Re: A few points of response
Bob Amick (email@example.com)
Tue Feb 17 12:28:53 1998
Scott, et al
May I pose this question then, If Learning for Life is a separate and
distinct corporation with no direct ties to BSA as a corporation,
why then cannot there be Explorers in the BSA and Explorers in LFL?
The litigious exposure seems to have come from government sponsorship of
posts. So now that issue is resolved by the separation of corporate
identifications if I understand your post correctly. Is there more to this
than has currently been stated?
Names are very important in marketing and so far I don't think we
have seen any plausible arguments that support the need for a name
change for the BSA side of the corporation. Could we perhaps get
more information on why a name change is therefore mandated? If there is
in fact flexibility that "Venture" is not "carved in stone" then
what is the rationale for not continuing to use the term "Exploring?"
At 08:25 AM 2/17/98 CST6CDT, W. Scott Breckinridge Smith wrote:
>I'll try to respond to a few things that were discussed last night:
>1) Everyone should know that the Boy Scouts of America and Learning
>for Life are two separate corporations. By law, a corporation can sue
>and be sued as an individual person. Now, I'm not going to comment on
>any of the lawsuits that have been mentioned--I'm a political
>consultant, not an attorney or a professional with the BSA. The matter
>of Career, Law Enforcement, etc. being moved into another corporation
>is an important factor in all of this--they're not just moving things
>around to confuse us--they're doing it to make us (both Venturers and
>LFL) more stable.
>2) The title of "Exploring" IS going to the Career and Law Enforcement
>posts. There is apparently no room for movement on this. Venturing is
>the name that has been given to the BSA group (unless we come up with