packsaddle

Cheerful eagle, I think you may be misreading Acco40's words. Often in these threads, the careless or hurried writer's intent may be lost because we can't read the inflection of their voice, their tone, or see the expressions on their faces. Lacking these qualities, we tend to fill in the blanks using our minds (read imagination). And in this manner our reaction is sometimes as much a reflection on us as it is on the person who wrote the words. This is a bad limitation of written words in a forum like this and I suspect a large part of the disagreements (I plead guilty too) is due to misunderstanding alone. If you read Acco's words in a different perspective, I can see a healthy touch of sarcasm and perhaps a sardonic sense of humor. Not irony. To help you with all this, remember that his nickname is basically one model of an office stapler. Puts a little more perspective on it, doesn't it? P.S. I'm nicknamed after a stinging caterpillar, in case you're wondering.

OK, I'll try to skim the cream off this. The program that we attempt to deliver emphasizes certain values. Fairness is one of these (although you have to read between the lines to get it from the law). But some of the other points of the law are worth a thought here as well. I think jkhny's words are intended to call attention to actions by top BSA leadership that do not adhere to the principles we hold so dear. If this is his intent, I agree. I have observed this hypocrisy in the past as well. But as it has been expressed many times in the past, members in this private club can be kicked out any time for any reason or no reason at all. I have personally gotten the message in the past. This simply is the way it is. So I accept this condition, the fact that I have no influence, and I therefore devote my time to the boys. Period. Some others seem to feel otherwise. They are free to do so.

Agree with ACCO and Merlyn on this one.

I participate because I often need an answer to a question and I can often get it merely by reading the posts. Sometimes I think I can help someone else with a response to their question. But most of the time, it's just for the fun of it.

I'm trying to recall a single lawsuit that wasn't expensive. Some help here? Also, what are the qualifications that make a lawsuit pointless?

As long as the safety measures are followed, treated lumber is fine if it is appropriate for the job. We use it frequently in Eagle projects. Just wear the proper protective items and dispose of any waste properly.

One thing that I can't reconcile about those so-called 'facts' is their status as facts. If there is a shred of validity to the stories jkhny insists on bringing to us, any numbers supplied by BSA are suspect. I could not reliably say there is any trend whatsoever, whether growth or decline. But I do know this unit and those around us are doing fine. As for Canada, I would also subject that alleged trend to a thorough critical assessment before I accepted it. And even if both trends are real, I could not make any conclusions about the actual cause and effect relationship in your inquiry. My statement was about a relationship between the membership policy and FUNDING. That, at least, seems to be clear - at least for some of the traditional funding sources such as United Way. This too could be in error because BSA may have found replacements for this funding as well. If BSA opened their books to public scrutiny this could be determined with better reliability. Is there really a decline? Does BSA 'cook the books' to make their membership more lucrative for the remaining funding agencies, thus setting up a false decline when more accurate numbers are later produced? Have any of the numbers ever been accurate? From my perspective, as long as this unit is doing well, the boys having fun and progressing to adulthood, the importance of an increase or decline at the national level is mainly for those whose interests are for the funding. As Rush says, "It's all about money". At least for some of us.

Beavah, as a fair tax advocate I think your scenario regarding the demise of the churches is faulty. Indeed, some may not be able to pay. But those weak organizations probably ought to fail if their members can't keep them afloat any other way. I would argue that the fair way for society to support these institutions is for the members to pay their way - without the government handout. My church would be just fine, as would all the others I know in this area. As a matter of fact, because a larger tax base would be available, each individual would likely have to pay a smaller personal tax burden, thus freeing their funds to support THEIR church. To me this is the only fair way to do this. All it requires is for those who see the tax decrease not to be stingy with their money. I realize that I am in a minority view, however, and that most people want the government to rob everyone for their own faith subsidy. I just think that's wrong. Thanks Ed, I knew it was coming.

OK, I re-read some of the messages and thought I might play the you-know-who's advocate. I have considered a question similar to jmenand's almost every time I drive around our area. I will see a Baptist church, then soon I see a Missionary Baptist Church, and later a Primitive Baptist Church...you get the idea. Evidently no-one has established 'Baptist' as a legal trademark. Or is there something else at play here? >Perhaps they really are all the same thing, just marketed differently to attract a broader customer base. >Perhaps they don't care about the infringement. >Perhaps they HAVE considered legal action but don't really know themselves who has legal priority...and are afraid to find out. They don't want to take the risk. >Perhaps they foresee the moment when the judge asks someone to explain the real difference between a 'Primitive Baptist' and a 'Missionary' one. And no one knows the answer. H'mmm I could just as well use the Presbyterians here, or in the view of my Catholic wife, ALL of the protestant flavors lumped into one melange. It just gets too gooey to deal with. But somewhere along the way, BSA established a legal storefront and with that comes the right to suppress rival infringements. I see this more as a trademark dispute than a true monopoly. The method is an idea and because it is widely known any hope of holding onto a monopoly on the method is futile. Therefore it is possible that the absence of large copycat organizations cannot be explained by the name alone. >Finally, Perhaps once the interested parties associated with BSA are accounted for, there are few left that could possibly support any rival organization. In essence, this alternative would mean that any real decline in BSA numbers means a decline of general interest by the nation in the basic idea represented by BSA. How's that for an alternative?

First, BSA is selling something. Part of the reason we pay low registration fees is that much of the 'heavy lifting' is done by unpaid volunteers and some by the boys themselves. This is a huge subsidy that helps keep the program VERY competitive with any organization that doesn't have a similar business plan. Furthermore, while BSA seems to 'sell' the program to families and boys, in fact BSA is 'selling' enrollment figures to funding agencies whose funding is dependent on those enrollment figures. This is one of the reasons that, like it or not, the issues raised by Jkhny are important issues. BSA is quite aware of this and the fallout from their win at the Supreme Court, in essence, affects the revenue flow when funding agencies (the customers) turn away. In one view, BSA stood on principle. In another view, they may have failed the stockholders (the boys) in a fundamental way if they don't replace that lost revenue with another source. If Jkhny is correct and council books are being widely 'cooked' to milk funding from the remaining agencies willing to 'buy', then BSA is in the 'Arthur Anderson' mode of business and deserves to suffer the fate of any entity that can't compete effectively. The unseen hand will remove it. Perhaps fees should increase and the program should become a user-fee-based program. After all, most private clubs expect members to pay their way. What organization does most of the same things without the discriminatory baggage? I suggest that 4-H does. It could be a very effective competitor. They have a great program. They have the camps. They have a great history. I'm trying to think of something bad about them. Thinking...

If the 'in perpetuity' wording really meant literally forever, then there would be no reason to have a lease at all. In essence it would mean that BSA effectively owned the property. So it is time for all the lawyers to collect their adipose tissue and belly up to the bar, so-to-speak. BSA has, in fact, changed. I remember when their discrimination extended beyond religion and gender preference. The racial discrimination that I observed long ago is gone now as a matter of policy. In another thread, Fuzzy mentioned that 2 out of 4 bases for discrimination is progress. True. It still fails the legal standard though. As long as we're repeating ourselves in one more familiar thread, BSA knew the consequences of their policy - and the consequences of their win at the Supreme Court. Time to stop whining when those expected outcomes arrive, stop wetting the bed every time another situation like this comes along. After all, BSA got exactly what BSA wanted. They shouldn't expect to have the cake and eat it too. Either buy the property, pay fair market rent, or move elsewhere. Just stop the whining.

I read you Fuzzy, but even in my classes 50% is a failing grade. And the law isn't a game of horseshoes.

Agree with Hunt, politically motivated stand destined to fail. But it might rally a political base prior to the elections. A simpler solution: the government and others could stop breaking the law, then the ACLU would stop collecting legal fees. The whole issue would go away.

Sorry, I've missed a few days...gone (where else?) camping. Anyway, belated welcome to the forums. I'm still unclear about a couple of things. I looked at the map and I see a large parking area next to the admin building. This appears to be your initial stopping point. Correct? In my experience with other camps, you would not be allowed (for safety reasons) to take your vehicle beyond that location. And in that same experience, the boys (and staff) are responsible for getting themselves and their gear to the parking area if making an unusual departure, regardless of weather. Also, in my experience, all arrivals and departures are supposed to record such at the admin building or health lodge. I can't judge the situation for rudeness factors (I'd be a poor judge anyway, I've been told). But the basics seem similar to other camps. If a camp director allowed travel beyond this limit I personally would consider that a one-time permission, and not a blanket pass. I think it would be incorrect to assume anything else. That said, I don't understand the evident anger when your transgression was discovered but there might actually have been a good explanation, just a bad situation. My advice, try to see the situation through the eyes of the director. Find out if your sons dislike the place. If still not satisfied, vote with your feet and checkbook. Find a better situation.

Eamonn, I very deeply sympathize. My thoughts are with you and your family.

Well said, Red Feather. Your children likely will view you similarly. I think every father wants (or should) their sons and daughters to do as well or better than he has in his life. Your father obviously succeeded as you likely will as well. Warm thoughts to you.

Safety always comes first in my mind. That said, if a bad experience can safely teach the boys a lesson, no problem. We try to train using instruction before they do something, always trying to set a good example and noting poor examples when we observe them, and positive reinforcement when they are successful. However, they are young males and as such, most of them have miserably short memories...tend to repeat errors. I see no alternative but to safely allow them to repeat those poor choices and to remind them that such repeats don't exactly cover them with glory. They will eventually become men...and there will likely be little or no noticable change. We are after all such wretched beasts. Pity the poor women.

Whew! And here I was worried that it was YOUR mistake.

I often encounter tree forts around these woods. They seasonally have camo-clothed snipers in them with high-powered semi-automatic weapons, looking for deer...occasionally bagging a civilian. But I agree with the article as I was also a child of the forest. I hit the back door every afternoon as soon as I could drop my books someplace and I'd stay out until night made it hard to run through the trees or until I heard the call for supper (but if we had caught, killed, and were cooking some wildlife...and nothing was off-limits...we'd develop temporary deafness). My reading was about Kit Carson, Jim Bridger, Dan Beard, Daniel Boone, etc., and I wanted to be them. And for a little while each evening, I was.

I sincerely hope that Cheffie gets in on this thread. As for this unit it depends: On how many boys go, On which adults go, On whether or not it is a backpack trip, On the season, On where the campground is. Some of the time, if just a few boys go, the troop will cook as a unit, adults included. If backpacking, we cook using the buddy system. This is when cooking competition excels - each buddy team tries to outdo the others with the quality of the cuisine...and they do a great job too. When patrols are feasible, they cook as patrols and the adults usually (but not always, depending on which adults) cook for themselves. The reason for adults cooking for themselves are many...a cultivated dislike of poptarts for breakfast, or the oft repeated admonition, "...weeeeeellllll the eggs might be a little too done but you sure did a great job of burning off all that teflon coating, got any poptarts?"

One key to a potential answer could reside in how a faith that does not believe in a god already is allowed by BSA. This is a point that has been made in these threads many times. For such faiths, the 'Duty to God' means something different, I think, compared to faiths who do believe in a god. I'm less certain about those faiths that claim many gods - which one, for example. I personally believe that 'reverence' does not necessarily require belief in a god, hence reverence toward Gaia (or, for that matter, the great Holy opposable thumb) is sufficient. BSA, in my opinion, has no business poking their nose into such personal beliefs and I think BSA has mumbled agreement, in effect, in past statements. I could be wrong.

I think I see Eamonn's point here. The problem was well-known, anticipated, even expected. There was ample time to plan for a way to resolve the potential conflict and in the end, no such plan or measures were made or executed. It is possible that the director reacted badly for a variety of reasons. Perhaps he was merely frustrated and tired...perhaps, knowing he had not planned for the problem, his frustration was redirected away from himself and toward the staff. If so, poor management and leadership on his part. And it is also possible that he had no other options regarding the checks. If so, he probably should have explained the situation to avoid the bad feeling being expressed here. Regarding the conditions of employment, if the staff made this situation clear at the time of the hire, then they were in no way obligated to stay to the end. The director, by hiring them, implicitly agreed to this likely schedule conflict. During the Arbinger Institute training which employs a wonderful little book, "Leadership and Self-Deception", situations such as this are made worse by persons being "in the box" toward others. This is clearly one of those situations.

I agree with Calico regarding the thinking errors and deceptions in the article. And BSA can easily address the issue by agreeing on a market-based rent to pay for the property. Better, buy it from the city or better yet, become an inclusive, non-discriminatory club or at least allow the local option. That said, YH, you may be correct about the effectiveness of the program but I must cling to some optimism, if nothing more than the 'starfish' metaphor. I volunteer my time after my son has been out of it for years now...because I know I can contribute to constructive experiences they probably wouldn't otherwise experience. I know this 'sticks' with some of them at least because they come back during college or later to thank me for it. To follow the 'starfish' metaphor, I may not be able to help every boy, but I can help at least one, ever so often. And I can't identify another program aroung here that offers this opportunity. I just wish that BSA didn't discriminate and allowed all boys to participate.

Beav, I agree but in our socio-economic system we fuel these things with our viewership and dollars. For better or worse, the success of a political shock jock is an expression of our desire for them to provide the product we buy. In many ways we have hitched our future to the proposition that the market of ideas follows exactly the same rules as any commodity. I worry that education is a factor that is less important for decisions regarding purchase of potatoes than for critical examination of ideas. I worry about the potential outcome of an uninformed populace in a democracy. But whatever the outcome, we collectively make the decisions.

I'm just sorry Rooster7 isn't here to comment.