Boycotts are usually called for people to their dissatisfaction with someone or some group or something and to let your dissatisfaction be known publically
Usually boycotts get started by someone calling for one publically to get the ball rolling. So a fair amount of, um, salesmanship is involved to have a successful boycott.
Since it’s not enforceable in any way, it’s merely a suggestion (I’m speaking of all boycotts).
In this particular case, Staneck is suggesting that people might want to show their dissatisfaction with the Girl Scout organization for promoting high profile pro-Abortion woman as role models to young girls.
Although she gave a lot of possibly extraneous information, it might be background info that would motivate more people to boycott, people who perhaps are not familiar with the backstory on the Girl Scouts.
No doubt it could have been presented more clearly but I thought it was very clear what she was suggesting. I can’t see any other interpretation
So a fair amount of, um, salesmanship
***Then the Primary Sales person needs to learn how to WRITE.
is involved to have a successful boycott.
Since it’s not enforceable in any way, it’s merely a suggestion (I’m speaking of all boycotts).
***well... whatever. It was a pisspoor display.
In this particular case, Staneck is suggesting that people might want to show their dissatisfaction with the Girl Scout organization for promoting high profile pro-Abortion woman as role models to young girls.
***To be candid, that’s NEWS to me, even after reading her ridiculously written article. If she is ONLY writing to those who follow her, she should consider confining her efforts to TWitter.
Her suggested boycott is doomed. Because of her writing ability. We all admire her passion.