Hypocrisy

[packsaddle]

OK, I guess I was a little worried about the screen name and wanted to call the question. I intended no offence. Jason PM'd me and then published my PM response. Not a big deal until I learned the extent of the deception.

And yes, I know that I (we) could have been deceived again with a simple 'no' as an answer. The trustworthy thing is really important to me (first on the list as a matter of fact) and I wanted to detect any attempt to evade.

As for the thread, I've no problem with it and I basically agree with NJCubScouter's premise. However, he usually is equal to any counter-argument so I was content to read the discussion. Please continue......

[NJCubScouter]

Well, imagine my dismay to look at the forums yesterday (after being away most of the weekend) and see that THIS old thread -- with my name plastered all over it -- was at that time the "top" thread in Issues and Politics. In light of recent events in this forum, it was even more dismaying that this thread was being used (by one or more persons) as an example of something that should not be in this forum.

 

As others have pointed out, this thread had been dormant for seven months. In fact, the person who resurrected this thread has succeeded in drawing far more attention to it, and attention at a much more "difficult" time for the forum, than my starting of it ever did. This thread was active for exactly FOUR DAYS in December, and as of Saturday must have been about 40th or 50th on the list before it was sent zooming back to the top.

 

I have mixed feelings about having started this thread. On one hand, I still think it was reasonable to do so at the time. It dealt with a news event that was "big" that week, regardless of whether anything thinks it was newsworthy or not. I felt there was an interesting point to be made, though not one that was directly related to Scouting. (By the way, in the 2+ years I have been in this forum there have been a number of threads that were equally unrelated to Scouting, but mine is the one that has been singled out. I am not going to start yet another debate-within-a-debate by identifying the ones I am talking about, but presumably they are still hanging near the bottom of the list.) Several people decided to join in the discussion, which lasted approximately as long as it should have lasted -- four days, not very long in the greater scheme of things. Although obviously I didn't agree with some of the responses to my post, nobody went "over the line" or engaged in un-Scoutlike behavior or violated the forum's "rules of decorum." (Although I personally could have lived not knowing about FOG's dating history, which I had forgotten about until I just re-read the thread.) It was just a little short-lived thread minding it's own business and never hurt anyone.

 

On the other hand, if the same news event occurred today, I would not start a thread about it. In light of the havoc that has occurred in this forum, I will probably stick with Scouting-related topics, at least in the threads I start. (And I have never started very many, probably between 5 and 10 in Issues and Politics the entire time I've been here.)

 

I just want to say one more thing, and it relates to threads in Issues and Politics in general, not just this one. This thread was "revived" with a post that questioned whether the thread should have existed in the first place. I can see questioning posts in other topics ("Open Discussion," "Cub Scouting" or whatever) that become overly controversial, and suggesting that the thread be moved here. But if the thread is already here, I personally wonder why people waste their time posting things like "Haven't we discussed this subject enough?" or "Why is this subject being discussed at all?" or "Don't we have better things to talk about?" or the like. (Or in the case of one person who shall go nameless, "This isn't something that unit Scouters need to concern themselves with.") Unless one is a moderator in this forum, I don't see what business it is of anyone if two or more other people want to discuss a particular subject. And I don't mean that if things get really, really out of hand with multiple irrelevant threads, it isn't ok to express concern. (I think I did so myself in the case of the recent "hijacking" of the entire forum.) I mean if things are going along, and you spot a thread you don't think should be here, or if you think the issue of (whatever) has been discussed enough, my personal suggestion would be that you read something else, and let those who want to talk about the topic, talk about it. This is especially true of the few "hot button issues" (Scouting related) that are not going to go away anytime soon. That is why, I think, the forum owner has put a big "warning label" on "Issues and Politics" that says this forum is here so that people who want to avoid those topics can avoid them. The flip side is, people who DON'T want to avoid those topics should be permitted (as long as the forum owner and moderators choose to permit it) to discuss those topics without being constantly harangued about it by other members.

 

In my opinion.