packsaddle

Frankj, while I agree there is no need to be rude, I submit that your suggestion is for a deception designed to avoid the issue. Eamonn has substantive objections that ought to be considered by the community. It is possible that by speaking out, he can save the town considerable expense and trouble. I think he is not seeking the easy way out of this, but rather wondering why 'they' don't seem to understand his position. I could be wrong about this, though. Eamonn, do I have this about right?

Thanks, that reminded me... When I was cubmaster, our associated troop understood the importance of the cubs to the troop. When we had our family campout in the spring, around the time of crossing over or so, we would invite the troop to schedule a campout nearby. Our family campout was at a private summer camp in the mountains with canoes, swimming, trails to the top of the mountain, etc. The troop would do a service project for the church camp. This worked really well. We were camping separately but the cubs got to see all the cool stuff the troop was doing. And the troop organized our campfire ceremony and even invited the webelos to participate in some appropriate activities. In the morning, I promised the cubs that if they got up early, they could wake up the boy scouts. They loved it. So did I. I still miss those little guys.

Been there, done that. I agree with Scoutldr's advice. The program is very important. If (BIG if) all other factors are equal, you will grow your pack with a good program. If you have an unequal factor (perhaps the DE cares more about starting the new pack than growing yours), then you have a problem. In our case, the competing Troop (which was much more robust than the troop associated with this pack) announced a policy not to allow boys into it if they had not been in their associated pack. This, and the DE's decision to start another competing unit at the same time, nearly sunk this pack. All of the boys associated with our CO decided to go to other packs. We nearly folded. Then, after I had a very tense meeting with the church hierarchy, in which I demonstrated that this unit had a program identical to the other pack, and that their lack of support was THE biggest problem (the DE hurt us too, though), they decided to start to support their own unit again. We're back to strength now. But, as Scoutldr implied, it wouldn't have worked if we hadn't had a good program in place.

I can't fault your logic. You seem to have the high ground in this issue, hang in there!

My wife is fond of this one. I haven't met the person yet who is offended by it. A woman decides, just for fun, to visit a fortuneteller. The fortuneteller examines her palm, looks at some cards and rolls some bones on the table. Then she says, "I have terrible news. Your husband is going to die a horrible, violent death." The woman is stunned. She had not expected a fortune like this. She almost faints but after gathering herself for a few moments, she takes the fortuneteller's hands and asks, "Tell me, I have to know....will I be convicted?"

Beav, I tend to agree with you especially if these persons have families that could be negatively impacted by their risks. On the other hand, I suppose the marketplace makes all this possible. I have an acquaintance who was involved with one of those Everest things. He said that there are times when you have to wait in line for your turn to have a photo taken on the summit. But none of those guys will ever come close to a Shackleford or Wallace or von Humboldt or even a Schultes or Bartram or Mackenzie. Personally, most of the real adventures that are left in life are those in the laboratory...where truly unknown things are still being discovered. The difference, to me, is that the lab approach requires a much greater investment in preparation and sometimes a lifetime of dedication with no certainty whatsoever of success. On the other hand, risk to life or limb is minimal. Maybe it depends on what a person sees as the payoff - new knowledge for the first time ever versus a photo at a spot where only a few thousand others have ever been. H'mmmm.

People may have the right to use it any way they please but IMO, the 'N' word is always bad no matter who says it and no matter what are the circumstances or context.

Gern, I tend to agree with one caveat. I did most of my fool-hardy things BEFORE I had a family. I didn't get the Darwin award so I eventually did reproduce. Today, if I pulled a fool-hardy stunt, the tragedy (as you note) would not be what happened to me but rather what my family would suffer as a result. Those guys on Mt. Hood are in danger but their families are the real tragedy waiting to happen. My 2 cents.

Oldsm, same here. If someone produces the letters (my son did), the council just detaches them from the application and tells us that they're not necessary. Making followup contact with the references is up to the council and they don't seem to be interested. Fine by me. Edited part: typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beav, that's interesting. Almost all of my elderly relatives send me similar stuff, mostly myth, and they really believe it. No wonder predators are always targeting them. Back in the 1980s they were saying, "....government regulation never pumped a barrel of oil...." I hope someone sticks an ice pick in my ear before I ever get to that point in life. Have a nice day.

You know, my favorite belt is one with a scout camp name on it. So...brass-on-brass? What does this mean? My belt has no brass.

AvidSM, But they ARE North Americans if they call it home. Also the Canadians, Mexicans, and most of those living in the Central American countries. But what's in a name, anyway?

Right now, the story on Mt. Hood is the one I'm interested in. I hope someone gets out of that alive but I'm not optimistic.

I'll make one more observation and then go camping. There is a correct terminology. I probably don't know all of it. I do make an analogy to grammar. In these threads as in life, few of us use perfect grammar. If someone gets bent out of shape because of it, I hope their concern is because of difficulty in understanding an idea, rather than simple subject-verb agreement. It is, after all, about communication. Later

Lisabob, I agree. The fact that this humor is used is an indication of a certain mindset, perhaps not limited to your description. The fact that some of us laugh at it also indicates some level of agreement with that mindset. But with regard to NPR, occasionally they get taken to task for lesser infractions. And those letters get read on the air. Nice.

I spotted the urban myth immediately. Actually I think this is a very interesting topic. The topic is really humor, the way we use it, and the way we see each other. In today's world, General Reinwald is equally well-equipped to be a prostitute, and who was he to judge anyway? Lisabob, I am in sympathy to your concerns perhaps for different reasons. Your point is well-taken. The way we use humor and the way we respond to it is very much a reflection on the society with which we associate. Offense to such an exchange is a sign to the rest of us to be careful of a missed interpretation that we might not have intended. I have been guilty of this on many occasions and I try to be careful. Sometimes I fail. Sorry.

Local1400, he was threatening to use them on me so I tattled to his mommy and she took them away and made him sit in the corner for 10 minutes. I guess I've become desensitized to this issue. For the first few years of my marriage, my wife would 'speak in tongues' using misplaced terms or terms with an obscure logical connection that a dyslexic person sometimes does. Back then when I asked for clarification, the rebuke, "...you knew what I meant!" was quick. So now, a few decades later, I have cultivated the skill of translation from 'tongues' to whatever was really meant, based on its context. I guess for me, the careless use of terms in scouting pales in comparison to life at home.

Fuzzy, I think we can formulate many such questions to ask. To me the problem is not so much in the questions but how we make the final judgment. To use your list as an example, if the boy met every one of your criteria except one, is that failure? Where is the line drawn when it comes to our judgment. The way I see this is that rank advancement is something that each boy experiences as an individual. It is his personal accomplishment and as such, I try to judge each one as that individual. Scout spririt is something that can't be reproduced with a cookie cutter - it will be expressed differently by each boy the same way as it is expressed in these threads. I guess this makes me a moral relativist or something (Rooster7, you out there somewhere?).

Welcome to the forums also. I agree with what has been written already. We had one like this who, it turned out, had some very intense family obligations and he was making a huge effort just to finish his eagle. He was indeed displaying scout spirit and in a very big way, just not with the troop. He is now an eagle. He deserved it. Have that talk with him. Find out how he feels about these things. Let him know your thoughts. See if any adjustments are needed. Then it's your call.

Boy, I know what you mean! It makes me cringe when leaders refer to boys as 'sweetie' or 'snookums' or 'pookerdoodle'. The boys seem to maintain a sense of humor but I try to stamp this stuff out and no matter how much I try, moms just will be moms. Does this violate G2SS or something, maybe hazing?

Sometimes I am thankful just to have them standing relatively still and quiet. Straight lines would be nice but sometimes it is asking too much. On the other hand, if the boys WANT to learn close-order drill..... To me it seems the problem is to find a balance between order and disorder. Too much in either direction is counterproductive. I was a civilian scientist in the Army and there were many times when I very much appreciated the discipline and order offered by the chain of command and well-defined missions. I often miss it here in academia. At the same time there was a culture clash because scientific investigation doesn't necessarily conform to that structure and this sometimes led to frustration and tension on both sides. To their credit, the brass usually tried to make reasonable accommodations. They usually found a good balance. Boys are children and even when they are expressing a rebelious nature, they need some structure imposed from the outside. The trick is to facilitate that structure while allowing some freedom for all the fun and the personal growth. I think that as long as we are aware of the conflicting needs and interests, we can adjust along the way to maintain that balance.

As the father of a child who had an extreme survival experience, I can add that in addition to the hardware that makes survival more likely, a clear mind in possession of knowledge skills is the most important tool. In this unit, 'Be Prepared' is not a motto taken lightly.

LongHaul, my point is that if he says nothing, we have little or nothing for evidence one way or the other. In the example I chose to relate, we did not 'fail' him for the advancement. Rather, in this instance we allowed him the benefit of our review and kept open his opportunity to succeed. The decision to fail was his. He could have at least finished as 'Life' but his decision not to return kept him at 'Star'. He was in control of his fate. The uniform is not required according to the guidlines. I mentioned that because it was true, not because we 'failed' him for it...we didn't. Collectively, his ignorance of the basics and inability to relate to any aspects of the program gave us nothing upon which to base a factual decision so we didn't make a decision...except to give him another opportunity to provide something for us to review. I know this is a fine point. Because we didn't 'fail' him, we essentially kept open his opportunity thus eliminating the need for a later appeal, should he have chosen such. We were fair to the program and to the boy.

Most of the BOR guides I've read start with something like this: "Purpose of a Board of Review: The members of a Board of Review should have the following objectives in mind: * To make sure the Scout has completed the requirements for the rank. * To see how good an experience the Scout is having in the unit. * To encourage the Scout to progress further. Additionally, the Board of Review provides "quality control" on advancement within the unit, it provides an opportunity for the Scout to develop and practice those skills needed in a interview situation, and it is an opportunity for the Scout to review his accomplishments. The Board of Review is NOT a retest; the Scout has already been tested on the skills and activities required for the rank. However, the chairman of the Board of Review should ensure that all the requirements have been "signed off" in the Scout's handbook. Additionally, the chairman should ensure that leadership and merit badge records are consistent with the requirements for the rank. The Board of Review is an opportunity to review of the Scout's attitudes, accomplishments and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals." The abovewas from the Orange County Council, I did the bold type:

Scoutingagain, my father and father-in-law as well. When I questioned him, a Baptist minister a while back informed me that both of those men (and, I guess me too, eventually) were in hell. Stuff like that really sticks in my mind for some reason.