packsaddle

Jark, This is a very troubling story to me because it seems that boys are being affected for no good reason other than some adult disagreement. If that is so, it is wrong. Unless you choose the path of least resistance because, as parents, you decide it is best for your children, I think you should consult the professional scouters and fight this case...especially if regulations are being violated as a result. I say that hesitantly because I have received scant help from our professionals in the past but it seems your only other option. Maybe the ones in your area are up to it. When our new SM took over, I told him that dealing with the boys would be a piece of cake in comparison to the adults. This is a perfect example. He appointed me (don't any of you laugh) to keep the peace among the adults and so far, so good. My heart goes out to your boys, good luck. Keep us posted as to progress.

Dan, In another thread a URL was listed that provided a very persuasive argument about wearing camouflage. I'll try to find it, maybe you already know the thread. I would like to know your rationale for this 'myth'. In exchange, I'll give you one back: Cell phones are fire hazards at gasoline pumps - fiction Found the one on camo: http://www.mninter.net/~blkeagle/camo.htm Cell phone: http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/articles/cellphone.htm also http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/cellgas.htm As for saluting, I thought hats were to be removed, out of respect, maybe I'm just thinking indoors. As for MBs, until recently most troops in our area were under that wrong impression (some still are). I made myself unwelcome by informing everyone they had been working under a misconception. Evidently some of them really believed it but others used the 'rule' for their convenience. EagleWB, I am troubled about the prohibition of liquid fuel stoves and lanterns. I understand the safety hazard these present but the leave-no-trace ethic nearly requires some form of fuel besides firewood. Can you expand on this a little more? Is this just a liability thing? As for YPT, the question is moot in our area because every year or so they announce important changes and we get to do the same old stuff again. I ask about the changes and get brushed off..again.

dsteele, I sympathize because I have quite a few boys who tie certain ones left-handed (bowline, etc.) but as long as the knot is technically correct (read, fully functional) I merely praise them and remind them that there ARE two ways to tie it. OGE, I agree...good memory of 6 or so would be great. Buffalo2, I can only imagine the withering looks you must get at times like that..makes it all worth it. Ed, Red Feather, I like the knot of the night approach. Will start trying that approach as well. We do knots as BORs also..it has gotten to be sort of a game with the boys. They know I will ask them at least one knot but they get their hopes up when they see I don't have my trusty piece of rope. Then I 'find' it in the trash can or some other place. Laughs all around, boys rolling their eyes.

Joni4TA, quite right. I should have read back for the origin of your message (hard to do from the road and a glacially slow connection). I was wondering how this related to 'war with Iraq' and figured it out after I sent my message. There have been some others who went through all these numbers to make various points about one issue or other and I wasn't sure why you were going through all this again. Clear now, though. Thanks also for not hitting me with the old "just the facts, M'am" thing...I wasn't trying to provoke, just to understand (rest of you stop laughing). I hope all you guys are doing well over there. OGE,right so, thanks.

Joni4TA, I am curious...I thought that ALL government spending (100%)was for the benefit of the public in some form or other. And that we, collectively as a people, approve of these expenditures by means of our election of our representatives who appropriate the funds and determine their use. Or are you suggesting that expending government funds for personal or private gain would somehow be better than for public benefit? OGE, quick question..do your boys have the same short memories for those knots that mine have? If so, what is your method for getting them to remember them over the long haul. I just seem to have to repeat the lesson..in games..in contests...in advancement exercises. I don't mind but I sure would like to know the trick for getting them to remember. I suppose we are now (Oh boy!) engaging in a new national pastime of insulting the French. Few did it better than Mark Twain. Those so inclined may visit http://www.twainquotes.com/French.html for some of Twain's better ones. Bon apetite! However, I would like to remind everyone that this activity (while somewhat harmless) is also somewhat childish and hardly covers us with glory. It probably also violates the Scout Law. It certainly doesn't help open and honest exchange of ideas.

OGE, I was well into the second message when I thought, "what the..?" and then I noticed the date. Good one, you got me. I took the first one seriously though. I agree with KS and his words regarding ASM1's son. I think it would be tough for anyone who does not have a son or daughter (there are women over there too) to understand how strongly a father could feel in this situation. For those who are still too young, you should understand that your father would probably feel the same concern about you.

OGE, thanks for that clarification. It explains a lot. ASM1 is obviously passionate about this topic and I sympathize with his passion (I tend to agree with the links idea, though). I suspect most of us are on edge about this and if ASM1 wants to continue to C&P his posts, I'm ok with that too. HopScout is young and will have a lot of time to think and rethink his positions before he is old enough to put it on the line and join up for a trip to Iraq or some other conflict. Unless the verbal exchange gets out of hand, though, I think it is good for everyone to know that honest persons can have sincere, different views. And we all should respect those. In the meantime, I think everyone can share in a hope that this conflict will end sooner than later, our boys will come home safely, and that few lives will be taken on either side.

KoreaScouter, I can't stand it anymore...is there really an armadillo regiment in the Bolivian Army? This issue of camo is getting touchy locally because one scoutmaster's son wears it nearly all the time. I am not sure how much I should object but the DE doesn't seem to know the regs.

This may be out-of-place, but (this may surprise those of you who have seen my posts elsewhere) my wife is occasionally frustrated with me. She sometimes refers to me as (I'll try to get this right, I'm usually thinking about something else by this time in our conversation): "a humorless WASP with thin Nazi lips". To which I reply, "I do too have a sense of humor!" I submit evidence of this as follows, the result of years of popcorn sales: From Ye Olde Email Archive, message to new popcorn chair: As if I didn't say enough about popcorn already, this is a big job for someone. The cubmaster, I can say from experience, does not have enough time to do this. Another person really should do it. There is a special meeting for the popcorn chair in the fall and at that meeting the materials are distributed to the packs. These are given to the dens as soon as the sale is ready to begin. Unless you miss that meeting... in that case, you have to chase the materials as they make their way through security at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport (just kidding there, that would be too easy!) The sale proceeds and the scouts take orders (not money, not yet anyway). The orders must be collected and entered into a spreadsheet (no lie, this is really important). I have such a spreadsheet and if it is used it really simplifies things. Almost nothing can go wrong. But.... Catch #1. They don't get their orders in on time even though they took plenty of the orders from friends and neighbors who didn't hide quickly enough. In fact they wait until well after you send the orders in to tell you that they'll be late with their paperwork. Catch #2. The pack needs all the orders it can get. The budget critically depends on this so you bend over backwards to accommodate any little glitch. Catch #3. Did I mention a little glitch? The information on the boys' orders may or may not be correct. At this time in the process, the district executive is hollering for all of the information while the popcorn chair (me) is making last minute adjustments..."let's see now, how much extra should we list for the REALLY last minute orders?" Catch #4. After you factor in a modest order of extra popcorn, your orders are placed. The DE asks you to pick up the entire order during two hours early on a specific morning or late evening at a loading dock in a run-down industrial area. After determining you can squeeze a couple of hours out of your work day, you arrive to find out that he actually needs help in unloading an 18-wheeler full of popcorn which must then be sorted for all of the Packs in the entire district. This is a REALLY big catch. Catch #5. It is at this time that he informs you that he also included some extra popcorn in your order....just in case (remember you already ordered some extra, this is on top of that). You grimace and nod your head. He thinks you are smiling in thanks for his thoughtfulness. After you send the 18-wheeler on its way and the drug dealers are anxiously waiting for their turn at the loading dock, you shove the popcorn past the hot TV's and VCR's and into your...oh no, you drove the Corolla! At least it seems like it (I wish that case of Lite Caramel would stop pushing the transmission into neutral!)...and there's barely room for that new TV and VCR as well. You transport this home and parcel it out according to each den and each scout. Then you call in to take a day of annual leave. The house begins to smell like hot butter and you develop a certain hatred for popcorn. Catch #6. That night you call all of the dens or scouts and arrange to meet them at the church or at home to distribute the popcorn. Actually, you leave messages on answering machines and note to yourself to call again, notes that are immediately eaten by your dog when you are not looking. Catch #7. You discover that the order that you received is not what is on the receipt. Hopefully, the error is in your favor and hopefully, the extra few cases will cover the mistakes. Hope springs eternal..... Catch #8. The boys and parents don't show up on time or,...they don't show up at all... to get the popcorn. You end up delivering door-to-door just to get rid of it. By now you really hate the smell of popcorn. Now the boys deliver the popcorn and they collect the money. Catch #9. Checks are written to just about every conceivable organization but you are only too happy to sign anything necessary to make it work. You gradually reconcile every line on the spreadsheet and then you notice the three cases of plain popcorn that nobody likes... sitting in your living room unclaimed. If you don't sell this, the profit for the pack will take a beating. Oh well, here we go again. You decide to give plain popcorn that nobody likes for Christmas - again. And you even begin, horrors, ..........to eat it. Catch #10. Did I mention that you were supposed to keep track of what kind of prizes the boys wanted, how many points did they earn, and how to make sure they all get what they want? No? You forgot to look at those forms during all the other stuff? It turns out that I have a spreadsheet for this one as well but it won't do much good from year to year because they change the prizes as well as the points necessary to earn those changing prizes. Besides, heh, heh, did you expect this to work any better than the rest of the process? You did? Well you are perfect for next year's popcorn sale. Catch #11. The boys change their minds about prizes... just after you send the list in. This is part of their training to become men, our nation's leaders. You remind yourself to try to forget a lot of this stuff. The dog eats that note too. Now you have turned the money in to the Council for the popcorn, given the treasurer the pack's profit and you merely have to wait for the prizes to be delivered. Catch #12. The prizes are delayed. They are delivered to the roundtable that you couldn't attend. They didn't include all of the Camp Trails hat pins. The DE had a flat tire. He didn't have cab fare. A dog at his homework...wait a minute, those are MY excuses! A month into the summer, you get a call from the scout who moved away last fall. Where is his prize? "Are you really sure you want a Camp Trails hatpin?" Then, gloriously, summer is finally underway and...time to plan for the popcorn sale again. AAAAAaahahhhhheeeeeyeeyeyyaaaaaa!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I saw this in championship wrestling once, called the "death grip", (and everyone knows it's real don't they). Both contestants hold on until they both expire. At the risk of making things worse, I would like to try to get past this impass. Ed, If you apply the strategy you suggest for judging spirit, and allow everyone the freedom to employ that same strategy, there are plenty of other characteristics and activities that are NOT mentioned in the regulations. For example, did the boy attend troop meetings but NOT the service projects? Or NOT the last few courts of honor? There are other more bizarre possibilities that wayward scoutmasters might also apply if they had that latitude. The problem is deciding where to draw the line and Bob is suggesting that the line is simply stated in the regulations, no more, no less. And to read more into that because something is NOT mentioned risks going beyond the intent of the regulations. I sure hope this helps.

"radio static....Is that you Boynton?....radio static" KWC57, you're staying up way too late. But I agree with your question. I was hoping that the Red Cross or YMCA could enlighten us. I'm going to get some sleep!

As I understand the scenario, you have discovered that a boy cannot pass the swim test without the goggles and clip. How did you discover this? Did you proceed the way Ed just described? I suppose in that case I would agree with Ed. I also have never encountered this. Perhaps there is another way to discover clip dependence but Ed's is the most likely scenario. And that scenario is flawed...here's why: It makes no sense to allow a boy to take the test with goggles and clip even once...if you know that you will refuse to pass him under those conditions. If you allowed him to take the test the first time with goggles and clip, knowing that you will not pass him, what have you accomplished with the required second test other than further humiliate him when he fails? Alternatively, if you WILL pass him with goggles and clip the first time, there is no need for the second test. But suppose he passed the second test without goggles and clip. Then the question must be asked why did you test him WITH goggles and clip in the first place? What purpose did the first test serve if he could swim just fine without goggles and clip? And in this case, there actually would not be such dependence as posed originally. The only OTHER way to discover his dependence on goggles and clip is for him to fail the first test without these devices and follow with a retest allowing the goggles and clip. If he failed without and passed with the goggles and clip, this would definitely establish his dependence. But then you would have already known he couldn't swim with the first test! Why allow a futile retest with goggles and clip? Especially if you know you still won't pass the lad under those conditions! I seriously doubt that any waterfront director, seeing a boy fail the test without goggles and clip, would consider a retest with them. Do you disagree? In that case you would never discover the dependence in the first place. The original question presupposes an illogical set of circumstances. So...when are we going to hear about the way YMCA and Red Cross address this issue?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I guess this is why George Schultz never would answer hypothetical questions: 1. Being hypothetical, there is no solid basis in reality (no real scout, in this case) and hypothetical can change at any time, depending on each person's interpretation. 2. Having no substance, you can't beat them to death. Although we're trying really hard, that last one is kind of too bad. Ed, I would like to address an earlier statement, "I want my Eagle because it looks good on a college application.." that you mention as evidence for denying the Eagle rank. I have heard such statements in the past but when I questioned the scout further, there was always more to their motives. How many times has any young man been thoughtless in his words? When I apply that question to myself the answer is sobering. Yet I know that for most young men (and for me), thoughtless words can distract from other more worthy characteristics and motives. Sometimes those better characteristics take a little coaxing from those of us who are somewhat flawed superficially. I wonder what an Eagle board would do if they heard this in response to one of their questions? I suspect that if that was the only reason that the boy gave for deserving Eagle, they would have some trouble with it as well. However, as the boy's leader I expect to see this kind of thing long before that time. On the question of loyalty, I understand what you mean when you link this to troop attendance or support. However, I view loyalty (and the other points) as applying throughout the boy's life, outside the troop as well. To avoid judging him too harshly, I would need to understand his application of the law in his whole life. I would also need to examine the possibility that the troop, in some way, had failed him - perhaps in his mind. Perhaps he, too, has an issue with loyalty. There is no way to address this in a hypothetical case. There are a few things I don't see eye-to-eye with Bob White on, but I think this is where simply adhering to the regulations as written takes some of these gray areas off our shoulders. At least I think that is part of what they are intended to do. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.

Ok, Scoutldr, I'm still curious and the question remains unanswered...how do the YMCA and Red Cross address the issue? Evidently you have had some experience there. At this point the only way I see to remain consistent would be if there was simply an across-the-board ban on goggles, clips, and other items at all times, even after test-passed. That probably would help with the litter problem as well, not to mention lost-and-found. AquatDir, I think the logic is important because consistency is important for safety. Suppose one director at one camp allows the 'aids' while another doesn't. Under all the arguments I have heard, these two can't be equally safe...one is safer than the other. As a leader I am interested in evenhanded treatment of my boys but I am also interested in safety first. And I see consistency in the policy as a way to satisfy both of my interests. A simple, flat, ban would do it for me. I injected the health issue more as a point of interest, the risk is very small except for persons with weak immune systems. Oh yeah, and at the end of the week, it would be that much less for the boys to try to find and pack.

AquatDir, A couple of years ago, I found and greatly enjoyed a cybercafe in Slovakia (it had a really tacky Elvis theme at the time). Being the only American in town at that time was kind of fun but I sympathize with the 20 minute window you have. I wonder that you were able to cram some of your responses into that amount of time. I also sympathize with your conundrum as an aquatics director as well as the care you are exercising with the boy you mention. As I told Youngblood, I see unclear regulations as a source of confusion and argument. I think clear, specific regulations leave less to interpretation...especially by the persons you mention who seem to want to argue this or that. I also see clear, unequivocal regulations as more capable of being applied in a fair and evenhanded manner. I think your job would be easier if you didn't have to argue these points, wouldn't you agree? It sure would require less time in cyberspace. There is one more thing, Bob White will pounce if anyone suggests that regulations are not to be followed exactly, no more, no less. And boy, does that guy know them. Just a friendly warning.

Zahnada, thanks for the info, I was just curious.

KWC57, quite right. I have never seen anyone that afraid unless there was 'gator nearby. H'mmm, well, maybe a few women...let's see that was the time a snake was hanging in the branches...so many fond memories. Eisely, civility it is. 10-4

Littlebillie, I certainly agree with that! I look at my boys and know that in a different time they could be two years (or less) away from a platoon in a jungle. They are still playing nintendos (just a figure of speech for most of them) and have no concept of what they have. I am torn...isn't this status and secure feeling what we worked to achieve? How do you really teach the importance of our country or our society outside of lectures and visits to town hall? Or do we want them to really appreciate how it could be under different circumstances through first hand experience? For me it's a tough choice. It's one reason that I am toying with the idea of taking them to visit another country. For now I side with the nintendo, hesitantly, and try to replace it with the mountains and the forest. Have a good weekend.

AquatDir, ahem,....I was quoting Youngblood's earlier post.

Youngblood, respond or not, I accept that we all are concerned about water safety. I don't see how you could conclude that I am not if you had completely read some of my earlier posts. I am also concerned with fairness. If you and AquatDir were identical (don't worry your secret is safe with me), then you at least would be consistent with each other. You have to admit, where different people and practices are applied to the waterfront, there are also different levels of safety associated with them. That is where standards and regulations are important. This whole thread, in some sense, was started on what some would characterize as a trivial subject, unlikely to take a prominent place in the annals of waterfront safety. But as the thread developed, I seem to disagree with you in my contention that clear, unequivocal safety and performance standards are needed. I could be wrong. But if we are in agreement on the basic standards, why not on something like the intepretation of 'swim aids'? All I am asking is for unequivocal wording so the boys are treated in an evenhanded manner. I attempted to demonstrate this need by poking holes in your and AquatDir's logic. It was pretty easy. If you can't further defend those positions, then by all means, don't respond. But the whole mess would go away if the regs were simply changed to provide greater clarity. You clearly have the interest, why not make the attempt, then, to make the regs clearer? I look to the pros like you guys to do these things. Otherwise they are left to people who either don't have the interest or else they don't have the knowledge.

AquatDir, you'll have to forgive me if I have misinterpreted anything you've put in your posts. But it seems that in the last one you are asking for complete latitude to make case-by-case decisions based on your personal judgement. It seems that you want to make rules as you go along. If that is the case, I think it is unScoutlike and probably not in line with what BSA has in mind. But I could have misinterpreted what you said.

The mystery is solved. Bob White, why didn't you admit this a long time ago. And all along I thought ambiguity led to misunderstanding and argument as opposed to clarity and understanding. I have to apologize, I thought BSA was ambiguous because they are, well, you know...(how did we describe Reagan?)...'disengaged'. Have a nice day. OK, Youngblood, do you really think that ambiguity is good? That it makes your job easier to allow different interpretations of the regulations? Is this what you're saying? "The reason the BSA has a little ambiguity in these requirements (i.e., "in a strong manner") is because they do not want the "in charge" types (i.e., "qualified supervision") to be forced to do something by a disgruntled Scoutmaster (or some other "not in charge" type), such as allow a boy to be classified as a swimmer, when in fact the "in charge" type feels this is not a safe action for the boy and/or for those around him."

Youngblood, Sorry, I missed that question. You admitted that it was an unlikely situation. I agree, I can't even envision this hypothetically. I attempt to answer it by trying to apply your policy in an unequivocal manner. If we turn your hypothetical situation around, there is something to work with. If you disallow the swim cap (or whatever) during the successful swim test, under carefully controlled and monitored conditions (the boy knows this), and then allow him the confidence of his 'swim aids' after he passes the test, just what have you gained? In your reasoning, you would allow an 'aid' that could give the boy just enough false confidence to get himself into real trouble out in open water where you have much less control. I state this in different terms: If a boy tests successfully under careful supervision and you then allow him his goggles or noseclip out in the open water, I submit that you have allowed a new untested condition that under your argument could lead to panic if the canoe capsizes (or whatever) and the noseclip is lost. I submit that to be true to your line of reasoning you should NEVER allow such an aid because it is inconsistent with the original test conditions. To allow such 'aid' after the test introduces factors that you neither control nor tested for in the first place. I am saying to all of you; decide on uniform regulations and be consistent in their application. That would be fair to everyone.

AquatDir, I am on the water a lot of the time in my work. I am not only aware of the regulations regarding PFDs but I support them and obey them. I take water safety seriously because I know what it means to have lost friends to needless on-the-job deaths on the water. I have little concern one way or the other if BSA requires the swim test without noseclips, goggles, or ear plugs. I just expect a level playing field for my boys and I defend them vigorously if someone is not evenhanded. I am not accusing you of being a bad guy. As I have stated in other threads on other topics, I don't consider this to be about YOU. It is about the boys and I demand fairness for them. In this discussion, I detected an approach that was not evenhanded and I am attempting to call attention to that and, if possible, get it corrected. In my previous post I suggested ways to achieve that goal. You might want to direct some of your energy there as well.

Eisely, if Youngblood saw someone panic after losing their noseclip, then either they were in the process of taking the swimtest (contrary to his stated policy...a situation I consider unlikely) or else his requirement that they take the test without noseclip failed on that occasion. They evidently passed the test without the noseclip and then went into panic later anyway. This hardly supports Youngblood's contention. Has Youngblood never observed a boy who didn't have a noseclip "come up choking and panicking". I have on many occasions. I am still asking for good evidence to support these claims. I am waiting for the waterfront professionals to show this forum what the Red Cross or YMCA have on this issue. Is this unreasonable? Do you think BSA established their regulations in ignorance of or disregard to the Red Cross and YMCA? Youngblood, I refer you to an earlier post by AquatDir, "if a scout has a doctors orders not to go in the water with out earplugs or goggles i dont have a problem with that. lets think here. is he wearing those things because if not he will panic? or is he wearing them because his doctor has suggested them for the boys health. if a scout has to wear earg plus due to doctors orders that doesnt mean if they were to come off he would panic and therefore be an unsafe swimmer." I use the above as further evidence of the lack of an evenhanded approach to this issue. It is evident that AquatDir would allow the test if a doctor directed those 'aids'. He accepts the devices for the test if so ordered by a doctor. His opinion without the doctor's order is that a boy could panic if the goggles (or whatever) came off while in the water. However, with such doctor's order, the same boy would be given the benefit of the doubt. I submit that if so predisposed under your argument, the boy would panic either way if otherwise identical circumstances caused loss of the device. AquatDir simply didn't think this through. Your lack of objection to that statement implies at least an equivocal response to his acquiescence to the good doctor. While we wait for information from those other youth organizations with waterfront experience and policies, I believe it would be good for all of you 'in charge' types to get together and arrive at a uniform set of regulations that BSA could adopt. That would satisfy me because at least I and other leaders could read it in the book and then it could apply to the boys in an evenhanded manner.