Re: A few points of response
W. Scott Breckinridge Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue Feb 17 12:41:06 1998
Is there a -good- explanation for the BSA people not being called
Explorers? No, not in my mind. But, I learned as a youth officer in
the OA that is is not very fruitful to argue something that has
already been established.
I want everyone Outdoor Explorer to know that the people who were at
the meeting last week did everything they could to preserve our
traditions. They lost on the name issue.
The youth who stay with the BSA will not be called Explorers. They
have been tentativley been called Venturers. The chairman of my
committee was told that if we had any better ideas to let them know.
"Exploring" is not an option for us.
And, I do not know whether there is more to this issue than has
already been stated. I may have knowledge of a few more tidbits, but
that's all they are. It seems that the members of this list are pretty
good at coming to rational conclusions based on days of discusion. I
think that the more everyone talks about this issue, the more truth
will come out.
---Bob Amick wrote:
> 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
> posts. So now that issue is resolved by the separation of corporate
> identifications if I understand your post correctly. Is there more
> 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
> in fact flexibility that "Venture" is not "carved in stone" then
> what is the rationale for not continuing to use the term "Exploring?"
> Bob Amick
> 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
> >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
> >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
> >something better).
W. Scott Smith
The James River Partnership
Post Office Box 4694
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com