Re: DAY ONE, Continued
Nathan Brindle (NBRINDLE@INDYCMS.BITNET)
Fri, 20 Aug 1993 12:53:37 EST
Jon, I saw your note, but I have to make a couple of points for Mr.
Zussman. I will attempt to stay within the bounds of the Spirit of Scouting.
As noted below, this is my final <public> word on the subject.
1. I don't have the 1992 proposed amendments to the APO Bylaws in front
of me, so all I remember was the proposal to break with the BSA in favor
of a relationship with the World Scouting Association (or whatever it's
called, brain is fuzzy today). If you included GSUSA and other American
scouting organizations, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I still
think you're making a mistake if you want to associate an American fraternity
with World Scouting. As to when I talked to Brother Schroeder, it was
at the Advisor's Luncheon on (I think) Tuesday.
2. I am pleased that your amendment failed; I am <displeased> that you left
the convention as the result of an assault. If this is indeed the case, I am
truly sorry (although there is nothing <I> could have done about it). My
personal reaction upon meeting you--had I done so--would have been to engage
you in a discussion of the relative merits of your proposal. You have a
perfect right to express your opinion...what is it that Voltaire said,
please pardon the paraphrase, "I may not agree with what you say, but I
will defend to the death your right to say it." Calm, rational discussion
is the basis of a democratic society. I did not feel that your original
post was either calm or rational, and I admit that my reply, while considered,
wasn't very rational either. Assault is uncalled for and totally unacceptable.
The "brothers" involved should have been disciplined, if not put on National
3. Yes, I insist on what you call an "actual count"--which is not what I
said. As I recall, I asked for well-researched statistics, or something
like that. An actual count would be nice but not necessary. Leave it as
I believe the numbers you quoted or referred to are much too high. Most
folks who make accusations of the quality of yours have gone to the trouble
to collect the kind of data I asked for.
4. All I can say to your comment that I was two-faced about youth protection
when I referred to my friend who was drummed out of Scouting is that I know
Matt and I know damn well he did not do what he was ACCUSED of. Got a guy
in jail here name of Mike Tyson who claims the same thing. Justice is blind,
and sometimes it wears blinders, too. I'm sure we can all attest to the
innocence of someone who is behind bars just because we know them. The point
is that my friend did <something> that <someone> believed was abusive. What
I <don't> know is the <level> of what it was that he did. Is patting a boy
on the head for doing a good job considered abuse? (If so, I'm in deep
trouble.) What is acceptable contact today (NONE) is quite different from
when I was growing up and certainly different from when Matt was younger.
I do NOT excuse Matt--he was warned many times to quit being so friendly
with the neighborhood kids by his friends who were legitimately concerned
that something like what happened <would> happen. (BTW, you did not use
the term "two-faced" but that was your implication.) Matt also admits that
he screwed up--which few <real> pederasts do, at least in my understanding.
Brother Zussman--and I do not consider you any less a brother for expressing
an opinion with which I do not concur--I am sorry that you have had your
problems with what you term "BSA, Inc.". I do not have the time to answer
you point for point--731 lines was enough trouble to read. The main point
that must be answered is that we both agree that youth protection is Job 1.
Where we diverge is on our perception of how well it is implemented and
on how we work to ensure that it happens. Further, I felt that it was
important that the subscribers of SCOUTS-L understood the "APO aspect".
I can use terms like "ilk" and still discuss a matter rationally with
someone I use the term to describe. <You> have to understand that I
am (an advisory) part of a 25-member APO chapter that was and is very
much opposed to your proposal--and I might add that the chapter is 75%
female and one of our two delegates is female (and an Explorer). I myself
had an excellent Scouting experience between 1970 and 1974 and it pains
me no end to hear someone run down the best memories of my life. You
should hardly be surprised to get the kind of responses you did when you
consider that to some of us, Scouting is indeed a way of life. (I won't
call it a religion because I already have one of those.) That does not
blind us to the fact that problems exist. We are working to correct the
problems we perceive. YPP is just one aspect of how we are doing that.
If you read the list over the past six or eight months you will see that
I am <quite> concerned about training issues, particularly within my own
troop, which does not seem to place the same emphasis on them that I do.
My posting was never meant to "shut you up" (you did not say that, I am
only making the point) but was offered in the vein indicated by the
preceding 75+ lines.
I hope that sometime in the future--perhaps in Dallas in '94 if not sooner--
you and I will have the opportunity to sit and discuss this in person.
Until then, this is my final <public> word on the subject, but I am and
Sincerely Yours in Leadership, Friendship and Service,
Nathan C. Brindle, Administrative Specialist, Student Activities Office
Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
Staff Advisor, ALPHA PHI OMEGA, TAU OMICRON CHAPTER
List Administrator, STUACTS@INDYCMS, APOSEC52@INDYCMS, and ACCESS-L@INDYCMS
Internet: NBRINDLE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (preferred) or NBRINDLE@AOL.COM
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Indiana University can speak for itself.
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City