skeptic

Truly sad news; like others, my thoughts and prayers are with his family. Appreciated his resolute voice on various sometimes difficult topics; calm and reason always are helpful.

Ditto; and I made sure I was signed in first. At least appear to be able to work within the limited groups. I click new topics on the upper left, then filter for today. That brings newest posts up for the most part it seems. Still, hope the rest gets fixed soon so we can post new topics within their own threads.

Yep, many of the National questions are way too open ended and ambiguous. Answers will vary depending on what you think they want to get at. Did the best I could, as it is better than nothing. Still simply think the "local option" is the ONLY answer; but National would need to assure the CO's of support should the PC people choose to sue individual groups. Most CO's would not have the financial ability to fight such a suit, and the Gay agenda supporters know that.

Every council has certain voting members that can vote at the National meeting; usually the Key Three and, depending on the size of the council, member(s) at large. Our small council has 4 total. They just put out a three question survey regarding the issue, sort of. The queries did not mention "local option", only acceptance or non-acceptance of Gays; so do not think it is going to get meaningful results. On the other hand, just got a National survey as well; and it was very specific, and asked for detail as to why and so on. It seemed to be aimed at an honest attempt to get "real" answers. I had to deal with one local member of the congregation at our Methodist sponsor on Scout Sunday. We had a short discussion out in the patio away from the others. Not sure if my answers mollified her, but at least she did not pursue it further. She had gone to the minister, who came to me and asked me to speak with the woman. The church as a whole, is very supportive still.

Every council has certain voting members that can vote at the National meeting; usually the Key Three and, depending on the size of the council, member(s) at large. Our small council has 4 total. They just put out a three question survey regarding the issue, sort of. The queries did not mention "local option", only acceptance or non-acceptance of Gays; so do not think it is going to get meaningful results. On the other hand, just got a National survey as well; and it was very specific, and asked for detail as to why and so on. It seemed to be aimed at an honest attempt to get "real" answers. I had to deal with one local member of the congregation at our Methodist sponsor on Scout Sunday. We had a short discussion out in the patio away from the others. Not sure if my answers mollified her, but at least she did not pursue it further. She had gone to the minister, who came to me and asked me to speak with the woman. The church as a whole, is very supportive still.

Because it is simply another illogical fan the paranoia idea. Remember, a large number of people that post here have no idea how the charter arrangement works. Many do not even know the difference between types of units and the various levels of membership. Not sure why, but feel much is due to laziness and accepting anything they might see posted by a "supposed" authority.

Since, as I understand it, Philmont belongs to ALL BSA members (as stipulated in the donation to deter selling), what does the LDS group have to do with it? Just curious where that is coming from.

Schiff; They are neither for or against according to what I read. But, as they pointed out, if the change is made, it would/should have no effect on the units, as that is already pretty much what we did anyway. Notice the second to last sentence; "the reason WE ENDORSED this model........." " Once they made the decision to propose this change there are basically two ways this could have been implemented. One would have changed the national standard to force all charter organizations (in our case, local churches) to accept gay scouts and gay leaders. The choice they made was to move that decision to a local level. The reason we endorsed this model of implementation is because it allows your local church to continue to operate exactly like it is operating today. You choose the leaders, you recruit the scouts, the leadership of your troop and pack reflects the traditions and values of your faith community."

Likely anything sold in scout stores, and possibly fund raising such as popcorn and so on.

AZ; It is obvious to me that the total capitulation is their goal. They may finally overplay their hand; if the infamous "silent majority" finally has had enough. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I still am for the local option, as have always felt that was the way it should have been left anyway. But, changing the keystone of belief in personal spirituality would I think pretty much be the end of it. Even on an international level, God, or some spiritual entity or belief is part of almost all of the Scouting groups. Those that claim otherwise are simply wrong, though some other groups do have internal pushes against it.

What should be of just as much, if not more, concern is the additional mentions of religion and religious groups. I would think that would be unconstitutional, but given the weird legal decisions now regarding these types of things, who knows. If there was really any question that there is a very active direct Political Attack on BSA, this should make it obvious. I have already lodged my opposition with my local state representatives, neither of which shows on the supporters of the amendment. I find it particularly disengenuous that the SF paper conveniently leaves out all the sections relating to religion, but do give them credit for making it pretty clear this is A DIRECT ATTACK on BSA. Of course, as noted numerous times, the complete lack of real concern for the youth possibly affected is simply terribly sad.

This article which was shared with me by one of my past scouts who is now a Lt. Colonel in the army is right on target and reflects very well much of my personal beliefs on this subject. Certainly, we all see the results of what is discussed. As a leader for over three decades, I have seen this problem develop, especially in "trying" to get the boys to "take charge". As a sub teacher, I see kids that simply refuse to try anything new because they "might" make a mistake. http://growingleaders.com/blog/3-mistakes-we-make-leading-kids/

Why they will all be sort of effeminate, overly fastidious about their camps and uniforms, and may even speak a bit funny, Patrol flags will all have rainbows of some kind. They also carry the Gay Cooties. How can you not understand that? And even the wind blowing can waft the infectious cooties onto you from afar, so camping anywhere near them will be dangerous.

Well Beavah; Since the coach had a degree in physical development and a teaching credential and was also an ex marine that would ride you like a bronco if he thought you were not giving it your all, I guess he "was full of it". While it may be true that many kids simply are too lazy to do the work, it is also true that some are not physically capable of doing certain skills at the level one might expect of someone otherwise in good condition.

Especially with pull ups. Body type and muscle structure effect these things too. When I was sixteen I could do close to 20 parallel bar dips, 25+ pushups in a minute, and close to to 200 situps (not crunches) keeping my feet on the ground myself. I could do three pull ups. Did not matter if I went under or over hand either. The coach simply shrugged and said it was just my build. And I agree that ANY improvement should count, especially at that age.

Spoke with our Exec and assistant today, and they both are really concerned about the effect of the final decision. The CE said his calls are running at about 41% against it, and a lot of threats to leave if it happens. He said they are already looking at ways to redo the budget, as they fear they will lose considerable income. We are in a bit more conservative area of California, so his percentage does not really seem too off to me, though my own discussions have indicated most people would prefer the local option as long as it WAS a local unit choice. Our church has has already told us they will run with our decisions on leadership and so on. And the National Methodist have indicated support for local as well. We discussed the nightmares of people dropping out of jamboree at that late date, as well as loss of executive board members. Apparently there has been some that indicated they would resign should the change occur. As noted earlier, I really just do not get why this is such a problem with so many, other than we now live in a very egotistical cultural climate. Will just focus on the troop and hope for the best.

Merlyn, while I am fairly certain you will disagree, the reality is that if Dale had not happened, the groups noted above would have found other excuses, because their goal has nothing to do with the benefit of the group, and all to do with their agenda. And, while you will claim they have no agenda, it is fairly clear to most of us that they do. Have a nice day.

While it really does not surprise me too much, I am saddened by those that simply refuse to allow the expediant decision of Local Option as the logical and workable compromise. What those now demanding total capitulation are doing is attempting to change not just BSA, but any Charter Organizations that would continue to not support the Agenda due to their organization's tenets. And that then puts the LGBT group into the same position it has challenged BSA on in the first place. It would no longer mean a child could not join BSA period, but rather they would have to find a group whose sponsor met their personal criteria. I guess the idea of compromise is now joining the simple premise of common sense. Someone recently stated that the LGBT groups would "never" stop until they destroyed the BSA, and I scoffed, thinking they could actually be reasonable people. And maybe most of them actually are, but the ones pushing things are not it appears.

If mom will not allow the needed paperwork, then it is on her. There is no way around it; there has to be some kine of records. She has no recourse if she continues to refuse the registration and update. Sounds to me like she is simply looking for another publicity event. And of course, there will be people to support her, even though it is entirely ridiculous. The council/troop should get her refusals in writing as protection IMO.

Add a "page" change to the bottom of the list, or move it down there. Have to scroll back to the top to move forward when you reach the bottom of a multi page thread. Thanks.

While I am also a bit annoyed at the delay, I have to say I do not have a huge problem with it, as long as the final decision IS made in May with the voices of the entire voting membership at the National Meeting, and not by a small sub committee. EVERY council has representatives that vote at these meetings. The big issue now is for the local councils to make every effort they can to get the feelings of their ACTUAL members. The local executive boards should make this a priority, and IMO should also do individual community soundings OUTSIDE the local members. Each council could then go with a pretty good idea as to where THEIR council stands, even though it is impossible to please EVERYBODY. At least, if the effort is made locally prior to the vote, then we will have come as close as possible to a reasonably accurate response. Even with all the hoopla going on in the media, it is amazing how many local scouters are still completely oblivious to the whole thing; and very few of the scouts seem to have any idea, even now. Of course I am not making a troop boy survey, and only responding to those parents that bring it up. That is the way it was, and still will be in our unit. Deal with issues when they become distractions and really are problems.

All that info should be in the charter package. But the executive officer is a NON REGISTERED position, and also unpaid. So, the answer is no. They also are the ones that need to sign the agreement. Most EO's are far too busy to do what the COR is supposed to do. Reality is that COR's often are nothing more than names on the charter.

Executive officer is the person who is the head of the sponsor, such as the minister and so on. Only position you can hold with another is COR and one other such as CM. Otherwise, you could theoretically have a unit with only one or two people holding all the positions which is not a good idea and kind of misleading.

It appears if you go to "last 24 hours", then click on the main title, you then can filter that specific thread for various periods. Put a week in, and you will get all the entries back a week. Have not tried anything else, but am hoping can occasionally enter photos if I care to. Thanks Terry for the ongoing project. I just got dropped from Scouts-L due to some kind of computer problem, and I am not going to fool with getting back on. If their system drops me due to glitches in it, then so be it.

Just looking for some material to help SPL on first aid. Found it elsewhere, and today the site seems fine. So, whatever the issue was, it is gone. Thanks.