owe a debt to da French when they intervened at Yorktown. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... In self defense. In defense of others. When authorized by Congress. When no better alternatives exist. When a tax to pay for the war and provide for the long-term care of soldiers and their families is passed so that we share a common sacrifice and burden. When da children and grandchildren of Congressmen serve in equal proportion to da children of the poor. When da war is prosecuted justly and with honor. And (preferably) when da politicians stay out of military strategy. Beavah

Sure sounds like Obama is blaming the video, and not his foreign policy, for the death of Ambassador Stevens. Yah, hmmmmm.... So you're sayin' that American foreign policy is responsible for terrorist attacks, JoeBob? That sounds a lot like da "blame America" crowd that popped up after 9/11. If it weren't for America being so bad, yada yada, these nutters wouldn't have flown planes into buildings. Bah, humbug. They're nutters. They fly planes into buildings or drive trucks full of fertilizer into buildings or have a consulate-burning party because they're nutters. Nuthin' about American foreign policy caused the death of Ambassador Stevens, other than America is what it is - a country that sends some of its best and brightest to stand beside those strugglin' for freedom from tyranny. That sort of thing ticks off tyrants both large and petty, but it's nuthin' we should apologize for. But Obama isn't willing to admit that Kum Bah Yah as a foreign policy has failed Yah, hmmmm.... Now I'm completely lost. What foreign policy has failed? We helped take out a maniacal dictator in Libya who had committed acts of state terrorism against our citizens? I would have done that a quarter century ago. Or shouldn't we do things like that because maniacal dictators who engage in state terrorism are so well-aligned with our Timeless Values? Or because we're so pee-our-pants afraid of a bunch of Islamist goat-herders that we just have to have the help of Big, Strong, Real Men like Moammar and Hosni to protect us against da terrifying Muslim Brotherhood with their scary beards! Gimme a break. I get that da neo-cons are a bunch of chicken-hawks, but I drank a toast to Saddam's end, I drank one to Mubarak's end, I drank one to Quadaffi's end, and I've got da bottle all set for the toast to the end of Assad. The United States being a beacon of Liberty is just fine with me, and if liberty means that they get to elect a bunch of druids to parliament for da first time, that's fine too. Even if we have to be brave and stand up to a bunch of goatherders with left-over RPGs. Da only issue in my mind was that da protection detail was too small. It was da Ambassador's choice to go out to da consulate rather than have people come to him at da embassy in Tripoli, but it was our failure to be usin' "private contractors" instead of da Marines for security. That's a Bush legacy, eh? Outsourcin' the proper role of the military to private industry, because da Marines are too socialist for modern Republicans. I wish Obama had reversed it. Maybe now he will. Beavah

Beavah, how do you feel about Obama's foreign policy expertise now? No change in my opinion, eh? I thought Romney's responses and tone with regard to foreign policy have been completely daft. "Egypt is not an ally." Yah, I think that's in some ways true, eh? Egypt has a new government. That's a relationship we have to build. More important, though, if Obama were to come out and say that Egypt was an ally, that would undermine da work the State Department is doin'. Folks in da Middle East are particularly sensitive to being seen as American client states, and sayin' that out loud can undermine da position of Egypt's new leadership at a critical time. So I think that's smart, eh? Yeh don't say what American voters want to hear, yeh say what is da best thing to say to get the job done. Unrest and demonstrations against US interests in the Arab world are because of a YouTube video... Again, yeh don't say what people want to hear, yeh say what yeh need to in order to get the job done. Just like how we got Bin Laden, eh? Yeh don't tell da Pakistanis that yeh know they're harboring him because yeh want to look good in da media. Yeh have administration sources repeat over and over again that he's in mountain villages and caves. If you're goin' after the bad guys, yeh don't announce to the world that yeh know who they are and you're comin' to get 'em. Yeh misdirect your responses so that they think they have yeh fooled. McCain and others who got da administration's intelligence briefin' all said that it was clear it was a hit, but all da public statements that were likely to get repeated in media da Libyans have access to said it was a protest. Smart, eh? Da more interestin' thing to my mind was the people of Benghazi taking out da Islamist militia on their own, and da Libyan authorities arresting and interrogatin' a significant number of folks tryin' to track down da people who hit our consulate. I expect we'll see more action over da comin' weeks and months. To win fights yeh have to be smart, not go off half-cocked. "If the president visits one foreign leader (while they're in town at the UN) he'll have to vistit ten." So he went on 'The View' instead... I was totally comfortable with that, eh? It was a very deliberate, very calculated snub of da Israeli PM without sayin' so in public. I reckon it's exactly right to do that to any foreign leader who tries to muck around in American elections, but Netenyahu in particular has been badly overplayin' his hand lately. Yeh don't beg da U.S. for economic and military support and then try to tell us what to do. Beavah

Poor Packsaddle.. I feel for you, because I think the face you want to believe is truely Romney's (out of his 50 faces). Yah, yeh do realize packsaddle is just pullin' our chains, right? Sentinel947, I think we need to remember what da real definition of socialism is, eh? It's not distribution-of-risk programs (insurance) with private providers offering service. It's da government owning and controlling da means of production. Da GM and AIG bailouts were socialist. In some ways, a standing U.S. military is socialist. Medicare is just insurance. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... Thanks for sharin', whitepine. That's sort of what I figured, and what I remembered of da place from a visit some years back. It's not easy to "fall" off a cliff there, eh? But da gradual slope tempts folks to walk out too far. Prayers for your guys. Yeh all should do a get-together this week and let 'em talk it out. Consider callin' your council or workin' with your CO to get a professional counselor to come in. There's no shame in that. How folks frame things in their mind in da first week or so after an event like this sorta "sticks" with 'em a while. Yeh need to give 'em that time to process, with guidance. Goin' to some troop "policy" decision is a natural coping reaction, but it doesn't address da deeper issues, eh? Beavah

Romney's obvious willingness to change with circumstances and needs means that I can't take his promises seriously. Well, I can agree with that. But remember how Romney turned the Olympics around. And he's obviously a very shrewd businessman. I do remember how Romney turned the Olympics around. He got a massive government bailout. A taxpayer bailout so huge that it exceeded the combined budget of a half-dozen Olympic games. Now, in some ways, I reckon that is shrewd business practice, eh? Private reward but public risk is what da modern GOP extols as business virtue. I was undecided until da last two weeks. It's become clear, though, that in the one area where da President really has the most impact - foreign policy - Governor Romney is a complete neophyte. Worse, he lacks da temperament for it. Ultimately, the economy is out of da President's hands, eh? Da U.S. economy depends a bit on sound and stable tax law and spending, a bit on regulation, a bit on a transparent and predictable monetary policy. All those things da President can influence only indirectly. Mostly, though, the economy depends on da productivity and fairness of the American people, not on anyone in da government. So I've never been inclined to vote for anybody for da executive's job based on any wishful thinking that they can affect the economy. Beavah

Day is done, gone the sun, From the lake, from the hills, from the sky; All is well, safely rest, God is nigh. Fading light, dims the sight, And a star gems the sky, gleaming bright. From afar, drawing nigh, falls the night. Thanks and praise, for our days, 'Neath the sun, 'neath the stars, neath the sky; As we go, this we know, God is nigh. Sun has set, shadows come, Time has fled, Scouts must go to their beds Always true to the promise that they made. While the light fades from sight, And the stars gleaming rays softly send, To thy hands we our souls, Lord, commend.

Truth is, troops and packs should not be receiving this money anyway, because it violates BSA fundraising policy and ignores that the donation should go to the CO, not the troop or pack, since they own the money. False. Nominally, under BSA fundraisin' policy, COs shouldn't solicit donations from outside da CO specifically for their BSA units. They can, however, accept donations earmarked for the unit at da request of the donor. Corporate giving of da sort yeh describe falls within that, eh? Sean Hannity is a bit of a bloviating weasel, IMHO. But if yeh truly believe in respectin' and fundin' a diversity of approaches and ideas, BSA24, even if yeh disagree with 'em, well, I reckon I'll accept that sort of liberalism. Once upon a time, we used to call that conservative. Beavah

Yah, yah. So I see we're cuttin' off matching grant funding to da packs and troops now, eh? Money that only helps local programs and kids, and doesn't matter a lick to the folks settin' policy at the national organization. Typical liberal nonsense. It's like cuttin' off humanitarian aid to the starvin' people of a foreign country because we don't like one policy position of their ruling party. Does that make yeh feel all warm and fuzzy? Give yeh a glow of moral righteousness? Are yeh happy now that you're encouraging religious discrimination by U.S. corporations, so that even if da BSA were to go for local option, Intel Foundation would refuse to fund religious Chartered Orgs that kept da policy in place locally? Does supportin' religious discrimination make yeh feel morally superior? The point of companies doin' matching grant programs is so that they don't discriminate, eh? The money flows to groups that their employees choose to support with their own money and time, and in that proportion. It represents da choices of a community. My concern with approaches like this is that they break down da common threads of civility that make for a healthy community. I think we want an Intel that supports Catholic Charities and LGBT outreach, both. Shared endeavors at the office with shared support for differing programs is what is meant by true diversity. When our goal instead is to defund and delegitimize any group that disagrees with us on any issue, even if it's an issue peripheral to their work, then every issue becomes a fight that harms da community. If you can defund my club, then I can defund yours. You won't confirm my judges, I'll fillibuster yours. Just like withholdin' humanitarian aid, the damage that yeh do to society is worse than da problem you're tryin' to fix. Instead of makin' everything a war, have da courage of your own convictions and enough belief in da rightness of your own ideas to try to convince people without threatening them with loss of access or loss of funding. Evangelize without attempting to force conversions. Do unto others' groups as yeh would have 'em do unto yours. Sadly, that is a level of maturity and citizenship which is rare among some, eh? Perhaps they really do need Scoutin'. Beavah

Would it be out of line for us to do troop visitations? Of course not. In fact, I reckon it would be pretty silly if yeh didn't go visit! Go see how things feel, talk to youth leaders and adult leaders and such. One of da things I think is also hard for older boy transfers is that yeh can't just step into a leadership role with a bunch of strangers, the way yeh had a leadership role in your old program. It takes six months to a year to get used to the new place, get to know all of the guys, figure out how they work... and to stop saying "at my old troop we did it like this". Part of visitin' is to get a sense of that youth dynamic. Is there a good group of high school aged scouts where the lad can be a follower for a bit while he learns da ropes and gets used to things? Or is he likely to be one of only a couple older boys where he's goin' to be thrust into things? Is that what he wants? Are the other boys likely to be accepting or resentful of that? That youth/peer dynamic is goin' to be most important, eh? So definitely have him visit. Several times even, includin' a couple without mom and dad. Beavah

Scout Salute!

Yah, to be clear, da "hatchet job" I was referrin' to was by the LATimes. This paper reported two cases from da LATimes "BSA coverup" pile, and I look at 'em and I can't say that the BSA actually did anything wrong. They removed two people from Scoutin' for legitimate suspicion, even though there wasn't enough evidence for law enforcement to take any action. I'm not sure why that's a failure on da BSA's part, to be lumped into the 500 cases the LATimes claimed showed the BSA covered up or failed to report. I think we also have to remember that an allegation is not proof, which is why often organizations go with da "forced to resign" route rather than the "refer for prosecution" route for many sorts of things. Beavah

In my experience this and some of the other training experiences have been superficial and ineffective. I personally felt like all the exercise was meant to do was to check a box on a form somewhere, perhaps in order to cover someone's backside. This unit is small enough that leaders can get to know each boy. I can observe them during most any activity and I know them well enough to detect if one of them is troubled about something. I can tell if there's a change in mood or some other 'tell'. I think this is one way to detect problems...to really know the boys. Yah, I agree with packsaddle, eh? I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that adult BSA training on YP is effective, or that our stock YP policies (two deep/no one-on-one) are effective at stoppin' predators. Those are primarily ways of protectin' adults against false accusations and protectin' da organization. Worthy goals of themselves, eh? Just not da same as protectin' kids. Da problem as several have pointed out is that predators do all of the things that saints do, eh? They befriend the lads that need a dad, they listen to 'em, they involve them, they play catch, they talk to 'em like they're not little kids. They get to know the parents, they befriend the family, they and their spouses throw kids' parties and such. And da abuse almost never starts in scouts, eh? It's starts at outside events, visits to the parents' home, big-brother type relationships, private outings and sleepovers with parents' permission. To my mind the answer to that is not to treat all of the saints out there like they are criminals. Boys need adult friends who listen to 'em and care about 'em and pal around with 'em and hug 'em occasionally and who will sit privately with 'em when they are down and frustrated. The answer is to have more people involved in the boy's life, eh? To have scouters and teachers and relatives and friends of the family and parents and coaches all of whom know the lad, recognize his moods, and offer support and care. In order to work, predators need to isolate boys from other supports and adults, so that when they switch from saintly to sinister, the lad is dependent on their emotional connection to them and can't easily say "no." He doesn't have any other adult friends to trust or turn to. It's ironic that in our fear, we have in some ways dismantled many of da true protections for kids, makin' it harder for predators to make initial contacts, perhaps, but easier for 'em to proceed. And makin' it more likely that isolated kids turn to other behaviors that are destructive. It's da packsaddles and WAKWIBs and Tampa Turtles and AZMikes and SeattlePioneers and other good folks of da world who are good friends to kids, and know 'em enough to recognize when somethin' is amiss, and who care enough to be there for 'em when it - those are who actually keep kids safe. Surrounded by folks like that, mandatory reportin' policies aren't an issue. There would be appropriate reports. I expect da question would be whether a man who took advantage of a boy would survive long enough for law enforcement to protect him. Beavah

My question in this area is along the line of would your parents be upset if there was a major risk profile upgrade after the kids left for the trip without that info being available to the parents. I think da answer to this question depends on da culture of the troop. In some troops, yep, I think some parents would be upset. In other troops I know, nope, nobody would really bat an eye. I have specific troops in mind when I'm thinkin' about this, and I'm havin' a hard time articulatin' exactly what da difference is. So bear with me and I'll see if I can sort of fumble through it. When I think of da troops where folks wouldn't be upset, they have a more dedicated mix of parent and non-parent unit leaders with a more active, outdoorsy/adventurous program. They're very up front with families who are joinin' about da nature of their program, their promotional stuff shows a lot of "major risk profile upgrade" activities, and the lads are exposed to more adventurous campin' early on. If in da course of a backpack trip they brought along some gear and opted to do some climbin' / rappelling, I know nobody would be anything but thrilled. Even if nuthin' in da backpack trip information mentioned climbing. When I think of da troops where folks might get upset, it's a bit more parent-run with parents newer to the program, and a bit more car-camping. So da norm for a campout would be sittin' near da trailer and buildin' fires and lashin' a few things and hangin' out. In that case, goin' rock climbing would be a big deal, which would require some assuaging fears of parents and committee discussion and such. Doin' it by surprise without informin' da parents would not be well received. I think there's also a sense to which da local community mores come into play, eh? In communities in my state, youth goin' huntin' or usin' firearms is pretty common. In other places, canoein' and water activities are very common and well-understood. So if yeh added a canoe component to a hiking trip, nobody would be upset, even though it substantially raises da risk profile. Other places, where water activities and canoein' are less commonplace, yeh might well find folks who are miffed. I think yeh see da common thread here though. In all da cases where things are OK, da communication is sound, and folks are on the same page. Whether it's a general "this is common in da community" or "this is the nature of our troop" or it's a "this is a special outing", folks should know what they're signin' up for. Half of bein' Scoutmaster is educatin' and informin' the parents. I reckon if yeh had anything more than 1-2 folks upset because they just weren't payin' attention, yeh blew da communication. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm bumpin' this thread because of somethin' Eagledad said in another thread. Thomas54, I think yeh should trust FrankScout's advice in terms of how to work with an American Legion post, eh? He's wise, and has real experience. Let me also clarify what I meant (and what I think some others meant) in terms of havin' the lad work with the IH instead of you. Da biggest reasons to do that in my mind are twofold. First, because a 17 year old boy is a young adult and he really is capable of handlin' this sort of thing. I don't much care for da notion of adult volunteers of any stripe being called "bullies" without more cause than what's been shown here, but even if that were God's honest truth I think an Eagle Scout has da character to handle bullies. It might be challengin', but that's OK. Right now he has you and family and da whole troop as support. In a year when he has to deal with bullying professors like packsaddle he won't have those things. Call it a dry run. Da second reason is that havin' him work with the boy is part of da education of the IH. Most adults behave better when young people are around, eh? More importantly, it allows the IH to see the lad's good intentions, appreciate what da limits of a boy are in terms of doin' work, and get a real sense for the mentoring aspect of da scouting program. That's a good thing, that will help your relationships with your new IH in the long run. If there are issues, it allows you to come back to da IH and frame those issues in terms of a great young man whom da IH has met, eh? Yeh can make it about helpin' a boy instead of da adult-needs conversation you're in right now. The third reason of course is that this is the lad's project, eh? Don't sell him short. It may just be that after meetin' with da IH and gettin' an appreciation for his vision, the lad might be excited by da extra challenge and want to go the extra mile. That should be his choice. I don't know if yeh took the "leave it to the boy" comments personally, but yeh shouldn't have. I think they were really good advice, especially when you and da IH seem to be "hot" over other stuff. Break things into smaller, digestible pieces, eh? Too much stuff to be hot over reaches critical mass and goes boom. But da best advice here? Listen to FrankScout. Don't get too worked up. And let us know how it's comin' along! Beavah

Yah, CA_Scouter, I hear yeh. Now that the thread's back up, I can see more of where it went with da playground insults. The posts about the Eagle project is even more disturbing. The poor OP got hit with ridiculous personal accusations that certainly had nothing to do with the subject. Am I missin' a thread Eagledad? I confess I don't read half of 'em, and others I just quick skim. Are yeh talkin' about da Eagle project scope thread? I just went back and re-read that one, and I'm not sure I saw any personal accusations, let alone ridiculous ones. There is some confusion because Thomas54 put related information in a second thread that not everyone had read, and some of da usual misinterpretation/talkin' past each other. Nuthin' unusual . Or personal. I thought FrankScout had da best grasp of da situation with his background with da American Legion. Maybe I missed another thread that disappeared? Beavah

Yah, OK. So not only do I talk funny, but I don't read too well, eh? Hypothetically speakin' of course. Time to go visit da eye doc for a new set of lenses I guess. I reckon I hang out to learn new things in part. Helpin' scouters and units, it's always good to hear new ideas, or old problems raised in different ways. Adds to the tools I have and da ways I think about things. Even folks I've disagreed with have helped me refine my thinkin' or change my approach. One of da strengths of Scoutin' to my mind is that there is a lot of genuine diversity of approach to the program, and of people and ideas, yet we all share some deeply held common beliefs about character and service and da importance of helpin' kids grow. So there's a lot to learn from, and yet a lot we share. I reckon I hang out to try to be helpful where I can. Sometimes, just to offer a perspective that's a bit different perhaps. Yah, sure, and I agree with packsaddle, eh? I like a good discussion or argument around da campfire. Helps me think and learn. Hopefully helps others as well. People should be respected, but ideas should be beaten to within an inch of their lives. One of da easiest things to do sometimes is to fool ourselves, eh? We need our ideas to be challenged. It's an act of kindness and compassion. In da legal profession, folks hope that adversarial argument and da principled use of reason help people get to da truth, eh? But it's da truth that is the goal, and reason da language, and da fellow you're arguin' with is not the enemy, he's a friend and colleague. And often in da end neither you nor he can see da truth, but those listenin' to the arguments and applyin' their own reason can, and that's enough. So sometimes here I enjoy playin' jury and just listenin' to others' discussions. Beavah

Yah, so a local paper in PA is apparently doin' some of its own reporting, and opted to give us some info on two cases from da ineligible volunteer files where supposedly da BSA failed to report. Yeh have to read from the bottom up, because the opening lines sort of misrepresent the cases: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-pa-boy-scout-sex-files-20120918,0,6028194.story?page=1 These to my mind are fairly typical cases from da time period. In the first, there was a single (possibly false) report from a youth which was reported to the council Scout Executive. The man in question was forced to resign, his name was added to the ineligible volunteer files which blocked him (several times) from future positions in Scouting, and the boy's parents were notified. The parents had da option to file charges but did not do so, and was happy with da BSA's response. So the boy and da parent thought da response was adequate at the time, and da nature of the evidence was such that a prosecutor would be unlikely to take the case (only one accuser, no witnesses, da accuser is not willin' to proceed). There's no evidence that the fellow ever touched any other boy, before or after. I'm not really convinced that this was mishandled accordin' to da standards of the time, or that it amounted to a cover up. In da second case, there's an accusation by a 14-year-old who is apparently not a scout or at a scout outing about a Scoutmaster. Law enforcement is involved from the beginning of the case, so the fellow is added to the ineligible volunteer files. Charges are filed and then withdrawn. I'm not sure how this is a coverup, or how da BSA did anything wrong? Da article talks about reporting laws and implies that da SE may not have reported da incident to authorities, but law enforcement was already involved and the fellow was charged. I rather suspect that da vast majority of the 500 files that the LATimes implied were da BSA "covering up" were similar to these two, eh? This is lookin' more and more like a hatchet job. Beavah

And no matter how much Beavah would like to see me dead and in hell, Scouter Terry is the person who will decide my fate as a moderator...Beavah's protestations may be completely in vain. He'd do better for himself and the rest of us to just stick to the topic. Same for me. Huh? Where'd that come from, packsaddle? I know I talk funny, but yeh seem to have imagined that comment out of thin air. For da record, this here Beavah would not like to see you or any other livin' human being dead or in hell. What an unfortunate thing to say about anyone. Child molesters and those who cover up or enable child molesting, yah, that's frustratin', and it's hard not to take righteous anger too far, eh? But I reckon folks understand that my biblical reference to millstones around necks is as allegorical as the original text from da gospels. Nor has this particular Beavah offered any "protestations" with respect to your moderator status. I have only once approached Scouter Terry about da practices of a moderator on da forums, and that was FScouter. Scouter Terry and some of da other moderators did respond to that, and da situation improved. So for my part, that's water under the bridge. If I have given yeh cause anywhere at any time to believe otherwise on either point, I apologize. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I hear yeh SMT224. Same deal, to be honest, with da "no fat people" rule at Philmont. Send your son for the time of his life, and stop whining. I also agree with qwazse that it's perfectly absurd two guys can't take a mixed-gender group out in the wood but two ladies can take an all-boys group out. What's up with that? At the same time, remember da biggest issues so far have been in Cub Scouting, where parents are expected to be more actively involved as leaders. I don't reckon da Wolf Cubs really have any sense at all for sexuality issues, eh? They just like Joey's mom as Den Leader. B

The SM understood that he and the CO would be talking to CPS and my attorney if they ever pulled a stunt like that again. Yah, well, I reckon I'd mostly laugh (OK, I actually did laugh). Child services wouldn't be talkin' to me, they'd roll their eyes and circular file it as another whacky parent who doesn't understand what child abuse really is. As for da attorney, have him give me a call and we'll do lunch. On you! This stuff isn't threatening, it's comic relief. I do reckon there's a real courtesy issue about how yeh treat people who are contributin' hundreds or thousands of their own money and hundreds or thousands of hours of their own time to your kid for free, and how much someone who is givin' so generously of their own time and treasure should be willin' to put up with. Beavah

Yah, since da previous thread on this vanished and it's an important, even vital issue for BSA-brand Scouting, it seems like it is worth continuin' the discussion a bit. One thing that's clear to me is that there seems to be only a handful of real news outlets and all da rest copycat. So we've seen across the nation the copying of da LATimes piece without the slightest bit of independent vetting. A sign of the decay of da modern press. Has anyone seen any meaningful follow-up pieces that go beyond the highlighted 5-worst-cases? What has been local reaction in your area? How are yeh handlin' it with parents, your CO, and community? Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... I guess I missed somethin'. I thought that thread was doin' OK, given da subject matter. It's hard to imagine the subject not makin' people a little bit hot. I know some of those reports make my blood boil, and I agree with Basementdweller that I'd like to see millstones around necks. I feel a bit like that fellow in da Harry Potter movies who screams "I want to see some PUNISHMENT!!". I reckon da primary reason Merlyn was gettin' some heat is because this issue really hurts. It's not the sort of thing that comes across well from an outsider who spends most of his time tryin' to hurt scoutin' on lesser issues. It's somethin' where we want to be gatherin' our own torches and pitchforks, thank yeh very much. I will confess that I long ago confined FScouter as my only permanent "Ignore this User" character, because it seemed to me that none of his comments ever contributed meaningfully to discussions of Scouting, and more than half of 'em amounted to nothing more than takin' personal pot-shots at other forum members. I approached him privately about it many times and in many ways, and called him on it publicly a few, and was told in every case where to shove it. It doesn't surprise me when a discussion suddenly goes off da rails to see references to a post by him that I can't see. I find Merlyn more acceptable, because Merlyn is not a Scouter. I can't hold him to da same standard, and he actually does contribute as well. Now, in fairness, BadenP goes off the rails sometimes (don't we all?), but he contributes. Kudu is da veritable definition of repetitive bombast much of the time, but he contributes some of da best patrol method stuff. And don't even get me started on that Beavah guy, what an arrogant, long-winded, droning, living example of everything I hate about his profession fellow that is! Personally, I thought da thread was an important one about a timely and sensitive issue. Deletin' it was da wrong call IMHO, though admittedly I didn't see the last dust-up. I agree with removin' any spun-off Merlyn thread; I think that was likely our shootin' the messenger. Beavah