We Should Have Gone With 48 Days??

[Eamonn]

Like a moth to the flame I had to look in at what was going on in the Issues and Politics pages.

I can't help thinking that we ought to have had a 48 day break - 48 Hours was way too short.

Eamonn

[Fat Old Guy]

Why don't we all join hands and sing "We are the world"? If it wasn't for dissention, nothing would ever change.

[OldGreyEagle]

We either can debate/argue like scouters or we are not fit to wear the uniform. We may not like what others have to say, but all forms of expression are either allowed, or no one can consider himself free

 

We could dissent without resorting to personal attacks however...(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[NJCubScouter]

So, we are again debating whether we should debate?

 

Nobody is required to read, or participate in, this section (or any section) of the forum. This section is clearly marked with a big "warning label," which long-time participants don't need anyway. Those who do choose to participate should not be made to "feel bad" for doing so -- though as OGE says, there is a right way and a wrong way to do so.

[Twocubdad]

While the thread in question seems to have devolved to

"You're stupid!"

"No, you're stupid!"

"No, you're stupid!"

"No, you're stupid!"

etc., etc., etc, at least it involve a real, Scout-related political issue.

 

(Anyone else see Brother Bear? That was my favorite part of the movie.)

 

[Eamonn]

The way that that thread is going makes me think that counting the number of holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall wouldn't be such a waste of energy and that Question Time in the house of Parliament, back home is a good demonstration of democracy in action?

You are of course right that people are free to not agree with my views and them being wrong is their choice.

Maybe I am naive enough to think that Scouting related discussions used to not include all this legal mambo-jumbo. Still the very fact that the BSA now feels that there has to be a web page related to legal issues on their site is prove that the mambo-Jambo is on the rise.

You are also right when you point out that I don't have to go there.

I don't know the words to "We are the world," I do know the words to "On my honor." and would be happy to join hands with the cantankerous Fat Gent and have him sing along with me.

Eamonn.

[buffalo2]

Thanks OGE - sometimes have to wonder about what we see in here

[NJCubScouter]

Eamonn says:

 

The way that that thread is going makes me think that counting the number of holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall wouldn't be such a waste of energy and that Question Time in the house of Parliament, back home is a good demonstration of democracy in action?

 

First of all, I'm sure the line about the number of holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall had some very sensible meaning to the person who wrote it, but unfortunately he probably didn't remember it after recovering from the temporary state that caused him to write it in the first place. I think the best he could do by way of explanation, when he was interviewed about it, is that "Hall" rhymes with "all."

 

Second of all, you are a brave man for using the term "democracy" around here, after the Recent Unpleasantness.

 

Third of all, I've watched the Prime Minister's Question Time on C-Span a number of times. It certainly is entertaining. And while I would not use the word "good," one could argue that it is a demonstration of democracy in action that is much more open and honest, and useful to the voters, than what we have here. An actual back-and-forth conversation between the Prime Minister himself/herself, and the opposition members of Parliament, is far more likely to produce some real information, and some real insight into what the leaders are all about, than the stage-managed debates and one-sided press conferences we have here. Democracy is sometimes messy and noisy, and you get a lot more of that direct confrontation in the British Question Time. Of course, I do realize that some of the noise is unecessary and that there is a certain amount of "theatre" involved, especially when the Labor members are asking Tony Blair "set up" questions so he can give a prepared speech. And it really wouldn't work here, due in part to the more "separate" nature of the executive and legislative branches as imposed by our Constitution. But it is fun to watch.

 

You are of course right that people are free to not agree with my views and them being wrong is their choice.

 

Ooh, was that a sneaky jab from Eamonn? That's not your usual style. (It sounds more like something I might say.) Or is there an implied after that sentence?

 

Maybe I am naive enough to think that Scouting related discussions used to not include all this legal mambo-jumbo. Still the very fact that the BSA now feels that there has to be a web page related to legal issues on their site is prove that the mambo-Jambo is on the rise.

 

Well, I think your second sentence above helps answer the implied question in the first. I have written before that to an unfortunate degree, the Boy Scouts have become the Litigation Scouts. That does not mean that I always disagree with the BSA's legal position. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree and sometimes I have no position. But what cannot be denied is that the litigation has multiplied. So it shouldn't be any surprise that an "Issues and Politics" section of a Scouting-related forum includes a lot of legal discussion, some of which can get technical -- and repetitive, when certain people refuse to acknowledge that some court decisions involve interpretations of the Constitution.

 

As for "We are the World," I realize FOG was making fun of it, using it as an example of "let's all play nice and agree with each other all the time," which is not the attitude that keeps this section going (though as OGE says, we should all show respect for each other in our posts.) However, I happen to have heard it enough times that I do remember a lot of the words, and the song is about helping other people. That theme has sort of a familiar ring to it.

[NJCubScouter]

Oh, and Eamonn, since you threw a bit of musical lyric into your last post, I'll also mention that the idea for the song "We are the World" -- both the specific subject matter and the idea of assembling an all-star lineup to sing it -- came from your "back home," a song called "Feed the World (Let them know its Christmas)" by a bunch of British musicians assembled by (Sir) Bob Geldof into the one-time group "Band Aid." (Which spawned the worldwide "Live Aid" concert.)

[Marty_Doyle]

I thought Sir Bob and the Boomtown Rats were from the other side of the Irish Sea from Eamonn....

 

NJ - "Recent Unpleasantness"? Is that what we are now calling it?

 

The "benefit" that we can get from some of postings in Issues and Politics is that there are people like Merlyn out there, who have contrary views of BSA. We, as leaders, need to be aware that opposing viewpoints exist, and (apologies to Ed) sometimes are more defensible and palatable to the general public (or Supreme Court) than BSA's.

We should be able to articulate responses (Hunt had a fairly good summation on the fourth page in the original posting, that rose above "Did so"-"Did not"), both on BSA's positions on these issues, and our own position, and how we reconile any differences. It will come up at some point in one's Scouting career.

Also, some of this is part of "Citizenship", that is supposed to be part of every program. There are dissenting views in this country, and we should learn to politely and respectfully debate them and learn from the discourse.

Of course, I still could use another 35 days without any "Philoposphy and Isms 101" postings.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Marty says:

 

NJ - "Recent Unpleasantness"? Is that what we are now calling it?

 

Well, I did, anyway. I was looking for a somewhat humorous euphemism, and "Recent Unpleasantness" is probably the king of all euphemisms, since it was used to refer to the Civil War. It is so understated and out of proportion to what it refers to that it becomes funny (in my opinion.) It has now come into use for other situations in which a writer is looking for a euphemism for a major controversy. (Search the Internet for the phrase and you will see what I mean, in fact the first several links I got included two from various Internet forums that referred to a recent poster or posters who were extremely disruptive. So it was possibly even more fitting than I thought when I first used it, at which time I was aware only of its Civil War connection.)

 

Of course, I still could use another 35 days without any "Philoposphy and Isms 101" postings.

 

Well, I think that is a break that you are going to get. At least, unless someone else tries to emulate the initiator of the, um, Recent Unpleasantness. That particular person seems to have been, to use another euphemism, "dealt with."

 

[Adrianvs]

"That particular person seems to have been, to use another euphemism, 'dealt with.'"

 

 

I haven't been following the boards very closely for the last several weeks. Can I take your euphemism to indicate that Wheeler was axed by the administrator? Or was there more of a collaborative effort of some sort?

 

heh, I felt a pseudo-responsibility for the whole affair as it seems to have been my "Wimps and Barbarians" post that brought him to the forums or inspired him to start posting. I'm just curious as to what happened..

[NJCubScouter]

Adrian,

 

I do not know what happened. I am guessing based on the last sentence of our moderator's post that requested the 48-hour break, plus the fact that a person who posted well over 200 times in his first month in the forum, made no posts after that.

[Marty_Doyle]

I agree with NJ.

If He Who Should Not Be Named wasn't "dealt with" by the moderator, his compulsion to post would, in two to four days, have led him to seek another forum. Where they are enduring their own "Recent Unpleasantness".