OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

[NJCubScouter]

Gwaihir, if you read the entire passage that you quoted, and not just the sentence that you put in bold, I don't think this is any different from what the CSE has been saying.  He talks about "and a single-gender Scouting program for older girls" - with "older" in this context meaning older than Cub Scouts.

[Gwaihir]

Gwaihir, if you read the entire passage that you quoted, and not just the sentence that you put in bold, I don't think this is any different from what the CSE has been saying.  He talks about "and a single-gender Scouting program for older girls" - with "older" in this context meaning older than Cub Scouts.

 

The formatting of the release would place the subject of the sentence itself as the focus of the last statement, not the entire passage.  If that's not the case, I'm glad for it and perhaps it was just a matter of formatting... but I'm not holding my breath.  As always, time will tell.  

[NJCubScouter]

As always, time will tell.  

 

As always.

[Hawkwin]

I am done arguing about it. If your experience with scouts has taught you to read between the lines an infer something negative, then there is likely nothing I (some anonymous poster on a message board) can state that will change your perception. My limited experience with scouts (and life in general) is to give people the benefit of the doubt - and I going to give scouts even more latitude in that regard.

 

I might end up being completely wrong, Nationals may change the new guidance between now and implementation from single-gender to coed, but for now, I am going to take them at their word. I see no reason to waste so much energy otherwise.

[Gwaihir]

I am done arguing about it. If your experience with scouts has taught you to read between the lines an infer something negative, then there is likely nothing I (some anonymous poster on a message board) can state that will change your perception. My limited experience with scouts (and life in general) is to give people the benefit of the doubt - and I going to give scouts even more latitude in that regard.

 

I might end up being completely wrong, Nationals may change the new guidance between now and implementation from single-gender to coed, but for now, I am going to take them at their word. I see no reason to waste so much energy otherwise.

 

I was taking them at their word, which is the crux of the issue with the last OpEd piece... to me, that word started to metamorphosize.   I didn't even think I was reading between lines, the words are right there... on the lines.  As I said to NJCS, if it's a formatting issue, then I'm wrong.  But, as written, and the way sentence structure works... it's talking about the 11-18 program.  But, like I said, time will tell. 

[CalicoPenn]

 

 

No co-ed in 11-18 age girls is a blatant lie. 

 

It's been a few weeks since the original announcement - the BSA will have gotten a lot of feedback from people.  Back when they made this statement, that was their intention.  Did you give any thought to the probability that their position on this might change after a few weeks of feedback before you accused them of blatantly lying?

 

If you asked me for a loan of $100 4 weeks ago and I said I didn't have the money and you asked me again today and I did have the money, would you say my earlier statement was a blatant lie?  Circumstances change - they change all the time.  Changing ones mind or approach due to changing circumstances or additional information does not make a previous statement a lie - it makes it obsolete.

 

I fully expect that the position will change a few more times before its finally implemented.  We get it, you don't like this change - but accusing them of lying when their intentions evolve is just not Scout-like.

[Gwaihir]

It's been a few weeks since the original announcement - the BSA will have gotten a lot of feedback from people.  Back when they made this statement, that was their intention.  Did you give any thought to the probability that their position on this might change after a few weeks of feedback before you accused them of blatantly lying?

 

If you asked me for a loan of $100 4 weeks ago and I said I didn't have the money and you asked me again today and I did have the money, would you say my earlier statement was a blatant lie?  Circumstances change - they change all the time.  Changing ones mind or approach due to changing circumstances or additional information does not make a previous statement a lie - it makes it obsolete.

 

I fully expect that the position will change a few more times before its finally implemented.  We get it, you don't like this change - but accusing them of lying when their intentions evolve is just not Scout-like.

 

When a journalist releases a piece.... the facts are laid out.  If new information comes to light, it is clearly stated than an update has occurred due to new data.  That's called transparency and integrity.  If you have those things, you state that your original intent was X and that has evolved to Y based on new data.  You don't just start modifying your statement.  This isn't two people having fries and a beer and talking... this is a corporation with 2 million paying customers and is based on the concept of moral character and integrity, so stating your position has evolved shouldn't be beyond the pale.  This whole affair has been devious and underhanded from the get go.  With the deceptively named survey email, the fuzzy language when describing the situation, hidden survey numerical results, information being dribbled out.  The organization has not earned trust and respect and if this was a personal dealing where your investment dollars were on the line, most of you would most likely not be moving forward with the business.  From the start my issue has been more the shadowy nature of how it's being handled as opposed to the answer itself.  We're adults... allegedly the model citizens the program prides itself on building... we can handle open, transparent and honest discourse... National however, has not taken that approach.  

Edited November 14, 2017 by Gwaihir

[Stosh]

One would think that an issue as controversial as this was already getting "feedback" long ago with their little video, secret survey and invite only talks, the powers-to-be would have done their due diligence and gotten their ducks in order long before they said anything.

 

Maybe it wasn't a lie, but it surely was properly bungled along the way.

[Tampa Turtle]

One would think that an issue as controversial as this was already getting "feedback" long ago with their little video, secret survey and invite only talks, the powers-to-be would have done their due diligence and gotten their ducks in order long before they said anything.

 

Maybe it wasn't a lie, but it surely was properly bungled along the way.

 

'bungled' is past tense; 'bungling' is more accurate. 

[qwazse]

One would think that an issue as controversial as this was already getting "feedback" long ago with their little video, secret survey and invite only talks, the powers-to-be would have done their due diligence and gotten their ducks in order long before they said anything.

 

Maybe it wasn't a lie, but it surely was properly bungled along the way.

There's two duck to get in a row: speaking plainly saying that BSA4G starts as of X date, asking all parties to do their best to make it work with references to other scouting organizations who have done this.

 

There is no need for long speeches.

[njdrt-rdr]

It's been a few weeks since the original announcement - the BSA will have gotten a lot of feedback from people.  Back when they made this statement, that was their intention.  Did you give any thought to the probability that their position on this might change after a few weeks of feedback before you accused them of blatantly lying?

 

If you asked me for a loan of $100 4 weeks ago and I said I didn't have the money and you asked me again today and I did have the money, would you say my earlier statement was a blatant lie?  Circumstances change - they change all the time.  Changing ones mind or approach due to changing circumstances or additional information does not make a previous statement a lie - it makes it obsolete.

 

I fully expect that the position will change a few more times before its finally implemented.  We get it, you don't like this change - but accusing them of lying when their intentions evolve is just not Scout-like.

 

 ã€€

This isn't about borrowing a hundred bucks and someones intentions. Your buddy asked you a question twice and each time was a different legitimate answer, So no, you didn't lie to him. 　

But co-ed wasn't a question, it was a statement made by the head of the BSA. You don't run a company based off intentions you base them from fact and business plans.　

This is a multi billion dollar organization that is supposed to be laying out ground rules and direction for people to offer their program. People who volunteer and spend time away from family activities to run this program. they spend an extraordinary amount of time. By your correlation we would never have anything solid to go on for any topic because in a couple weeks they may change their intention. Businesses can't run off intentions. They stated "it will not be co-ed", that is not an intention, that is a factual statement they have made. If they were to say "it may not be co-ed"....That would be an intention and that means it needs further clarification after the issue is discussed more. It's just the whole cloudy nature by which they have done everything is what gets people riled up and leaving volunteers to guess at answers and handle all the questions coming to them without any information from the governing body It gets tiring.

[Stosh]

Like weather in Wisconsin.  If you're not happy with the way it is now, just wait five minutes, it'll change. I just wish BSA wasn't as fickle as Mother Nature.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Stosh

[NJCubScouter]

Some of these comments assume that the BSA's intentions have changed from single-gender units at ages 11-17 to coed troops.  That assumption seems to begin with Gwaihir's interpretation of the CSE's statement at cnn.com.  I don't think that interpretation is correct.  I think that when the CSE used the term "similar" he was talking about how each CO will get to decide what kind of units to have, within the options that will be offered by the BSA - not that there will mixed-gender troops.  Mixed-gender packs, yes, if that's what the CO wants, but not mixed-gender troops.  Based on Gwaihir's more recent post, he at least seems to agree with me that it is a matter of interpretation.  So we can fault the BSA for several aspects of how this whole thing has been handled, but not for switching from single-gender troops to coed troops in the past month.  I see no reason to believe they have done that.

[Back Pack]

I am done arguing about it. If your experience with scouts has taught you to read between the lines an infer something negative, then there is likely nothing I (some anonymous poster on a message board) can state that will change your perception. My limited experience with scouts (and life in general) is to give people the benefit of the doubt - and I going to give scouts even more latitude in that regard.

 

I might end up being completely wrong, Nationals may change the new guidance between now and implementation from single-gender to coed, but for now, I am going to take them at their word. I see no reason to waste so much energy otherwise.

I grew up listening to the whole argument about the membership policy. From what I’ve read and heard scouting has asked leaders their opinion and gone against them three times. I think the whole benefit of doubt argument went out the window a long time ago. Why would you trust anyone who has borrowed your car three times and returned it all three times with damage to it? Would you trust them a fourth time?

[RememberSchiff]

I grew up listening to the whole argument about the membership policy. From what I’ve read and heard scouting has asked leaders their opinion and gone against them three times. I think the whole benefit of doubt argument went out the window a long time ago. Why would you trust anyone who has borrowed your car three times and returned it all three times with damage to it? Would you trust them a fourth time?

 

The BSA is not a democracy, so the powers that be are just that. Opinions of the members may be asked or not, considered or ignored, followed or forgotten.

 

Your analogy is wrong, it should be Why would you trust anyone who has damaged his car three times not to damage his car a fourth time.

Edited November 14, 2017 by RememberSchiff