What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[GaHillBilly]

Horizon & Dan;

 

I don't understand how identifying a regular poster on a Scouter forum as an anti-Scouting activist is bullying. Perhaps you can explain that to me.

 

Horizon I don't know, but Dan, I'm disappointed. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider identifying a anti-gay activist on a homosexual support forum to be "bullying".

 

 

 

Regarding the statement that, "The worst bullying I see is from He Man Macho Scouts and Scouters", that may well be true in some cases. But the bullying I've seen was by nerds and wussies, doing it unto others.

 

Regarding Scouters, I'm pretty sure that the parents of the SPL and former SPL (now, known as Eagle-Scout-Who-Cannot-Tie-Square-Knot) as having 'bullied' them. But, would I be a "He Man Macho Scouter"?

 

I'm not sure. My high school nerd credentials are impeccable: non-athlete, Chess Club, yearbook staff, Boys' Club volunteer tutor. And though I got pretty strong and coordinated later, in high school I was neither. On the other hand, I grew up in the country, and have baled hay, shoveled cow sh## till my snot ran brown, and hiked all over the countryside alone. Oh yeah, I went climbing and backpacking and didn't get fat till I was 40.

 

I didn't get bullied much, because I learned fairly early that he who goes beserk first often gets treated as too much trouble to mess with. I never bullied anyone in jr hi, or high school, unless you count verbal insulting matches. But those were more like nerd-duels.

 

So, can a nerd be a "He Man Macho Scouter"?

 

[ Just a thought: Baden-Powell apparently had no 'nerd' or 'wussie' credentials, and massive 'He-Man' credentials. Does that mean that he was a bully, Dan? ]

 

Nevertheless, I have a very low tolerance for older youth who lie, cheat, steal, and bully younger kids, and our last troop had an SPL and an former SPL who did all of those. I'm pretty sure, from the look on his face, Eagle-Who-Cannot,etc. had never been spoken to before as I did, the last time he tried to cut out and distract a group of younger Scouts who were intent on learning some first aid skills.

 

Those two older Scouts were definitely afraid of me. Does THAT make me a bully?

 

There were two other older Scouts. One was aloof, but the 4th was definitely angling to be my 'buddy', but neither was in any way afraid of me. And, I'm pretty sure none of the younger ones were. In fact, as I reflect on it, I'm certain they were not, because by the time we left, they were coming to me in preference to the other long term leaders when there was a problem.

 

So, Horizon, if you are Eagle's mom or her clone . . . I guess you do consider me a bullying Scouter. For sure, if I'd stayed, Eagle-Who-Cannot would have been unlikely to Eagle . . . especially after he hid out while the rest of us were working on "his" Eagle project.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

[Horizon]

GAHillBilly:

 

I am nobody's clone (nor their mom). I am a white male, married, Scoutmaster and Deacon. I participate on this forum to gather information, learn from others, and sometimes debate over the virtual campfire. I usually just "walk away" from the more heated discussions. I had gone into "read only" mode on this thread until you insinuated that people like me would turn a blind eye to sexual molesters. That is an insult of a pretty high level.

 

I accuse you of INTERNET bullying based on this post:

 

"However, I'm gonna quit. I thought I was talking with Scouts and Scouters here. But, my son read through this thread, and got curious about some of the posters. Google and a little investigative cleverness goes a long way, and he's found out some really surprising things. I'm not sure whether we'll post them or not."

 

You not only decided to post Merlyn's information, but you THREATENED (a bullying tactic) to post others possible personal details. That comes across as an attempt to stifle discussion on this forum regarding Scouting issues. That is a form of internet bullying - posting information about others in a public forum for all to see.

[HiLo]

I am neither pro-gay nor pro-atheist, but I am strongly anti-bigotry.

 

Some here are very good at bullying with words.

[acco40]

Just a thought: Baden-Powell apparently had no 'nerd' or 'wussie' credentials, and massive 'He-Man' credentials. Does that mean that he was a bully, Dan?

 

It may not mean that he was a bully. However, he did have a young male companion for quite a long time and a rather platonic relationship with his wife. It may not mean he was gay but ...

 

"Evidence of his abiguous sexuality suggests in the context of his time an altogether more troubled and complex figure than a simple critique would imply." -Ben Knights

 

"Another officer attacted to young men was General Sir Robert Baden-Powell ...Baden-Powell's attitudes towards women ranged from companionable neutrality to outright hostility and he married only at the age of 55. His sentiments about the male sex were typified by a pithy assertion "A clean young man in his prime of health and strength is the finest creature God has made in the world." Baden-Powell had a long and intense friendship with Kenneth McLaren "the Boy", "my best friend in the world" a relationship that might have encompassed a physical side. BP surrounded himself with handsome subalterns aned assistants, and admired a team of African gymnasts as "magnificent specimens." He counselled Scouts to control their sexual urges, avoid fantasizing about women and refrain from "self-pollution" an thought that sexual passion could disappear among noble-minded young men. Female nudity revolted him, but he took pleasure in watching young males swim nude. He enjoyed peeks at 'those wonderful photographs' of a friend, pictures of naked boys. The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." - Robert Aldrich (Colonialism and Homosexuality)

 

So before we debate what would have to change if gays were allowed in, maybe we should debate if anything would be any different if the gays that already exist in Scouting, including the BSA, were allowed to remain as members without having to be "stealth" gays?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[GaHillBilly]

Horizon, only you know if people 'like you' are the sort of Scouters I've seen locally who ignore bad behavior in older Scouts. You associated your self with those people, not me.

 

Locally, the adults who've behaved like this have fallen into two categories:

1. Wussies, who are too timid to confront anyone, &

2. Scouter-Parents, who are protecting their sons, or sons of their friends.

 

Likewise, the bullies I encountered personally years ago were not the BMOC types, but wannabes who hadn't made it.

 

The bullies I've seen in Scouting, with one exception, have been nerds who wanted to pass on what they'd suffered. The exception was the most dangerous, but he wasn't really a bully. He was a very, very angry kid with a terrible home life. I don't actually consider him a bully, because he was a likely to go off on someone much larger, as he was someone smaller.

 

Regarding my "internet bullying", you can accuse all you want, but I don't consider exposing an anti-Scouting activist, who has no other association with Scouting to be bullying.

 

I was over the top, with my remarks about others here. I can only plead that I was dismayed to find that a prolific and long-term poster here is not a Scouter at all, nor even friendly to Scouting in the least way. There IS some evidence that there are others, but not proof, and I haven't been able to go further, without spending more time and effort than I'm willing to put into it. But, if I find other non-Scouters here, posing implicitly as Scouters, and I can verify what I suspect, I will expose them, as well.

 

If Terry Howerton publicly tells me that I should not, or if it's in forum rules (which I can't find at the moment), then I won't. It's his forum, not mine.

 

I have no problem with a pro-gay Scouter debating this with me. I find it very frustrating to discover that I've been debating with an gay / atheist activist as if he were a Scouter.

 

 

HiLo, you keep accusing me of things that you don't seem able to support. Is your "bigotry" remark directed at me? If so, can you support it, or is it just another one of your "you big meanie, you" type remarks?

 

Does your "bullying with words" remark have any substance, or you do you just mean that "I'm losing the argument, and I don't like it."?

 

Hilo, this is the "Issues and Politics" section, which on most forums means "intellectual hardball". If you want to play nerf ball, this is the wrong section. But, if you'll stop trying to make plays beyond your skill level, I'll stop slamming you. Nobody is skilled at all of it. I almost always disagree with DanKroh, but don't think I've ever slammed him because he tries to be rational and stick to what he can support.

 

I *try* to do the same.

 

The problem is, most people tend to hold positions without really knowing how they got them.

 

That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it usually means that they don't have a REASONED basis for what they think. When someone tries to play a hand here they can't back, on a thread I'm following, I tend to call. If they were bluffing, they usually lose.

 

But, with absorbed beliefs, they usually don't realize that they WERE bluffing until they get called.

 

I see this happen all the time within the evangelical community. I'm pretty sure it happens within ANY closed intellectual circle, whether it's the pro-AGW crowd, the KKK, the B'nai Brith, the snake handlers in Kentucky or car salesmen considering predatory sales tactics. If everyone else around you thinks your ideas are OK, you'll tend to agree. But, you won't really know till you test them elsewhere.

 

Today, there's a broad river of PC thought that goes unchallenged. That makes it easy to accept, and there's all sorts of encouragement to do so, whether it's from the MSM, or your college professor. However, many of these beliefs are just as easy to demolish as a belief in a 6,000 year old world.

 

But, where the guy who accepts Bishop Ussher's dates for Adam's creation will constantly be reminded that most people think that's stupid, those of you who accept some of the currently PC idiocies won't really have to support them till you encounter a curmudgeon like me, or even Kudu.

 

It's like bad breath. Someone who's really nice won't tell you that you reek like week old road kill. But, attacking the guy who does tell you won't make it go away.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[HiLo]

Yes GaHB, I was thinking of you, among others, when I spoke of bigotry here. You convinced me of that when you posted your totally irrelevant story about gays cruising.

 

As for Internet bullying, I've been playing on the web for a long time, and I know it happens. I can do it, and have done so (rarely) when I felt that another bully deserved some of his own back. You're very good with words, and you're quite capable of doing it too. In my humble opinion, you have already done it several times in this thread. Threats to "out" people (for being associated with something you don't like) is bullying.

 

And thank you for drawing my attention to the existence of Scouting for All. Its goals seem excellent to me. It seems to want to bring BSA part of the way along the road towards what my Scouting organization (also a member of WOSM) is.

 

(PS: I edited this post after I realised that I had done a little Internet bullying towards the end.)(This message has been edited by HiLo)

[GernBlansten]

A Scout is Trustworthy. A Scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him.

 

GaHillbilly, you said you would quit. Can't you be trustworthy?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

GaHillBilly writes:

I can only plead that I was dismayed to find that a prolific and long-term poster here is not a Scouter at all, nor even friendly to Scouting in the least way. . . . But, if I find other non-Scouters here, posing implicitly as Scouters,

 

GaHillBilly, there you go again, implying that I'm dishonest by "posing" as a scouter. And I'm sure you'll again refuse to back up your accusations by quoting anything I've written.

 

I'm not responsible for your erroneous assumptions. If you jumped to that conclusion, that's YOUR problem. Moderators like OGE will tell you that being a member of the BSA is not a requirement to register on scouter.com or post in the forums.

[GernBlansten]

For GaHillbilly's education,

I'm a former scout, brother of an Eagle scout, father of an Eagle scout, former ASM, current Venture CA and troop committee member, been to Philmont and two Canadian BSA Norther Tier treks, current OKPIK instructor.

Do I qualify to post on this forum GAHillBilly?

[Spiney Norman]

Really this will not add to the discussion but when do the nominations for this year's "Pappy" awards open?

[DanKroh]

"Regarding my "internet bullying", you can accuse all you want, but I don't consider exposing an anti-Scouting activist, who has no other association with Scouting to be bullying."

 

First of all, you didn't "expose" anyone. Merlyn has always been quite up front about exactly who he is and what his purpose is here, all you have to do is look through his post history, and you would have known what the rest of us have known for years. I, for one, have never had a problem with him, perhaps because I respect his mission to uphold the Constitutional rights of gays and atheists, which unfortunately, the BSA seems to think it can disregard by having the protection of freedom of association without any of the responsibilities of that freedom, namely, being unable to accept governmental support.

 

And yes, I consider this quote to be bullying: "But, my son read through this thread, and got curious about some of the posters. Google and a little investigative cleverness goes a long way, and he's found out some really surprising things. I'm not sure whether we'll post them or not."

 

It carries an implied threat that you have dirt on someone, and that you might "out" them if the whimsy strikes you.

 

You continued the implied threat in this post: "And, it appears you are not alone. However, the connections we've been able to make between some other forum names, and real life people, is not yet strong enough to post." in which you also mention that you have "notes" of the information you have discovered about posters on this forum. I have to agree with Lisabob's assessment, it's creepy, and more than a little disturbing.

 

And of course, it begs the question, who are you planning on "outing", or if you prefer, "exposing" next? The next person who disagrees with you? That, sir, is the essence of bullying, to use the power that you think you have over other people to coerce them, or at least embarrass them. So what exactly is the goal *you* had in mind when you started making notes about the personal identities of various posters here?

[HICO_Eagle]

Can we close and lock this thread now? This has devolved into a debate about whether allowing gays in would be desirable and various personal attacks despite Oak Tree's original request. There are numerous unScoutlike exchanges going on right now and I think it would best to just lock this topic and give everyone a breather.

[Lisabob]

For the record, I hope that Terry (or his moderating staff) DOES tell you to knock it off. It is wholly inappropriate and violates many aspects of the Scout law. HEY MODS!!! I HOPE YOU SEE THIS!!!!

 

The fact that you are now saying you haven't had the time, but might consider tracking down other posters whom you suspect, comes very close to internet stalking, in addition to bullying. I stand by what I said earlier, it is getting to be creepy.

 

If you are wondering what I'm talking about, here's a quote from a recent post of yours, to refresh your memory.

 

"I was over the top, with my remarks about others here. I can only plead that I was dismayed to find that a prolific and long-term poster here is not a Scouter at all, nor even friendly to Scouting in the least way. There IS some evidence that there are others, but not proof, and I haven't been able to go further, without spending more time and effort than I'm willing to put into it. But, if I find other non-Scouters here, posing implicitly as Scouters, and I can verify what I suspect, I will expose them, as well.

 

If Terry Howerton publicly tells me that I should not, or if it's in forum rules (which I can't find at the moment), then I won't. It's his forum, not mine. "

 

 

 

[WAKWIB]

I agree with others that this particular virtual campfire has gotten pretty cold...and the one on global warming is just about that way too. In both cases it's gone from decent intellectual sparring, to a lot of hijacking where the intent of the original post has virutally disappeared., and in the end they are just becoming a big whizzing contest to see who can get the last word in.

It might be of some benefit to all of us to realize that even though the "issues and politics" department may touch on some hot topics, it shouldn't dissolve into personal attacks. One big reason is that this is a publically viewable forum, and one of the few public Scouter forums on the internet. It get lots of traffic from folks who may never post....possibly not even want to when they see some of these threads. Our conduct in this department may also cloud their view of what we have to say in the "important" departments on this site where we post on program, troop/pack operations,working with kids,etc.

Every time we post, we are presenting a "voice" of Scouting. Particularly that of an adult Scout leader.(This message has been edited by WAKWIB)

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Drizzle, Drazzle, Drozzle, Drome,, time for this one to go home