packsaddle

Hunt, I see your points and agree. The last one about how many 'goodies' there are is speculative. I can easily think of 5 such situations in our local area, probably more if I devote some effort. But because no one complains, no one else in this forum will know about them. That's partly why I included a reality check. My speculation: there are many other situations where compromises or other agreements are attained without going to court, in which cases we have no further discussion here.

Most of my difficulty in this is keeping the patch in place while doing the sewing. I use the water-soluble fabric glue to hold the patch. After the glue is dry, I sew it by hand using the kind of stitch (forget what it's called) where the thread doesn't actually penetrate through to the front of the patch but rather just goes through the pocket fabric and the back of the patch. Then the next wash removes the glue. The inside of the pocket looks a tangled mess but the outside is pristine.

OK, now let's see if we can venture from the world of black and white to the world of gray tones, a real-life situation. A government agency is responsible for managing public lands. Because funding is limited, in order to provide greater access by the public, it leases parcels to private organizations (churches, etc.) for $1 per year. In return the organizations agree not to have exclusive access but to allow access to the general public. So far, so good. The churches (for example) build facilities and infrastructure and lease these properties for many years, allowing public access. However, over the years as funding becomes available, the agency and the state(s) build public facilities, parks, access areas, etc. During annual reviews of the management plans, the agency determines that public access through the private organizations is diminished because use has shifted toward the public parks, etc. The review concludes that because of this change, the use of public lands by private organizations has become more exclusive. In this case there is no fault, merely a change in use. How does this agency proceed? Do they continue the sweetheart deal? Or not? The agency is mandated to ensure that public lands are publicly accessible. Any lease agreement with a private organization, whether church or corporation, must either provide for the public or it must pay a fair price to the public for use of the property. The answer, at least for one situation I know, is that the agency meets with the private organizations individually and informs them that an economic assessment has determined a fair market value for the current use of the property and that the cost of the lease will reflect the changes, if any. How do the private organizations respond? It depends. Some argue, some compromise, some bargain, and some leave the property. I offer this to indicate how complex this can be in some real-life situations. Sometimes all we get to see is the very end of what has been a much longer, much more complex process. However, the agency decision is made easier if the private organization with the sweetheart deal excludes the public from that property. In that case they either pay the full commercial rate, or they are shown the curb (to use BW's terminology). I would be interested in hearing some views on this.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

cjmiam, OK now I understand your message, thanks. Regardless of the ultimate ruling, individuals will still be able to enjoy the park, even in uniform. BTW, your guys sound...ahem...a wee bit slimmer than ours.

So....why don't we hold off until there's a decision? In the meantime I would like clarification: Does BSA pay taxes there? Do we really want FOG back? Just curious.

Cajuncody, If one attempts to see this from the boy's perspective, there is a question of the lesson he can learn from the exercise. These boys are very impressionable and this fundraising idea is different from selling hotdogs or cookies for a fair price. And they are smart enough to understand what is happening. If an adult asks the boys to present such scratch-off cards to other people in order to raise funds, the boys may surmise that: 1) they are promoting a game of chance and that this is OK. 2) they are somehow separating the person from their money and there is a chance it will be unfair, and that this is OK. 3) they are hoodwinking an unsuspecting mark, and that this is OK. 4) they are engaged in commerce the same way it works in the rest of our society, and that this is OK. If anyone can think of a positive lesson from such promotions I would like to read it. But realistically, I think the greater risk is that the boy will learn something that is simply unscoutlike. To me that is the most compelling reason not to engage boys in such activities.

I sympathize with the persons making donations. After years of organizing the sale for the pack, I absolutely hate popcorn. So I just give them a direct donation. In my case I know the CO and I donate to them with the understanding that it goes to their pack and troop. This works well and I get the tax advantage as well. As for extra cash at a sale, I don't see anything wrong with accepting it if it is unsolicited. I wouldn't turn it down, rather, I would tell them it really isn't necessary and then thank them if they insist. The second part is more difficult and a little confusing. If the merchandise is actually greater value than the price, how can you possible make a profit? That part of your question is a little unclear. As for the scratch-off approach, the assumption is that there are enough highly-priced tickets to offset and actually exceed the losses incurred by the under-priced ones. The deception is that you are playing off the customer's ignorance (and greed) of how many under-priced ones have already been sold...that is, the customer is enticed into taking the deal by the possibility of getting something of value for little or no cost. To me this is even worse than a raffle because a customer's odds in a raffle are, at least, usually determined solely by the number of chances he purchases. With the scratch-off approach, it is possible that all the under-priced tickets could be sold first and the probability thereafter that a customer would pay too much is 100%. The unsuspecting and unknowing customer, nevertheless makes the purchase anyway if this model is to turn a profit. The probability also works the same if none of the under-priced ones are sold at all until the end. The assumption most of us make is that the tickets are 'randomized' or 'normally distributed'. Few if any of such games I have seen have come close to meeting that assumption in reality. Alternatively, and this probably occurs as well, the customer may have knowledge of this scheme and play along, fully knowing there is a chance they'll get stuck with the big one. In a more honest world, such customers would be termed, "large donors". They are free to make direct contributions (no direct solicitation, of course) the same way I do to our CO. H'mmm. So why don't they? Answer: Because they just bought a couple of tins of overpriced popcorn or took a couple of scratch-off chances. In my view, every box of cookies, every pancake supper, and every scratch-off equivalent has potential problems. I respond to the situation personally...with my personal check to the CO. Edited part: I do, ahem, still buy cookies from time to time.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree with Ed. The rationalization that there is a variable price for some undelivered merchandise is a deception - a self-deception on the part of the fundraisers.

1. troop 2. committee is not working as well as it should. This is partly because of inexperience on their parts but mostly because there is no representation on it by the CO. I think training would help. It would be even better if the CO became active in its support and those members got the training. 3. We only have about 6 who are fully active and they are multitasking. We need more members.

Heh, heh, heh...welcome to the forums, twocubdad . Johndaigler, nice summary. Cajuncody, I agree. It brings to mind arguments regarding another social issue. Those arguments were collectively termed, "separate but equal" as I remember. Edited part: SR540beaver, your point about Cajuncody's message is taken. However, if resources limit boys' ability to be there or if resource limits affect attitudes in the community, then program simply may not reach as many boys as it could or should. In that respect, resource limitation may be a negative influence.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Dave, I see some good advice here. I would do whatever I could to keep a child from entering that automobile or to keep the drunk off the highway. That said, if you know the boy(s) who rode with the drunk, one additional avenue of redress is to inform their parents of what transpired. The parents have considerably more at stake and will have considerably more weight on many levels. Eamonn offers good advice...make sure you're right before you make accusations. But if you are certain, proceed.

I second johndaigler's post. Acco gave an excellent reponse. I add that you may find additional resources in your local community. Look for the local NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) group. They will have both personal experience as well as literature and references to help. For autism, as in all aspects of leading young people, patience is indeed a virtue. Good luck.

This is a serious safety-related topic that I watch for carefully, especially among adult leaders who are on diuretics or low-sodium diets. Although here in the South, salt seems to be one of the food groups, it is easy to achieve this condition on backpacks or hikes so we watch for it carefully. Thanks for the attention!

I am familiar with Naipul but not the other two books, thanks. I tend to think that when anyone believes their knowledge is absolute and no longer subject to criticism, the arrogance of that makes some very bad things possible.

We do it with this troop but only for certain caves. There are good reasons not to sleep overnight in a cave: safety, environmental awareness, comfort, etc. If it is possible to exit and sleep in a tent, I will take that option any time personally. The boys, for some reason, like to sleep soaked in mud and grime. Go figure.

Right On!

fotoscout, that is a rivetting story. I think no person is likely ever to forget that day. I also remember Oklahoma City. At that time I was in a federal building for a meeting. It was interrupted for the announcement. The entire building was quiet for the rest of the day. Then three years ago, I was again in a federal building for another meeting when my wife called on the cell phone (we have relatives in NYC). She said tearfully, "turn on the radio" and that was all she could say. We found a television and watched silently as the towers collapsed. We finished the meeting and I called to locate our relatives, then I called my children's school to give them the message that none of the relatives had been in the WTC that day, everyone was OK. One relative is a teacher in NYC (Queens). His school didn't close for days - there were children whose parent didn't arrive to pick them up...and for a few children, never did. The school kept the children in an overnight mode until they could be cared for. Tragic, thoughts of it still bring tears to my eyes.

Prosecution on a felony charge is appropriate. But the story is also a great demonstration of the need to prohibit his future access to firearms.

Welcome to the campfire. I just read through the G2SS and saw no such prohibition. We have taken the troop several times on a wild cave trip in Tennessee in which they sleep overnight. Either we drag and push duffels with our sleeping gear into the cave and leave them at a convenient spot or we stash our gear nearer the opening. The trip in the cave is 4-6 hours of strenuous activity, crawling and squeezing through holes and slits that are narrow enough to jam your helmet if you turn your head the wrong way...also your body if you're overweight. It's a great workout and the boys absolutely love it. I just did it with my daughter (without the overnight) and had a great time in such crawls as "49 cent squeeze", the "birth canal", and "the mail slot". Let me know if you're interested. She's pumped and ready to go again.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Our troop has a non-interest-bearing account that only requires a positive balance. I don't know where the tax number came from though - I assume it is from the CO. However, every time I organize a professional meeting, I open an account specific to that meeting. The meeting is the account holder and its lifetime is only a matter of months. But for me it's a convenient way to separate personal from professional funds (especially when the numbers get big on the pro side). I have to shop around for banks that are friendly to these accounts though. The troop has changed banks from time to time, when they changed their policies and required stiff fees for the account. No problem.

Welcome to the campfire alverhc.

Every time I have needed something like this I have gone to the local sewing center and asked for references. Even in the rural South I get 3-4 small embroidery shops from which to choose. Fast turnaround as well. Is anyone concerned about regulations or trademarks or copyrights?

Great quote from a wise man and a Unitarian Universalist! I'm sincere about this. There's no way to know one's legacy. If I have helped a student that is good enough. If my children have happy, productive lives that is good. For myself, I want to die a violent, anonymous death and if not anonymous, be cremated and have no marker as a record of my presence.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Marksmanship '63. We had real target rifles, a real indoor range, and a strict but friendly rangemaster. Ammunition was free. I loved it so much I pretty much stayed with it every minute I could while at camp. Lots of NRA medals, 5 positions as I remember. I can still bark a squirrel. My old camp no longer exists, but the ranges I have seen lately hardly compare. The merit badge, as FOG says, is a shadow of its former self. I suppose this could be just a case of 'the good ole days syndrome' though.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Merlyn, I stand corrected. johndaigler, in a now-deceased thread a while back there was significant discussion of whether BSA is or is not a religious organization. A persuasive argument was given that BSA itself claimed, in court submissions, to be a religious organization. In the letter that Merlyn referred to earlier, BSA claims to be an 'ecumenical' organization. One dominant definition of 'ecumenical': "a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation" Sounds like a religious organization to me. Edited part: NJ, I read your experimental scores and I compliment you for thinking of that. I, however, am tempted to use the results as evidence that the top scorers must be extremely similar to each other. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)