Callooh! Callay!1428010939

Nice. For the use you posit, it should be concise. The following cuts it from 209 down to 124 words while retaining its meaning: Scouter Truths 1. Humans are more important that Hardware. Motivated, skilled, knowledgeable Scouters benefit Scouts more than expensive equipment can. 2. Quality is better than Quantity. A few motivated, skilled, knowledgeable, trained-Scouter role models can run a more effective program than a large group of less qualified/committed volunteers. 3. Scouters cannot be developed quickly. Developing skills and knowledge and acquiring training necessary to run a quality program take time, as does developing necessary trust. Rushing yields inferior results. 4. Scouters must train before needed. When it's go-time, Scouters are trained and qualified, or it's not go-time. Be Prepared. 5. Scouting requires non Scouter assistance. Scouting needs a variety of skills, talents, and resources on the team. Recognize, appreciate, and grow the circle of volunteers. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

The question should remind us of the truth: Quality is better than quantity http://www.soc.mil/USASOC%20Headquarters/SOF%20Truths.html http://diamond1mo.hubpages.com/hub/SOF-Truths http://www.lifehack.org/articles/management/applying-the-sof-truths-to-your-life-and-business.html

Humbly accepting honor with dignity just isn't enough for one who can't resist the opportunity to make a pecksniffian spectacle of himself, playing El Ingenioso Eagle Scout de La Mancha. Of course we may overlook and forgive the poor form if the one doing the preening also has a record of consistently standing up in more appropriate venues for that which he preens in his ECOH.

"Go ask a five year old." One might be forgiven for assuming that a five year old is not well informed enough on the matter to form an opinion worth consulting. But anyway, if one does ask a five year old... "These people are allowed to do this. These people are not. Is that fair?" one should not be surprised if the answer is... "I want to go to the Chik-Fil-A that has the play area." And the child might even appreciate that he/she is allowed to play in the play area, but teens are not. Discrimination CAN be unfair, even evil. But it can also be wise. He who never discriminates in any way is... indiscriminate.

Huh? What boycott? The chicken at Chik-Fil-A is adequate. The milkshakes are nice. But the real magic of the place is the employees. Chik-Fil-A must have more effective measures in place than many large franchise outfits do to encourage/require careful hiring, training, and personnel quality control at Chik-Fil-A franchises. The employees, more than in other fast food places, tend to be articulate, practiced at and comfortable with courtesy, attentive, alert..... and have you seen a crew of these Chik-Fil-A kids handling the dinner rush? It's a study in teamwork, efficiency, grace under pressure. It's the most impressive thing about Chik-Fil-A... the high school kid whose got 6 orders waiting, 10 customers waiting to order, the same thing happening at the 4 other registers at the counter with him, the drive-through is packed too, and he's taking your order calmly and courteously (and getting it right), articulating so you can understand him and listening so he understands you, making change like a kid who knows how to make change... and when he, in short order, hands you your correctly put together meal... you say "thank you" he says "my pleasure"... like he means it. And then he's right onto the next customer.

Maybe the owner would respond positively to that feedback.

"Huh?.. What change of heart? People don't accept Eagle because the dislike homosexuality." What change of heart? Um.... how about the change from accepting Eagle to not accepting it? Let's not confuse tangents with foci.

Edited on the advice of Seattle Pioneer(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

I would not, could not, in 100 calorie bags Not for the Popcorn Kernel's nags Not Show and Sell. Not door to door. Not on a dealership's showroom floor. I will not sell to folks at work. I don't care; call me a jerk. I will not ask scouts to sell. Without it we can do quite well. Not in a house. Not in a box. Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. I will not sell it here or there. I will not sell it anywhere!

"applaud them for their courage" Courage? Courage to face what risk? The risk of being heroes and darlings of supporters of the cause for which they renounced Eagle? The risk of free publicity? The risk of leaving BSA at around the point at which a great many boys leave anyway? The risk of parading their ostensibly superior morality before friendly audiences? The risk that when, as the OP suggests, the media tries to "tries to demonize the Eagles that haven't sent theirs back yet" that they will stand out as squeaky clean because they did send theirs back? Is there risk that a University admissions board might hold Eagle renunciation against them, or is this something they'll highlight in their admissions essay, knowing that it'll count in their favor? At some point in the distant past it would have been courageous. But today quietly and without fanfare would be the appropriate way to signal one's change of heart. Making a public spectacle of one's self as an Eagle-martyr today is courageous in the same way that Al Sharpton's defense of civil rights is heroic.

Gran Torino Seven Samurai http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnRUHtSgJ9o Red Dawn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTBlXEwjhc High Plains Drifter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1almB9zxX4 Hotel Rwanda Of Gods and Men http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWEIxzlKCgA Invasion of the Body Snatchers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-jzblCbsuA The Stoning of Soraya M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aRQlb6lGLc United 93 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz9BTKO_plI The truth about Erin Brockovich http://fumento.com/brockovich/mickeyerin.html might be a nice thing to read along with watching Erin Brockovich

He wanted to volunteer, but only for an organization so good that no one could legitimately criticize it for anything. After a long search, he found such an organization. It was perfect, and so, could not accept him, as he was not.

Changes to the Oath and Law might be unwelcome. But the suggestion is that all divisions use the Oath and Law. On this, I'm vehemently indifferent.

If you've never seen the segment Penn and Teller did on the BSA, it makes some good points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndoP1YW72Zk Be warned that it contains foul language and a type of humor not suitable for folks who think we should discuss gay issues with constant deadly earnest seriousness. Some relevant comments on that at 18:37-18:42

"How long will it take? Until people who say things like "Let us hope "openly gay" doesn't involve anything icky though" are looked upon with pity." Ah yes; the pity behind this statement is palpable.

"Not trying to start anything, but why is this sub forum ridiculously more active than the rest of the sub forums on this website?" By what measure is it ridiculously more active? It's not only not ridiculously more active, it's not even the most active as of sometime the evening of Monday 23 July 2012, judging by either of the most obvious and logical measures we could use. When was the analysis on which the OP question is based conducted? And what were the criteria measured? And what is the definition of "ridiculously more active than the rest of the sub forums?" Empirical methods and structured analysis have been out of fashion in some political science circles. If your profs aren't pushing empiricism and structured analysis, you may nevertheless find them handy. As of this writing, this sub forum ranks third by number of topics with Cub Scouts in 2nd place with about 50% more topics and Open Discussion being by far the most active by number of topics with well over three times as many topics as this sub forum: Open Discussion - Program 6867 Cub Scouts 2916 Issues & Politics 1916 Advancement Resources 1775 Uniforms 1414 Camping & High Adventure 1401 Wood Badge and adult leader training 995 New to the Forum? 840 Working with Kids 681 Summer Camp 634 The Patrol Method 621 Venturing Program 578 Council Relations 481 Order of the Arrow 438 Patch Trading Central 321 Unit Fundraising 284 Scouting History 278 Girl Scouting 218 Scouting the Web 176 New to Scouting? 145 Scoutmaster Minutes 142 Scouting Around the World 114 Scouter announcement 76 And if we use number of posts to gauge activity, this sub forum not only is not ridiculously more active than all others, it's not the most active at all. It is in second place and the topic in first place has about 50% more posts: Open Discussion - Program 96471 Issues & Politics 64818 Cub Scouts 33599 Advancement Resources 32156 Uniforms 24350 Camping & High Adventure 16817 Wood Badge and adult leader training 15116 The Patrol Method 10657 Working with Kids 9716 Summer Camp 7511 Council Relations 7275 Order of the Arrow 6433 Venturing Program 5304 New to the Forum? 4578 Unit Fundraising 3917 Scouting History 1843 New to Scouting? 1836 Girl Scouting 1711 Patch Trading Central 1216 Scouter announcement 1160 Scouting the Web 1133 Scouting Around the World 616 Scoutmaster Minutes 612 The analysis above does not take into account total number of words or average post length or other measures we might want to examine; perhaps you'd like to take that on. Another interesting idea would be to do a "scrape" of all posts and then do some tag cloud type looks at the whole forum and at individual sub forums as a means of visualizing relative popularity of different subject areas - that's a little toward the fuzzy side but could be interesting and informative. As for why this forum is popular and some others aren't... it could be that within some subject areas there is greater agreement and therefore less to discuss. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"tenor of the discourse is a fraction of" - a fascinating turn of phrase here; raises the question of how to divide a tenor and how to express the resultant fraction... 1/8 tenor maybe? Or is it maybe something closer to bass, or is it soprano? Nevertheless, you bring up a worthy point... that business about the less than 4%. Too hear the tenor of the discourse on that less than 4% you'd think it was closer to 400%. Maybe the tenor of this discourse, rather than sounding like just a tenor, sounds like a huge choir because it's a lot of Cultural Marxists doing the singing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MonOD6AeAH4&feature=related (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Not a panacea? Oh no! Send it back then. We demand a panacea! How to address these problems? Goodness. It sounds difficult. We wouldn't want to have difficulties. If folks have set up systems that go bankrupt when they lose on real estate speculation or other overly exuberant expectations of future revenues, or if public servants are charging more than is sustainable for their services, or taking on projects or providing services they can't pay for, we'd better let the Federal Government take over. That body is well known for its sound finances and budgetary principles.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

If chartered orgs maintain authority over these matters for their own troops (as they should)- it ain't no triumph for liberalism except in circles where it's already triumphant.

Adult patches?! Hey... what you people wear in the privacy of your own homes or in a private setting in the company of other consenting adults is your own business. But on a scout uniform? In public? In front of kids? Let's keep all patches G-Rated please.

Inclusiveness? Membership diversity? What's diverse about gays? Aren't we told that it's naughty to think of gays as substantively different and especially naughty to treat them in any way that suggests they are substantively different. But if they're not substantively different, why is including them considered "membership diversity?" This is confusing... but not worrisome. Gays are fewer than 5% of the population and it seems unlikely that the proportion of them that wants to be in scouting is much greater than the proportion of the rest of the population. It'd be unsurprising to learn that a good proportion of those that want to be involved with scouting are already. Let us hope "openly gay" doesn't involve anything icky though. Eventually America's public imagination might realize that there just aren't that many gays and they're really not very interesting anyway. Whatever will we talk about then? As far as timeline goes... Merlyn's timeline sounds reasonable... but really... who knows? Not I. And Da'Beav's predictions regarding coed and atheism sound sound - and unobjectionable if they allow chartered orgs to make the call as to whether or not they want their membership to be diverse, gay verse, or free verse... but not perverse. Maybe that could stave off the demise of BSA which Da'Beav plausibly predicts. Do we suppose manhood will every go Coed?

"I want a mix of Republican & Democrats, each balancing the other "ultra" side, and keeping each other on the straight and narrow." hmmm..... sounds suspiciously like taking the middle ground in a dispute between parties who disagree about the sum of 2+3. One party insists it's 5 and the other party insists it's 10; so the knee-jerk moderate figures that the best answer must be 7. Of course if we got down to specifics, we'd likely disagree about which party is saying 5 and which 10 or whether or not either one is anywhere near the right answer or is even asking the right question. But... in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, I'll join you in a wish for Republicans and Democrats, each balancing out the other... as long as that means political gridlock that makes it darn near impossible for the Federal Government to take control of any more things, so long as it reigns in the reach and the ambitions of the Fed, so long as it makes for a modest Federal Government as laid out in our constitution and stymies the National Government schemes of politicians' ambitions, so long as it puts more responsibility (and the concomitant authority) onto states, local governing bodies, and citizens themselves. And then we will of course not see the imminentization of the eschaton, but rather all the venality, hucksterism, charlatanism, graft, fraud, and other elements of public service that concentrate so much in DC will be diffused out to where the power lies (hey, is that a pun?). So it'll be a gawdawful mess... but it'll be spread out so that many hands can wrassle it rather than letting it all concentrate in Leviathan.

Tahawk, pronoun gender confusion may have caused some miscommunication in this thread. Callooh! Callay! ≠ she

"Sounds like you have a problem with THIS PRESIDENT getting security clearance this way.. But are not bothered about any other president post or future, who gets security clearance the same way.." No. The Constitution provides for civilian control of national security matters and it provides for elections to select the senior executive of that control... the POTUS. And that is as it should be. The problem isn't "THIS PRESIDENT" the problem is voting decisions made by people who are mistaken in important ways... the most important of which is the delusion that they can immanentize the eschaton (or rather, as is more frequently the case, compel someone else to do it for them). --"Sorry, anyway you slice it, sounds personal." "Slice it?" How about instead.. listen from an objective perspective. Maybe it won't sound so personal then. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

quote: My comment was not toward that "she" .. But more directed toward Callooh! Callay! Comment. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance. -end quote The quoted quote that was quoted in the quote quoted above in NOT crackpot and not a theory. The fact is that the POTUS gets access to classified information, not because OPM has investigated and cleared him using the criteria that they use for ordinary citizens, but rather because our constitution stipulates civilian control over the national security apparatus and he is the highest ranking person in the executive chain of command over that apparatus - so he is cleared. And that he might not pass a background investigation were he not an elected official is blindingly obvious. There are many things well known about his background that are not disputed at all but that are in the category of things for which people are commonly denied security clearances. We don't even need to consider the more inflammatory and disputed claims about him, just things well known to be factual. You don't have to commit a crime, or be a bad person to be denied a security clearance. A clearance investigation is not like one for a crime for which you are innocent until proven guilty. For clearance to access to classified information - the default position is not trust; you are denied access until you are proven trustworthy (to the extent possible via the investigation - and the criteria are stringent)... and have a need to know. Just because crackpots glom onto something - doesn't make it strictly a crackpot issue. Crackpots breathe too. Does that make all who breathe crackpots? As for that crack about the hats... do you have any idea how hard it is to get the right kind of foil ever since the illuminati made sure most of the stuff on the market was Al rather than Sn?