Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 No, it wasn't Ed, you still can't read. Look at the web page again: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html Notice that the column marked "Total Available Youth(1)" has a footnote indicator. Notice that the estimate is marked as footnote 1: (1) The source of these numbers is the Population Estimates Program, Population Division, US Census Bureau. As the percentage of girls in Venturers is small, only males (age 5-17) are included in this column. As you can tell, there has been no decline in the overall number of boys available to join BSA from 1995-2002, and the declines in 2003-2004, do not correlate with BSA's declining numbers. The estimate for 2005 has yet to be released. The source of these numbers clearly refers to the numbers in the column marked with footnote (1), that is, the "total available youth", all males age 5-17 in the US, which is from the US Census Bureau, which has not released the estimates for 2005. Plus, of course, numbers for BSA membership would not come from the US Census Bureau. I did ask Dave (the webmaster of bsa-discrimination.org), who told me he got the figures from "inside BSA national". Given that an official BSA website has numbers from April 2005 that are even lower than these, and a BSA supporter also posted numbers in a Venturing yahoo group that he said he got from were also lower than these numbers, I'd say Dave's source is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Yeah right! An unnamed BSA source. There's credibility! Don't forget the big recruitment push isn't until fall so numbers from April 2005 would be lower than compared to year end 2005 numbers. And I don't believe these have been released as of yet. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 That site blames a drop in BSA membership on the gay issue. They claim the BSA policy is out of touch with mainstream America. I would like to hear their explanation of the following: "(AP) In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of same-sex marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky and Georgia, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi. "'This issue does not deeply divide America,' said conservative activist Gary Bauer. 'The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart.'" Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers down last year. My guess is the Councils were checking their numbers much more closely after all the news on ghost units. Whether from clerical errors, fraud, or who knows what, if there were any mystery units carried on the books, they have most likely been removed. I am still amazed at how much effort these people put in to change the policies of an organization that, as they see it, is so full of fraud, incompetence and corruption, so that they can join. One would think they wouldn't want to have anything to do with the BSA. Just amazing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miki101 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Oh Merlyn, Your buddy Dave's source could not be very far "inside National" because he admits to not having 2005 numbers. Actually, I have the 2005 numbers and it's less than 80,000 in droppage. Sorry. I'll repeat: Don't believe everything that you read on a canned website. David C. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 miki101 writes: Your buddy Dave's source could not be very far "inside National" because he admits to not having 2005 numbers. Where does he admit that? Are you also unable to read footnotes correctly? And what's the source of your numbers, which you keep referring to, but always as vaguely as possible? What are your totals for cubs, scouts, venturing, etc? And how about the link jkhny posted? http://www.iac-bsa.org/bsa_at_a_glance.htm Where did the Istrouma area council get these April 2005 numbers? Where did Mike Marks get these numbers for September and October 2005, which are quite close to the December numbers on bsa-discriminaton.org? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/venturinglist/message/12178 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/venturinglist/message/12170 How about this May 2005 press release from the national BSA itself, where the BSA's official spokesman Gregg Shields says the BSA serves "nearly 4.1 million" youth? http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47864 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miki101 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Well Merlyn, I have the numbers at Year End...Shields Press Releasae was done in May. My numbers come from, well,..."inside BSA national." If you want a breakdown, then you can buy my book coming out in spring 2007, tentatively titled THE SCOUTING PARTY. David C. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Miki101, Any chance we can get a teaser about your book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 Well Miki101, if you write as badly as you read, I don't think I'd be interested. You still haven't pointed out where the bsa-discrimination.org page says he doesn't have figures for 2005; he says that about US census figures for 2005, but not BSA membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Let's take another look at our neighbors to the north, where they opened the doors to gays and girls. The following numbers list the year, youth, adults 1996 - 172,680....58,362 2000 - 142,200....46,112 2002 - 120,000....40,000 2003 - 103,000....30,000 2004 - 94,230.....28,440 Present - 84,000...25,000 Now that looks like a plan for growth! (If you are looking for negative growth). All in favor of following Scouts Canada, please say Aye!(This message has been edited by BrentAllen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miki101 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Tisk Tisk Merlyn, Is that all that you have? No facts but a personal attack? Perhaps you should concentrate on getting your facts straight before spouting off...rather shamful 'Ole Boy. You need a good researcher...by the way, my rates are reasonable. As for you SRBeaver - it goes into the history and the struggle for the soul of the BSA and why it formed the way that it did in 1910. It further examines he social history and motives behind its creation and quotes the words from thousands of documents collected worldwide - Note the Merlyn: these would be documented facts - that tell the story of the BSA's true origins. I have over 10,000 pages of Scouting documents in my stacks collected from over 80 archives worldwide in addition to over 700 books/magazines that I source. That Bibliography alone is worth the price of admission. That's the teaser... David C. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Miki101, I'll certainly apologize as soon as you point out to me where "he admits to not having 2005 numbers" as you've claimed. Until then, my stating you can't read well isn't so much a personal attack as an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Miki101, That's all Merlyn know to do. He's great on posting estimates & so called facts & passing them off as fact. Then when he is asked to back them up he resorts to a personal attack & attempts to get you to re-focus on some trivial part of a post that was accurate. Brent, Now that's what I call a decline! Shows that if we let gays & girls in the BSA the same is likely to happen & that would be the end of the BSA! But then who would Merlyn pester? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miki101 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 "(1) The source of these numbers is the Population Estimates Program, Population Division, US Census Bureau. As the percentage of girls in Venturers is small, only males (age 5-17) are included in this column. As you can tell, there has been no decline in the overall number of boys available to join BSA from 1995-2002, and the declines in 2003-2004, do not correlate with BSA's declining numbers. The estimate for 2005 has yet to be released." Thanks Merl, Well...I have the correct numbers, so why doesn't your "insider?" Perhaps you should find a different hobby than Scout bashing... PS: I'm not really waiting for your apology... David C. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Ed, well one side effect to BSA allowing Gays and Atheists is that Merlin would have to get a new hobby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 17, 2006 Author Share Posted March 17, 2006 Ed writes: I read fine Merlyn. You just can't dance real well. No Ed, you can't read footnotes. If you want, you can write to Dave and ask him what he meant. Since I've been corresponding with him (plus I can read footnotes), I know he was referring to the US Census estimates for males 5-17. You're basing your statements on numbers that aren't factual! I'm basing my numbers posted at bsa-discrimination.org; while it's possible they aren't accurate, I think they are. Wait! Didn't you post the statement "The The actual losses will probably be higher" was from your pals web site. Yes; I was wrong. I thought you were still referring to the figures on bsa-discrimination, because you referred to this statement as confirming that my numbers were "not actual", instead of a post I wrote 11 days earlier. Miki101 claims to have "actual numbers", but he refuses to post any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now