Re: Uniforms -- again
don newcomb (newcomb@US2.NAVO.NAVY.MIL)
Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:31:04 -0500
>Another thought, although it may sound extreme, is that the Official Uniform,
>as a whole, is Copyrighted by the BSA and incorrect uniforming is a violation
>of that copyright. Again, this is an extreme position, but do we really want
>to tell the youth that copyright laws are so insignificant?
I think this would be an excellent way to teach young people that the
copyright laws are stupid and pointless.
>I guess the real point to remember is that is a UNIFORM. That automatically
>means that they are supposed to look the same. The customization options are
>there already, providing more than enough personalization.
Now this I do agree with. I have also heard some long-time military types
become downright irate at the notion that there are now parts of the
US Army uniform that are optional. "What do you mean, 'The blousing of
the trousers is optional?!' In my day, there wern't no such &^#*! thing
as 'optional'!" Like it, or not, the idea of "uniform" ain't what it
used to be.
Donald R. Newcomb * email@example.com
Naval Oceanographic Office * firstname.lastname@example.org
Stennis Space Center, MS 39522 * Voice: (601) 688-5998
FAX: (601) 688-5485 * DSN: 485-5998
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City