sherminator505

Ed, Who accused you of being accusatory? I just thought you were cantankerous. Anyway, You've got a point with that five page comment...

Kudos to studentscout.

The dreaded double post strikes again...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Actually, I believe we (Scouts and Scouters) are wearing it in reverse, if that standard is applied.

Now you're spitting into the wind, Ed... good luck!

No, I think I understand perfectly.

How so? You now seem to be holding out for a "reasonable" conversation, when you have amply demonstrated in this thread that "reasonable" is not something you're interested in. You're using that device now as an excuse not to face confrontation. If you were a Scouter, right about now I would ask you how "a Scout is Brave" translates into your present tactics. But you're not a Scouter, so what's the point, right?

By "reasonable", do you mean "I'm right and you're wrong and if you annoy me sufficiently I'll call you a moron" reasonable or "if you catch me in a whopper I'll simply throw out some definition or another and then put you on auto-ignore" reasonable?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Oh, come on, Merlyn. If you're going to go for the copout, surely you can do better than that!

Oh, yeah. You're not about explanations or arguing a point. You're about gainsaying, kinda like that old Monty Python sketch, only not as funny. And if this were a sincere discussion, would this be the point in the discussion where I called you a name like you called Ed, hmmm?

Well, for starters, you still haven't explained just why you're here. You're clearly not interested in Scouting, so why spend so much time in this forum? If it's to show how much more enlightened you are than the rest of us, then your posts in this thread clearly haven't been your best attempt. Or at least, I hope not!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

""The ACLU doesn't attack individual prayer...... " Sure they do. They recently forced councilmen in a nearby county to NOT go into a private, closed room to pray, under threat of a Federal lawsuit." Just looking at the circumstances, I'd say that the threat of a lawsuit probably had more to do with violating an open meetings law than what they were doing in that closed room, be it praying, making a back-room deal or some form of debauchery or whatever else you could think of. Honestly, the ACLU has an agenda, but it is not so much against religion but the abuses that can be committed in its name. But isn't this thread about that. It's about having the American flag in a place of worship. I'm fairly neutral on this one, as I have been in places of worship where the Flag was present and where it was absent, and truly, I didn't notice any difference in the way we prayed or sang or worshipped God one way or the other.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Once again, the silence speaks volumes...

Or a 15 y.o. Second Class Scout...

Give it time...

No, badmouthing would be for me to say disparaging things about you without your own words to back it up. You've illustrated how some of my observations were off, and good for you! But I think that what you have left unaddressed speaks volumes. As for mock sincerety, you are now trying to mischaracterize what I've said. I really don't want to see you go, as you have become my new favorite cat toy! Granted, you've just as much as admitted that you have no real interest in Scouting, yet you continue to post on these threads to decry the BSA's membership policies. Why? What do you hope to gain? I'll admit that I have expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with the BSA's current policies, but I do it because I would like to see MY organization start doing the right thing! What's your angle? What's your point? And exactly where does calling Ed a moron fit in to that philosophy?

I wouldn't be too worried about the boy at this age. Eagle Scout is often a "so what" kind of thing to 12-year-old Scouts, and a lot of them never get over that. Statistics say that a very small percentage of Scouts make Eagle. I believe that this has more to do with attitude than ability, as I believe most boys can make Eagle IF they take it up as a goal. Most either don't take it up or drop it when they discover sports, cars and girls. So as a Scouter or as a parent, I wouldn't see it as a failure if the boy simply doesn't do it. As for the benefits of being an Eagle, I believe more of the benefits to be internal than external. If you've made Eagle, then you know what it means to take on something big and finish it. This can help you face other challenges that come up with more confidence. As for using Eagle as a resume builder, well I'd forget that. Most people outside of Scouting don't know what that means. Even though I have been dutifully putting that on my resume for over twenty years now, I don't think it has ever given me a leg up, or at least I wasn't aware of it. P.S. You know, you post a lot on here for someone who isn't attuned to Scouting. I managed to get my parents to one Scouting function - my ECOH.

I made some observations and you call it badmouthing? If my observations are somehow off, please, tell me how. Otherwise, quit whining! It's just not fitting for someone who comes riding in on a high horse.

Why are you guys so bothered by this particular thread? Keep in mind this is Merlyn we're talking about here. He/she/they is a known quantity, and even though Merlyn called Ed a moron (which is not cool, BTW), that's no reason to call for Merlyn's immediate ban or anything. Instead, let's concentrate on what we've learned about Merlyn just from this thread. We've learned that Merlyn is a single-issue entity, whose intention is to make the BSA change its policies not because Merlyn wants to better the BSA but because Merlyn wants to topple the tower. We've learned that Merlyn is not above name-calling, even in a forum predominated by Scouters where he/she/they really should know better. And we've learned in an emotional slip that Merlyn's musings on athiesm are not consistent and my not mesh with his/her/their personal views. None of this makes me want to jump on the "Let's ban Merlyn!" bandwagon. But it does serve to illustrate just what we're dealing with so we can react appropriately.

"Regardless, you won't find a large gorilla person at National doing some arm-twisting to make all these decisions, you will find a board that all have a pretty similar consensus about the subject." Yes, and there was a consensus on the Supreme Court regarding Plessy v. Ferguson back in 1896, too.

Yes. Yes, I do. You have maintained in numerous posts in previous threads that athiests have no set belief system, just a belief that there is no god. But your post to Ed in the heat of the moment seems to belie that statement. This speaks to your veracity and sincerity. Or to put it in more folksy, colloquial terms, you've stepped in it. And somebody noticed.

Not to beat a dead horse, Merlyn, but you didn't say that athiests were discriminated against on the basis of religion. You said that they were discriminated against an the basis of THEIR religion (caps added for emphasis, again). You may choose not to see the difference, but I see it.

So would you say in casual conversation that a single person was being discriminated against on the basis of his marriage?

I don't think that being a no-show at pack meetings makes a Den Leader "rogue." There may a perfectly logical reason for this, particularly if the den meets on a different night from the pack. Maybe the Den Leader has something going on in the family on pack meeting nights. Mystery explained. Or perhaps the Den Leader has a problem with one of the other leaders in the pack and that is the reason for non-attendence. This is a problem to be addressed, no doubt, but I would be hesitant to blame the Den Leader before I know what is really going on. If you are concerned that this Den Leader is truly setting out to do damage to the pack program, I would send someone that I know gets along with this Den Leader to attend a den meeting or two and see what is happening in the den. If anything actionable is found, then act. But make sure there is actually something there first.

But Merlyn, that is not what you said. You said that athiests were being discriminated against "ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RELIGION" (caps added for emphasis). Please explain.