Thoughts on Scouting

[Paul Fannin]

I am a staunch supporter of the Boy Scout movement. As an adult, I have served in various capacities in BSA, including two stints as Cubmaster, several Eagle Board of Reviews, merit badge counselor in several areas. I am a member of Order of the Arrow (a fraternal organization within BSA) and an Eagle. I look back on my experiences as a youth in Scouting with great satisfaction. It is my association with great men and women as the greatest element of Scouting, both as a youth and adult.

This revelation should come as a surprise to no one who knows me and knows of my Mormon faith; the LDS Church being the greatest supporter of BSA. Since 1913, the Church has adopted Scouting as a supplement to it's
program for Young Men. Some have said our sponsorship of BSA prepares our Young Men for full-time missionary service. I know that to be true in my case.

It is with this spirit that I say: Atheism has no place in Scouting.

While Scouting promotes no particular religion, creed, sect, or denomination, it is indeed a religious organization. Adherence to the precepts of a boy's chosen persuasion is encouraged. The Scout Oath states, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." The final point of the Scout Law is, "A Scout is Reverent." As it suggests in it's title, a young Boy Scout raises his right arm to the square and swears by oath to adhere to the duties enumerated in the Scout Oath. He is not admitted into the Troop unless he does, and he cannot advance in rank on the road to Eagle if he does not.



All fraternities and sororities reserve the right to include and, yes, exclude anyone they wish. They also reserve the right to define "morally straight" to chagrin of some, but to the agreement of those of who are supporters. While Boy Scouts of America is chartered by the US Congress, it does not receive one penny of tax payer money to subsidize it's activities. The United Way, a magnanimous and effective charitable organization, has, nevertheless withheld it's support for BSA for lo many years. That is their prerogative. The Scouting movement has survived and indeed, continued to flourish.

Scouting is also the most effective, and least political (it's non-political) of all the conservationists groups. A Scout is also oath bound to live by the Outdoor Code, which promotes being Conservation-minded. Scouts are constantly involved in service projects for understanding, preservation, and beautification of our natural resources and treasures. They are taught to pitch in and render service wherever they find themselves. Finally, they are taught to foster a deep and abiding love for America, her traditions, her history, and her sacred Constitution.

It is a private organization. Why would anyone, on condition of good-standing membership, swear an oath to adhere to it's precepts, turn from it, and expect to remain?

[Zandoz]

If as you say, they are receiving no taxpayer funds, tax breaks, etc, then they are entitled to do as they please. And those who chose to cast a less than favorable light for their policies are free to do so also.

[OriginalCyn]

I'm not aware of all the issues surrounding the Scouts, in terms of what challenges they've had to overcome as a private organization--one that has membership requirements that don't sit right with everyone in an increasingly-egalitarian society.

I was a Scout, myself, during grade school, and, yes, at least pretending to have some sort of religious adherence was considered to be "good form." (I can recall being at Scout Camp one summer, and the counsellors assumed that my singing hymns in a Protestant service would be inherently less-offensive to my nominally-Jewish self than singing Catholic hymns. And I was required to go to a "service" performed in phonic Hebrew by a Christian counsellor. Those hymns were edifying, though, as up until that point, I'd been given little education as to what Christians believed [or Jews, for that matter]. I found the hymns to be a total HOOT [which, I'm sure would have appalled all of the religious folks there].)

I've no idea as to whether this remains a factor in favor of equal-access-to-Scouting, but at one time, wasn't membership a sort of "in" to various aspects of the adult social scene, and ultimately, to having business and/or political influence? I do know that this issue was one of the main arguments against men's PRIVATE business clubs--that their very existence gave anyone who could not be a member an inherent disadvantage in the business world. *IF* Scouting does, in fact, provide the sort of social/business/political advantage that I'm writing about, then I can see why the "private club" argument might not hold water.

But now I want to discuss a whole other aspect to the "religious" issue. The Boy Scouts ban homosexuals on both religious and moral grounds. They say that they should be able to do this because they are a private club. (I say that discriminating against homosexual men in this case is OK--but only for pragmatic reasons, in that the Scouts could [and, unfortunately, sometimes DO] provide a venue for sick men who like to molest male minors.)

The Girl Scouts do not ban homosexuals from being either members or leaders. As a private club, they should be able to do this, too. But who objects the most strongly to the policy of allowing Lesbians (who, BTW, respect girls and women and are almost never child molesters--unlike a substantial percentage of men of all sexual orientations)? The folks who run the Boy Scouts, that's who!

I say that you should be able to have whomever you want in your club...with a possible exception to that general rule IF membership in your club is a necessary factor for social success. And, just as you might want outsiders to have no power to dictate how you manager your club, don't be hypocritical and turn around and object to how another club chooses to manage their membership.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

But now I want to discuss a whole other aspect to the "religious" issue. The Boy Scouts ban homosexuals on both religious and moral grounds. They say that they should be able to do this because they are a private club. (I say that discriminating against homosexual men in this case is OK--but only for pragmatic reasons, in that the Scouts could [and, unfortunately, sometimes DO] provide a venue for sick men who like to molest male minors.)

The Girl Scouts do not ban homosexuals from being either members or leaders. As a private club, they should be able to do this, too. But who objects the most strongly to the policy of allowing Lesbians (who, BTW, respect girls and women and are almost never child molesters--unlike a substantial percentage of men of all sexual orientations)? The folks who run the Boy Scouts, that's who!

Most child molesters identify as heterosexual. Maybe they should ban straight men from Boy Scouts?

[mossystate]

Most child molesters identify as heterosexual. Maybe they should ban straight men from Boy Scouts?
You beat me to it.I think I would be scared shitless to allow a child to join that organization.

[HottiMegan]

I plan on objecting if my son ever wants to join the scouts soley on their discriminatory practices. I think that they have every right to exist and teach waht they want just as i have every right to dislike its existance of a group that will dislike my son for his lack of christianity and for some of his gay relatives.

I was a girl scout with a lesbian couple as troop leaders. I loved my time with them and would have gone all the way with them if i hadnt moved.

[JudgeDredd425]

I am a staunch supporter of the Boy Scout movement. As an adult, I have served in various capacities in BSA, including two stints as Cubmaster, several Eagle Board of Reviews, merit badge counselor in several areas. I am a member of Order of the Arrow (a fraternal organization within BSA) and an Eagle. I look back on my experiences as a youth in Scouting with great satisfaction. It is my association with great men and women as the greatest element of Scouting, both as a youth and adult.

This revelation should come as a surprise to no one who knows me and knows of my Mormon faith; the LDS Church being the greatest supporter of BSA. Since 1913, the Church has adopted Scouting as a supplement to it's
program for Young Men. Some have said our sponsorship of BSA prepares our Young Men for full-time missionary service. I know that to be true in my case.

It is with this spirit that I say: Atheism has no place in Scouting.

While Scouting promotes no particular religion, creed, sect, or denomination, it is indeed a religious organization. Adherence to the precepts of a boy's chosen persuasion is encouraged. The Scout Oath states, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my Country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." The final point of the Scout Law is, "A Scout is Reverent." As it suggests in it's title, a young Boy Scout raises his right arm to the square and swears by oath to adhere to the duties enumerated in the Scout Oath. He is not admitted into the Troop unless he does, and he cannot advance in rank on the road to Eagle if he does not.



All fraternities and sororities reserve the right to include and, yes, exclude anyone they wish. They also reserve the right to define "morally straight" to chagrin of some, but to the agreement of those of who are supporters. While Boy Scouts of America is chartered by the US Congress, it does not receive one penny of tax payer money to subsidize it's activities. The United Way, a magnanimous and effective charitable organization, has, nevertheless withheld it's support for BSA for lo many years. That is their prerogative. The Scouting movement has survived and indeed, continued to flourish.

Scouting is also the most effective, and least political (it's non-political) of all the conservationists groups. A Scout is also oath bound to live by the Outdoor Code, which promotes being Conservation-minded. Scouts are constantly involved in service projects for understanding, preservation, and beautification of our natural resources and treasures. They are taught to pitch in and render service wherever they find themselves. Finally, they are taught to foster a deep and abiding love for America, her traditions, her history, and her sacred Constitution.

It is a private organization. Why would anyone, on condition of good-standing membership, swear an oath to adhere to it's precepts, turn from it, and expect to remain?

That was a great post. In answer to your questions about membership, there are a lot of things currently going against the Boy Scouts. Primarily due to the fact that they represent some of the best things that America has stood for in the past. There seems to be an innate need by a lot of liberals to destroy those things that help bring out the best in people and therefore their attacks on the Boy Scouts, and how they conduct their business naturally follow suit.

The Boy Scouts commit the following liberal "sins" -

1. They proclaim a belief in God. To a many liberals that idea is repugnant.
2. They Scouts make moral based judgements and have a moral code based
based on that belief in God. See point 1.
3. They Scouts believe in and support their country. Again see point 1.
4. They exercise discretion in choosing who can and can't join their group
based on their values. There are no girls in the group hence the title the
Boy Scouts of America. If an otherwise eligible boy does not
want to follow the code and all of the scouting rules then they will be
denied membership. I know it is getting a bit redundant but see
point 1. Many liberals believe that people should be able to do whatever
they want as long as it wrecks a conservative institution like the BSA. I
believe Groucho Marx once stated that "I would not want to be a part of
any group that would have me as a member." This sentiment seems to be
alive in the hearts of liberals who go out of their way to change the rules
of private groups and organizations so that they can join, and after having
wrecked said group wonder why it is not the same ever again. The
uniqueness of the group is forever lost precisely because the group in
question is forced into fundamental change by outside agents.
5. And possibly the biggest sin of all, the BSA teach and inspire self-reliance
which later in life leads to the idea that maybe big government is not the
answer to people's problems. If people can take care of themselves what
then are liberals and their nanny government good for?

[TomahWoman]

if we dont stick to just a couple of issue Paul raised: ie the idea that scouts should have strong religious base and he mentions 'reverence' in that context; and their connection to conservation. I was a guide leader some long time ago in Australia. Both aspects were regarded as important in development of the girls in our care then, but did not dominate their life within the organisation. Development of team skills, self-assurance, a positive outlook towards different cultures and history, and concern for sustainability of the environment all come under the over-arching theme of "respect". Scouting is universal, not just American. I wonder what adaptations would be made towards our present culture if Baden-Powell was brought back now?
If scouts are working , amongst other areas, in areas such as poverty, children at risk, immigration, they cant be too blinkered can they!

[TomahWoman]

Scouting is: http://www.scout.org/front/scouting_is_e.shtml

[OriginalCyn]

"1. They proclaim a belief in God. To a many liberals that idea is repugnant."

Well, yes, but only IF you define God very narrowly, as in, "The Big Father in the sky who tells you what to do--if not directly, through your own heart, then through your wise religious and political leaders. And BTW, if your heart and your leaders tell you different things, then know that it's the leaders who have it right. After all, that's why they're the leaders!"
(Yes, I know that was snide and sarcastic, but that's truly the way that things seem to me sometimes, especially when I hear sound bites from Robertson and Falwell.)

I am left-of-center, and I am one of those liberals (funny, but I'm not all that liberal and am considered to be something of a conservative where I live) who vigorously objects to the notion of running a government according to some authority figure's interpretation of the Bible. (And--let's be straightforward about American religio-politics here--we ARE talking about the Bible, not the Buddhist interpretation of God, nor the Pagan version, nor anything else, when we talk about "God" in this context.)

I believe that we can have morality without having to worship a "personal God," teaching public schoolchildren that Genesis explains the origin of humankind, or posting The Ten Commandments in schools and other public buildings. We can have morality through a concept know as "the social contract." (Incidentally, the latter five of the Ten Commandments are "social contract" items.)

"Social contract" ideals spell out how human beings should relate to one another, for the betterment of society-as-a-whole.

Religion, OTOH, spells out how humankind should relate to a Higher Power--and shoving ideas down people's throats around this very private and personal matter is not only "repugnant" to me, it's also against the Constitutional principle of separation of Church and State.

[OriginalCyn]

S.L., I understand what you're getting at. But if a person identifies as both a pedophile and as a heterosexual, then I'd think that he'd be a danger to girls, not boys. Or am I wrong about that?

And I should not have implied that male homosexuals might have more of a tendency to "go pedo" than male heterosexuals do. If they do, then I'm unaware of that stat. And yet...and yet...it seems as if there were a lot more boys getting molested in those Catholic priest scandals than girls. Hmmmm....I dunno what to make of that, if anything.

All I know is that pedos (who are almost always male) go where their child-targets-of-preference are.
--Which is why I would not feel one bit comfortable with the idea of having a male Girl Scout leader.
--Even though I'm a feminist and a strong believer in gender equity.
Sometimes pragmatism wins out over idealism.

[Tina]

Dredd, how about some truth-telling and not say that the idea of God is repugnant to MOST liberals and say "some." Fact is, most liberals do not care about that as long as there is the separation of church and state. The scouts are a private org and as such, they can define their own rules as long as they remain within the law in doing so.

To say that most liberals dislike the idea of God is identical to saying that all conservatives are bible thumpers. It just ain't true.

[NFA]

The scouts have a right to discriminate on the basis of religion (and I'll thank you to know it is not just athiests who are prohibited from scouting) and sexual orientation. I think that decision is wrong, but they've clearly a right to it. But they have no right to special access in schools or any government funding, and they ought not receive any.

For the record, it is their ban on gays that I find most indefensible. Although their religious prohibitions actually directly effected my own personal experience with the Boy Scouts, the rationale there is understandable even if I think the organization could reach out to all people. I respect their desire to function as religious engine and appreciate their inclusiveness within that standard.

The prohibition on gays, however, is arbitrary and prejudicial for a group which portrays itself as inclusive to a wide range of faiths. There are many people with a religious background who have firm beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin and is quite compatable with a moral and reverent life. The BSA betrays their stance on multi-faith diversity by rejecting those churches. Their ban on gay scouts and leaders is inconsistant for the organization and ought to be changed on those grounds. As an agnostic, I am FAR more comfortable with their stance on religion than I am with their stance on sexual orientation.

[MisticalMisty]

S.L., I understand what you're getting at. But if a person identifies as both a pedophile and as a heterosexual, then I'd think that he'd be a danger to girls, not boys. Or am I wrong about that?

And I should not have implied that male homosexuals might have more of a .
I don't know..dateline did another online predator bust..and a lot of married men where there looking for a young boy.

I think any male or female could classify themselves as hetero and have bisexual tendacies...that's just my understanding.

[ScreamingChicken]

I was in the BSA a little more than 20 years ago and perhaps MAYBE it was the troop that I was in but the Scouts were not some hateful group of holy rollers as perceived by some. Keep in my I was also my troop's lone chaplain's aide (at my insistence) and we had no chaplain. I was arguably the most religious one in the group (Where did those days go ?) and we were more about the preservation and enjoyment of the outdoors then evangelizing and hunting down gays and nonbelievers. I don't remember ANY of the other boys being religious nor the scoutmasters for that matter. Some big mouths on both sides of the political spectrum have used the BSA as a pawn.

[mossystate]

I don't know..dateline did another online predator bust..and a lot of married men where there looking for a young boy.

I think any male or female could classify themselves as hetero and have bisexual tendacies...that's just my understanding.

Adults who go after children for sexual gratification are not about hetero/homo/bi/sexual.....the bottom line really is that they want ...children...someone who is more easily dominated and controlled.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

S.L., I understand what you're getting at. But if a person identifies as both a pedophile and as a heterosexual, then I'd think that he'd be a danger to girls, not boys. Or am I wrong about that?

And I should not have implied that male homosexuals might have more of a tendency to "go pedo" than male heterosexuals do. If they do, then I'm unaware of that stat. And yet...and yet...it seems as if there were a lot more boys getting molested in those Catholic priest scandals than girls. Hmmmm....I dunno what to make of that, if anything.

All I know is that pedos (who are almost always male) go where their child-targets-of-preference are.
--Which is why I would not feel one bit comfortable with the idea of having a male Girl Scout leader.
--Even though I'm a feminist and a strong believer in gender equity.
Sometimes pragmatism wins out over idealism.

Nope. Very few men who identify as gay molest boys. Weird, huh?

Look at it this way: Men are given more free access to boys. Boys are less likely to tell about a bad sexual experience. There's very little support for male sex abuse victims.

[TraciJo67]

That was a great post. In answer to your questions about membership, there are a lot of things currently going against the Boy Scouts. Primarily due to the fact that they represent some of the best things that America has stood for in the past. There seems to be an innate need by a lot of liberals to destroy those things that help bring out the best in people and therefore their attacks on the Boy Scouts, and how they conduct their business naturally follow suit.

The Boy Scouts commit the following liberal "sins" -

1. They proclaim a belief in God. To a many liberals that idea is repugnant.
2. They Scouts make moral based judgements and have a moral code based
based on that belief in God. See point 1.
3. They Scouts believe in and support their country. Again see point 1.
4. They exercise discretion in choosing who can and can't join their group
based on their values. There are no girls in the group hence the title the
Boy Scouts of America. If an otherwise eligible boy does not
want to follow the code and all of the scouting rules then they will be
denied membership. I know it is getting a bit redundant but see
point 1. Many liberals believe that people should be able to do whatever
they want as long as it wrecks a conservative institution like the BSA. I
believe Groucho Marx once stated that "I would not want to be a part of
any group that would have me as a member." This sentiment seems to be
alive in the hearts of liberals who go out of their way to change the rules
of private groups and organizations so that they can join, and after having
wrecked said group wonder why it is not the same ever again. The
uniqueness of the group is forever lost precisely because the group in
question is forced into fundamental change by outside agents.
5. And possibly the biggest sin of all, the BSA teach and inspire self-reliance
which later in life leads to the idea that maybe big government is not the
answer to people's problems. If people can take care of themselves what
then are liberals and their nanny government good for?

I am about as far left of a liberal as I can get without falling off the map entirely, and I disagree with your characterization completely.

I believe that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and as such, should have the right to exclude anyone who does not meet their defined code of conduct (as repugnant as I find their stand on homosexuality, I do believe that they have a right to be exclusive).

While I do not believe in God as defined by Christianity, I do not find the idea of God, or a belief in God, to be repugnant. I understand and respect religious choice -- so long as it remains choice, and religious values are not shoved down my throat.

I believe in self-reliance and I love my country.

You are generalizing, JudgeDredd. It seems to me that most of the self-proclaimed liberals who have responded to this thread have done so in much the same vein that I have - the Scouts should have the right to determine who holds a membership.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

I agree they have a right to discriminate. I also have a right to keep any son I have very far away from an organization that says good, decent people like his mother and uncle can't participate.

[TraciJo67]

I agree they have a right to discriminate. I also have a right to keep any son I have very far away from an organization that says good, decent people like his mother and uncle can't participate.

I would also not allow my son to participate in such an exclusionary club, as I'd be concerned about the kind of values that are being taught: bigotry and intolerance among them.

[Miss Vickie]

I would also not allow my son to participate in such an exclusionary club, as I'd be concerned about the kind of values that are being taught: bigotry and intolerance among them.

Yup. Same here. When my son was growing up, we discussed the Boy Scouts and I told him about their treatment of gay scout leaders. He had no interest in joining after that (even though he's as straight up as they come). He thought that their exclusion of gay people was horrible, and he wasn't too pleased about the religious overtones either.

I have found no such exclusions in Girl Scouts, however. As such, when my girls were offered the opportunity to join, they did. For awhile, until they became "too cool" which really disappointed me, since I loved Girl Scouting. :(

[TheSadeianLinguist]

I LOVE the Girl Scouts. Frankly, if they'd take me, I'd join. :p

[TraciJo67]

I LOVE the Girl Scouts. Frankly, if they'd take me, I'd join. :p

SL, you're much too freaky for Girl Scouts. Have you given any thought to 4-H? :D

[TheSadeianLinguist]

I WAS in 4-H, you murderous wench. :p Wanna see my trophies?

[TraciJo67]

I WAS in 4-H, you murderous wench. :p Wanna see my trophies?

Well, that depends. Are they edible?

[TheSadeianLinguist]

No. I don't say this because I've assumed either.

[Miss Vickie]

I LOVE the Girl Scouts. Frankly, if they'd take me, I'd join. :p

They're desperate for Girl Scout leaders and camp counselors, ya know.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

I should check into it.

[Jane]

My son was in Cub Scouts, I was a den mother and went with him on camping trips.

When he got old enough to be a Boy Scout, and since one of my best friends had been molested while on a camp out in the Boy Scouts, he decided he wasn't interested in joining. My friend wasn't molested by a Scoutmaster. He was molested by a pack of young men who took it upon themselves to be the camp bullies, and thought molesting the newbies was just so cool.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout in my youth. When my son was a Scout, I served as a Troop Committee member and accompanied the troop on many campouts. That being said, I stopped supporting the Scouts when they adoted their anti-gay position. Until the day they change their position about gays, I will not buy their popcorn or contribute to the Scouts in any way.

OTOH, I continu to support the Girl Scouts.

[JudgeDredd425]

Dredd, how about some truth-telling and not say that the idea of God is repugnant to MOST liberals and say "some." Fact is, most liberals do not care about that as long as there is the separation of church and state. The scouts are a private org and as such, they can define their own rules as long as they remain within the law in doing so.

To say that most liberals dislike the idea of God is identical to saying that all conservatives are bible thumpers. It just ain't true.

Actually if you bother to take another look you will see that I said "many" not "most." And I do tell the truth, even if it is something you don't want to hear or acknowledge. The BSA have been around for a long time and have helped produce many fine citizens. But being a conservative group by nature and for choosing to uphold their values and not compromise them away, they have been attacked by many liberals for not being willing to give up the things that make them who they are. The BSA is not an all inclusive group and it was never meant to be. Just as they have banded together to form their group so are all others free to make up their own.

[missaf]

Thinking of Scouts still in our house, no decisions yet. My son has a career goal in mind that participating in the Sea Scouts would definitely help along, so we're looking at it from that perspective.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Just as they have banded together to form their group so are all others free to make up their own.
More of that "separate but equal" crap that bigots like you seem to love....

[JudgeDredd425]

I am about as far left of a liberal as I can get without falling off the map entirely, and I disagree with your characterization completely.

I believe that the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and as such, should have the right to exclude anyone who does not meet their defined code of conduct (as repugnant as I find their stand on homosexuality, I do believe that they have a right to be exclusive).

While I do not believe in God as defined by Christianity, I do not find the idea of God, or a belief in God, to be repugnant. I understand and respect religious choice -- so long as it remains choice, and religious values are not shoved down my throat.

I believe in self-reliance and I love my country.

You are generalizing, JudgeDredd. It seems to me that most of the self-proclaimed liberals who have responded to this thread have done so in much the same vein that I have - the Scouts should have the right to determine who holds a membership.

I glad to see you acknowledge the BSA's rights to define themselves and their group. However not all liberals feel as you do and the few others here that have acknowledged that right to control the membership of their own group even though it is grudgingly so.

I understand your point about generalizations, and many times they are not as accurate as you would like or need to be, but we don't have a percentage brake down of everyone positions, so sometimes we just have to use those generalizations and do the best we can with them.

[TraciJo67]

I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout in my youth. When my son was a Scout, I served as a Troop Committee member and accompanied the troop on many campouts. That being said, I stopped supporting the Scouts when they adoted their anti-gay position. Until the day they change their position about gays, I will not buy their popcorn or contribute to the Scouts in any way.

OTOH, I continu to support the Girl Scouts.

Well, I gotta say ... if tomorrow it came to light that the Girl Scouts are sheltering Osama Bin Laden and funneling profits from their cookies into Al Qaeda ... I'd have to sit down & think 'er over before I stopped buying their thin mint patties. Little bites of Heaven, they are.

[JudgeDredd425]

More of that "separate but equal" crap that bigots like you seem to love....

Again not to be confused with bigots like you Wayne that feel that everybody can do whatever they want and join any group for "diversity's" sake. The problem is that if everybody can join everything then all groups end up with the same type of membership and then your diversity becomes the new singular sameness, so much for real diversity.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Again not to be confused with bigots like you Wayne that feel that everybody can do whatever they want and join any group for "diversity's" sake. The problem is that if everybody can join everything then all groups end up with the same type of membership and then your diversity becomes the new singular sameness, so much for real diversity.
THat made absolutely no sense whatsoever, JD. Guess it's either time for another donut, or time to go beat up another defenseless person. Which activity do bigot cops like you enjoy more?

[missaf]

Let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please. Like, not at all.

[JudgeDredd425]

THat made absolutely no sense whatsoever, JD. Guess it's either time for another donut, or time to go beat up another defenseless person. Which activity do bigot cops like you enjoy more?

If it truly made no sense, then it should have made perfect sense to you. Nonsense being your native political tongue and all.

[missaf]

Closing this thread, nothing productive to see here.