scouts-l Mail Archive for April of 2000: commenting on cases
Tue Apr 11 2000 - 18:33:46 CDT
Although we are not employees of BSA in the same sense, we are members of
the organization. As members we ought to respect the organizations
decisions about when, where, and how pubic information is released related
to the litigation.
Yes the outcome of the litigation is important, interesting, significant,
and more. And yes there is much that could be discussed. However, during
the course of the litigation, we shouldn't be discussing the case.
Sorry, the BSA that I'm a member of does not have the right to tell me not to
give my opinion on this or any other case. As many of you know already <G>.
John also opined that nothing we do at the unit level can have sway on the
thinking in Irving. I would take some issue on that point. Comments from
the frontline to the folks in Irving are taken seriously and do sometimes
result in change. I can think of several instances where things discussed
here on this list ended up in letters to Irving where changes followed.
I'd love to her you name one or two. Here's another i'd like to see them work
on" It is absolutely unconscionable for the BSA to continue to waffle on
smoking. One would think they got big bucks from RJReynolds or something <G>.
I want to hear them say, "No tobacco products of any kind on any BSA
property. Period." None of this b...s... about "out of sight of the boys."
None., Nada. Zilch.
OK, Irving? Are you listening?We thrash this out from time to time and we
just seem to go for the wishy-washy accommodation of the addicts, and I'm
tired of it. (G'wan, Beans, don't be shy, tell us how you really feel ... <G>)
I wanna hear a justification from National for any other approach-- and not
from anyone else, OK?
<grrrrrr> sick of smoking-related illness and deaths
SA T47 Sandwich MA
Cape Cod & Islands Council
Abake MiSaNaKi Lodge #393
NSJ 1997 Nat'l Health & Safety and going in 01!
I useta be an Eagle...