scouts-l Mail Archive for June of 2000: Scoutmaster Minute? - The wrong (IMO) message
Tue Jun 13 2000 - 07:59:06 CDT
Hmm! This one created some immediate, strong, and negative synapses in
To me, proficiency in playing the game was what should have mattered.
Golf attire has not only varied over the years, but has evolved and
become individualistic - and has not been a cause for disqualification.
disAbled pro-golfers can even use carts in tourniments. It reads like
the committee was being officious and anal.
There are things that seem important in life, and others which are -
deep down - unimportant. There are other things that you can do nothing
about (like when my son returned from college with an earing) and times
when you must take a stand.
We remember from WW II that the powerful Germans, in lands they
controlled, ordered Jews to where the Star of David on their clothing.
In Denmark most of the population (primarily non-Jewish) started wearing
the emblem in defiance.
Were the Germans being unreasonable? Didn't the Germans have a right to
promote "conforming rules...for the betterment of the group..."?
> "Wearing the brim front was <snip> the committee's attempt to (make sure the
> players) present themselves as gentlemen." <snip> "That's the standard
> we've always held. To entice clubs to invite us back, we will not show any
> The committee said the decision was also based on the Stonington's golfers
> "complete insubordination." was clear the committee had made the decision
> before the cards of the final two groups were posted.
> "It's kind of cheap, maybe, but there had to be a disqualification," said one
> of the victorious Waterford golfers. "Everyone played under the same
> conditions. He got warned" <snip>
> "There's nothing, really, we can do about it," said another Watertown golfer.
Perhaps everyone should have turned their brims around.