Beavah

Nope, no relevance to da health insurance. From a health insurance perspective you're better off being young, eh? It's us old farts who tend to fall down and go boom. Two-deep for outings requires one registered leader of any age and one breathing humanoid over da age of 21. there is likely a great amount of personal growth and maturity that develops between the ages of 18 and 21 Yah, hmmm.... seems to me that's what we call "prejudice." We've made a judgment of a person based on general characteristics of a group. There's hopefully growth in any human over any three year period. At least that seems to be da case into our 50's or so, then we're just tryin' to hang on to what we have . That doesn't say anything about whether an individual has da skills needed for a particular job at any point. A young man of 18 after all has 7 years of scouting and probably 4-5 years of scouting leadership, planning, and instructional experience. He can be an EMT and have several years as a lifeguard, and as a high school graduate has a better education than a third of the older adult population. In fact, he can even program a DVR, which is a lot more than I can say for most of da people my age . If he were available and da only other person willing was a second-year parent in da program who had camped out with da troop a few times in good weather and promised he'd get trained sometime in da next year, who would you want as a Scoutmaster? A good CC can help support him on da parent relations side, but da program needs a man who can lead in the field. Beavah

Yah, shortridge, yeh might think... Until yeh actually read da book and recognize that the quote you pulled out of context was from da section entitled "Mandatory Report of Child Abuse". So, when we don't take it out of context, we realize that da quote is actually meant to be taken in the context of the previous paragraph, which is referring to physical or sexual abuse, physical or emotional neglect, violence or threat of violence, sexual exploitation, child pornography, solicitation, enticement, or obscene material. Then yeh refer you Youth Protection Training, which spells out the reportin' requirements as I described them, eh? Amazin' the things yeh can learn by readin' the guidebook like a guidebook. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'll echo Eagle92, eh? Youth leadership is a progression, not a sink-or-swim exercise, and as you continue scoutin' you'll find you're always progressing. At da start, they need to see, hear, smell, and taste what good leadership looks like, and you need to get a sense for them and their personalities and skills. Then, as each lad figures out how to manage himself and is ready to start leadin' others, you hand the reins over. If yeh grow a bit da second year it will be nice. Yeh can move from PL of one patrol to havin' youth PLs of two patrols and you bein' like da SPL to havin' youth PLs of 3 patrols and a youth SPL and you as instructor/guide to full-up youth stuff as you move along. In each case, it becomes an honor and a privilege to be selected to serve as a youth leader, because that means you're steppin' up into a role that was worthy of an adult, eh? Or down the road, worthy of an older, way-cool scout. The goal is to get to the goal, eh? Not immediately, but to always keep it in sight and ask "What's the next step?" Slow and steady progress and you'll get there before yeh know it. Finally, don't forget da parents. Yeh need to spend as much time getting them to understand and take the next step toward the goal as yeh do the kids. Sometimes more. Beavah

probably b/c folks are considered minors until 21. What in da world are yeh smokin'? Da age of majority is 18 in almost every state I know, though a few have 18 and high school graduation or 19 if no high school graduation. A few limit parental control and responsibility to age 17 or 16, meaning yeh can have an independent minor, and of course all will recognize legal emancipation before age 18. In fact, in some jurisdictions, yeh can get in trouble for age discrimination against young adults, even if you're a private entity. Just as yeh can get in trouble for age discrimination against older adults. So legally, ethically, morally, mentally, practically, physically they are adults for anything other than havin' a beer or gambling (since our cultural heritage of puritanical abstemiousness is so strong ). And to my knowledge there's no insurance reason for it either, eh? Remember, an 18-year-old can be the only registered leader on a trip (and therefore da only person with YPT and other required training), and can be the only functional supervisor of a program area at summer camp. Only in auto insurance and health insurance does there tend to be an age-related premium (which indirectly affects auto rentals and driving-related jobs), but again not in da states that forbid such discrimination. Like most such arbitrary things, it's just an issue of prejudice, much as prohibiting women scout leaders was. Beavah

Yah....hmmmm.... So re-readin' this whole thread has given me a new insight, which is why I hang out and participate in all these things. I find myself convinced by young teacher/scout's argument. I think Lisabob and I are wrong. Older folks, not younger folks, see things in more artificial black-and-white ways. And da evidence is right here in this thread. It seems da young people just expected the folks they were working' with and for to be Trustworthy, eh? To live up to their word. That strikes me as a reasonable, black-and-white expectation. Also maybe a notion of equal pay (or equal voice) for equal work. That, too, strikes me as a reasonable black-and-white expectation, as hard as it is to live up to sometimes. I think they both have somethin' to do with "Timeless Values." But many if not most of us adults in this thread instead of applying timeless values applied our own experience as though it was a value. Our experience that a SM is supposed to be 21 (so we ignored that the lad would be 21 when he became SM), our experience with BSA paperwork, etc. We saw da minor things like BSA paperwork as even more black-and-white than Timeless Values. So much so that quite a few people made up rules that just don't exist in order to justify treatin' it as black-and-white. Insurance won't cover. The age of majority is 21 not 18. Unregistered MC's can't vote. And on and on... We're so determined to see black and white that we make stuff up. And all da young people expect from us is that we be Trustworthy. Now it is true that those with more experience have more experience. I reckon that's correlated with age within a given field. A lawyer who is 50 is likely to have more experience than one who is 27 (unless he's a second-career fellow ). So yah, a 40-year-old who has worked on lots of committees and teams is goin' to know more than a 20 year old about how to work on committees and teams, and be better at getting things done. There are things da young folks can learn from us because we have more experience with adults. But correlation is not causation, eh? A 40 year old who has never really worked on committees or effective teams is goin' to know less than a 20 year old who has. And a 20-year-old who has spent the last 10 years in Scouting is goin' to know more than a parent committee member who signed up two years ago. What happens as we get older and confident in one field, though, is that we tend to get confident in general. So much that we like as not overestimate our abilities in other fields. My psychology friends say that's pretty well established. We adults do that a lot, eh? We're confident in our own fields, so we think that with a few pages out of a Scoutin' book we know all there is to know. I'm not immune, for sure, and I see attorneys bluster and bully like buffoons when they get outside their area of expertise. Look at Congress. Our overconfidence leads us to be too black-and-white. Includin' in our attitude toward young people. So teacher/scout, I apologize to you and your fiancee, and I stand corrected. You are quite correct, it's us old farts who find (or even make up) silly things to be black-and-white about, eh? When all we should really be is Trustworthy. Beavah

Then comes the complication of my son only has a few months before he is no longer a crew member, then Fiance would have another year as crew member, at which time they would not be able to date.. Kindof hard to plan a wedding and not date at the same time.. Yah, that's why this bit in da YP training is so absurd, eh? When yeh actually talk to folks at National, they're far more rational about it. Obviously the concern is a big power difference, of a 40 year old Advisor dating an 18 year old young woman. That sort of thing, however, is best left to the people closest to da situation to decide. Yeh just can't write a workable nationwide guideline that isn't ridiculous if taken literally. Yet another example of how we old people are rigid and inflexible, while da young folks are thoughtful and rational and able to see da shades of grey. Beavah

That same argument of "erring on the side of caution" can of course be used to justify all kinds of things, eh? Includin' a lazy SE just terminating your BSA membership because he got a couple of reports about your irresponsible nephew-driving. Just like "erring on the side of caution" has TSA security agents giving enhanced pat-downs to potentially dangerous 6-year-old girls. I'm an old fellow, eh? I reckon lots of da younger folks don't remember da old Soviet and Chinese practices of encouraging neighbors to rat out neighbors and relatives to tell da authorities about any "suspicion" they had about mom or dad or uncle Joe. It was a Civic Duty. It was a great way of gettin' that annoying neighbor sent to da gulag. And it was monstrous. Some folks feel that da broader mandatory reporting statutes even for true child abuse can be counterproductive, because of limited time and resources to follow up on poor quality reports from "erring on da side of caution" civilians. And that's professional CPS following up on real child abuse allegations. You want to do mandatory reporting of nuthin' more than protocol incidents to a fellow who is much less well trained and resourced than CPS? Like I said, if we all follow suit, every SE in da country will be on the phone to Irving by the end of the month to get that wording changed back! The fallacy that you're operatin' from is that a remote, relatively untrained authority like an SE is goin' to be in a better position to recognize and respond than those who are closer to the kids. It just ain't so, which is why your example is so strained. It's alert, trained folks close to the kids who detect da patterns of grooming and abuse, and who know the difference between that and driving your nephew home . Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

The 50 states are more likely to have clear and fair resolution than the FEC on eligibility since there would be less direct party control. Yah, this thread has been really funny, but this one has to take the cake. Sorry, vol. Yeh do know that da FEC is required by law to have a 50-50 split by party on the commission, and requires a 2/3 majority to approve anything, right? And yeh do know that many states of the union have single party control over both houses, the executive, and the state supreme court, right? I confess I'm increasingly opposed to da intrusiveness of campaigning, and da whole inanity over President Obama's (and Senator McCain's) eligibility I think has been one of da causes. Reasonable financial disclosures I get. Health records I don't get. Why should a fellow who is running for office have to have his medical history published to the world? College records I don't get. Do we care if he got a B in freshman chemistry? Loan applications? Credit history? This is worse than tabloid journalism. I've never even heard of a long form birth certificate. Here we just have birth certificates, and in some cases people can't produce da originals because da county records department had a fire or took water damage or some low-paid clerk filed it under their middle name. Are we goin' to render all of 'em ineligible to run, along with anyone who had a poor credit score at some point in their life? Seriously, what competent fellow would want the job? I'd walk away from any employer who requested all that from me (well, actually, I'd bring a wicked class action suit...). Barack Obama has clearly been an active American all his teen and adult life. Who in their right mind tries to hold a man of age 50 to what he might have said at age 3, let alone what his parents said? And if yeh do find it reasonable for some reason, then I reckon yeh have to ask yourself why for this president and no one before? Beavah

SeattlePioneer, that's da stuff from how you set a foundation for a new unit, not how yeh select leadership for an existing unit, eh? And it's only general guidance. If yeh want da general guidance for an existing unit, there's a stretch in the Troop Committee Handbook as well as a supplementary module on da topic. But it all comes down to the same thing, eh? The committee or some committee should be involved and do the vetting/checking/selecting, and the COR should approve (or not). Moosetracker, I see what yeh mean about young Moose. I actually like young fellows like that, and think they make good leaders for boys. Teenage boys need a real sense of black and white, because in their minds and in reality they are facin' some black and white decisions. Do I use drugs? Do I sleep with my girlfriend? Do I get drunk with my friends? The Scout Oath and Law in the end are statements of black and white. Young Moose, when us old farts talk about "grey", what we really mean is "tactics." Yep, there is such thing as right and wrong, black and white. But then there's also such a thing as successful and unsuccessful tactics. It's not enough just to holler about wrong, it's necessary to defeat it. And that often means avoidin' squabbles, choosing your time, layin' the groundwork, being polite, and all the rest. You're quite right that capability has almost nothing to do with age (and where it does, it's us aged folks who are less capable). But perhaps tellin' the COR she's a manipulative troll ain't the best tactics. Yeh want her on your side in order to do what's best for the program. Your mom seems to be tired of the program and wants to get out, but that doesn't have to be true for you and your fiancee. I appreciate your loyalty, and I'm sure the boys do, too. Be friendly, courteous, and kind to your fellow adults, even those who don't reciprocate, and I reckon you'll have a greater chance of doin' good things. Good luck tonight. Beavah

Yah, well, we all know that da connection between politicians and factual statements is tenuous at best, eh? I confess, though, that it troubles me more than a little when someone who might aspire to executive office characterizes a large group peaceably assemblin' to petition the government for redress of grievances as "violence." I wonder if da families of 9/11 victims or drive-by-shooting victims or women who have been raped feel that Wisconsin state senators are fellow sufferers because they had to put up with a few weeks worth of protests by upset constituents. Yah, yah, everyone wants to be a "victim", and Mrs. Palin has that schtick down pat. But really? Gosh, I might have to donate money for a shelter for emotionally battered state senators. Then again, maybe not. Beavah

Perhaps your should get Beavah or NJ to review the statute of fraud for you. Illegal contracts are unenforceable. Moose and FianceMoose were hosed when they agreed to do jobs they couldn't legally register for. AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! For... The...Last....Time.... The BSA is not the law, the government, or a regulatory agency. Volunteerin' for da BSA is not some permutation of contract law or employment law or collective bargaining agreement. It is a children's program. It is ONLY a children's program. And da law, wonderful mistress that she is, is only the law. She doesn't belong in all aspects of life or society. Yeh don't bring your mistress to da cub scout meeting. I agree with all da other stuff TwoCubDad says, though! Beavah

Mr. Obama, Mr. President, you and your cohorts threw all the hatred and all the violence that you could at the good folks here in Madison, Wisconsin All da violence? Did I miss a riot or insurrection somewhere? Does the woman know what da word "violence" means, I wonder? Perhaps she should have tried usin' that TelePrompTer, eh? Beavah

Oh, ease up about "the rules" already. First, the rules for how a unit selects committee members and unit leaders are set by the Chartered Organization. If the COR wants the committee to vote, the committee votes. That's totally in keeping with da BSA guidelines, which state that the committee or another group appointed by the COR consider, rank, approach, and select the unit leader. So da applicable "rules" here are da rules for committee operation and leader selection that the Chartered Organization set up, and that were relied upon by others in making decisions. A proper UC would be supportin' da rights and responsibilities of da COR in this regard. Second, it ain't about da paperwork, it's about character and ethics. The fact is, in any organization there are some people who are the drivers who do the work. They're invested, they care, they have the time, whatever. Our obligation as fellow citizens is to recognize 'em and support 'em and thank 'em. Not to discriminate based on age, or gender, or status as a former scout, or whether or not they are a parent, or how much money they make. If you care, and you do the work, then you deserve the support and recognition that comes with that. A COR represents an organization, and most organizations recognize that legally, morally, physically, mentally, and spiritually an 18 year old is an adult. These people are about to get married for cryin' out loud! Of course anyone with an ounce of sense would welcome them if they wanted to give their time to scouting, and if they were truly the best people for the job would use them. And support them. And respect them. As I've said in other places, it is the norm in da rest of the world for young adults to serve as unit leaders. In fact it's considered a bit creepy for parent-aged folks to be SMs and da like. And in this, we are da backward nation. But if the COR says the 18 year old can participate on da committee and gets a vote that she's going to listen to, then he does. Here, the problem seems to be that the COR doesn't know where she's tryin' to go with the unit and is sending mixed signals. That's not a recipe for success. In some ways random COR involvement is worse than none. I'd suggest someone sit down with da COR and maybe IH and talk about where things should be goin' and perhaps if she's best for the job, or if she can get some help with da things she's not good at, like managing conflict or making hard decisions. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, jet526, thanks for takin' the time to give us the follow-up, eh? And glad things worked out to be just a bunch of ordinary learning opportunities in Scouting. Like you, I am surprised sometimes at how quickly we get down on fellow adult leaders (and kids) here. Myself included on occasion. Just an Internet thing I guess. Or at least I hope! Beavah

Now, each incident may be nothing, but the SE is in a position to see That I do something not quite right or that "appears" suspicious on a constant basis Yah, it's a nice theory, Scoutfish. But da truth is the SE doesn't really do investigations and hasn't really "seen" anything. Any DE will tell you that whenever there's adult infighting going on in a unit, they get a series of calls and complaints. And just like we see here on da forums, when that infighting goes on, there's all kinds of animosity and people accusing other people of things, including "YP Violations". Suddenly driving your nephew to the meeting becomes 3 separate complaints to the SE about your callous disregard for da no one-on-one rule. When asked, another parent in da program who left in a huff over the popcorn reimbursement policy talks like E61 about da time you recklessly endangered children by taking 'em canoeing on a flat water lake when it was cold out, and how there might not have been a certified adult lifeguard in the boat of a beginner swimmer. Now that doesn't mean that for real, substantive accusations like those SeattlePioneer mentioned that we should hesitate one second. If I had been SP, I would have taken the mom to file a police report and been on da phone with the SE and the IH that very hour. And then would have worked with da parents to find counseling services for the daughter. What's important is that there's a difference between those two things, eh? A real, substantive difference between statutory rape and incidental violations of program best practice. When we lump 'em all together we blur that line and make it less likely that people will treat the important stuff as truly important. That's why a one size fits all, zero tolerance zero thoughtfulness reporting policy is actually harmful to youth protection. Beavah

Yah, da problem with the Summit and other high adventure bases is the Disneyland effect, eh? It's not part of da regular program. Let's face it, a large fraction of da kids at Philmont go as part of council contingents, not with their unit. So they're not really building unit teamwork and citizenship and program, eh? It's more like da expensive one-shot vacation from the unit. Even when units go, the various rules about numbers and whatnot tend to make 'em do provisional sorts of things. Exclude some eligible kids, or add some kids from another troop to make the numbers. Though the high adventure bases have their place, I'd much rather see unit program. Real wilderness backpacking with your crew that assembled and planned the whole trip, rather than goin' with a council contingent where the budget and transportation are done by adults, the route is selected by the base, meals are delivered pre-planned to backcountry commissaries, and there's an "attraction" at every stop. . Disneyland is great fun for little kids and older more sedentary people, and a Disneyland vacation is novel and memorable. If that's all yeh can muster, go for it, it'll be fun. But I'm not sure it's really much more than advanced cub scouting. Boy Scouting isn't about what rides yeh went on, it's about patrols and youth leadership, and that's all unit program stuff, eh? That means da unit leader can't be off at the Greenbrier Hotel, though. Beavah

Yah, Engineer61, good post. We might spin that one off as a new thread. I see scouters do a better job with da communication over big trips, eh? High adventure type stuff. I think what happens is for the more regular stuff it becomes "old hat" to us, and we forget that it's not old hat to the new parents. And, too, some of us are familiar with things because we grew up with 'em so they're kind of ordinary. I grew up canoein', and I know every river and most lakes within a few hundred miles. Turn by turn, high water and low. I'm always out in da early spring, so I know the new hazards from trees fallen in the winter. I paddle all weather, so I know how da things behave in wind and with different fetch. It's ordinary stuff, could do it with kids in my sleep. But I forget that for a parent who isn't familiar with all that, da notion of going paddling on a lake might be scary even on a bright, clear, windless day. And those are things we shouldn't forget, eh? B

However, in the anecdote you told about the autistic boy, wouldn't it have been better if the man had introduced himself to Den leader when he came up and joined them? I reckon da operable question is the converse, eh? Wouldn't it have been better if the Den Leader had approached the man civilly and introduced herself, before running off and shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In your lab hypothetical, they haven't given me a "Guide to Safe Lab Practices" that appears to cover most of what I need. Go to any textbook publisher and do a search on "Lab Safety". Every one will have a guide to safe lab practices designed to cover most of what a teacher needs. Most of 'em downloadable for free, just like G2SS. The difference between this and the DNR fishing booklet is that da DNR is a regulatory agency, not a private fishing program materials provider. And da BSA is a private youth program materials provider, not a regulatory agency. For a regulatory agency, you can look up the law and read the codified regulations. For da McGraw-Hill publishing house or the BSA, there's no such thing. Beavah

A military base constitutes US soil. And Hawaii doesn't?

A 14 year old Life Scout sitting on a log, one on one with an 11 year old boy to teach him a bowline can easily do that with the four components of EDGE 99.9% of the time. Only if you're talkin' a signoff for once-and-done, eh? If you're actually expectin' proficiency, either for the lad who is learning the skill or for the fellow who is learning how to teach a skill, then yeh need more. In fact, yeh need to do things like space learning over time (so it's reinforced and retained), connect abstract ideas with da skills (so they understand how and why and when the skills are applied, not just how to mimic 'em) and all da rest. So yes, I want the lads to learn how to teach well, because they're leading their patrol and teaching other skills, and because I want 'em to be a good example to the younger fellow. And remember, a 14-year-old isn't just teaching a knot for the EDGE requirement, he's teaching outdoor skills, first aid, cooking, etc. Why wouldn't we want to give that young 14-year-old lad the best techniques and advice? Why would we just give him an unsubstantiated, incomplete method? And especially, why would we require him to use an unsubstantiated, incomplete method when there are other, better techniques out there? Do we still teach leeches for first aid, too? That's been done for centuries. Of course not. We teach the boys the best practices. Beavah

Dang. Missed da opportunity to freak packsaddle out by coming up with a long-winded and furry rationalization for why Barack Obama isn't qualified to be either president or a space alien. Beavah

If the G2SS is not an official policy document, where are the official policy documents? In all seriousness, I would like to read those. Let's say you're a school science teacher and your school district buys a textbook (which these days seem to come with computer resources and summer professional development and a box of materials for da laboratory)... then where are your official policy documents about lab safety? Do yeh try to find your official policy documents in da materials from the textbook publisher? Nope. But a good textbook publisher is goin' to provide you with resources and training on lab safety. Maybe even a lab safety guide and a background check service for your school. For policies, yeh look to your local school district, and if it's a public school to the state regulations. They'll have a few policies about lab safety like da use of goggles, but not too much else. But that's what yeh should read if yeh want policy. For the rest, you are expected as a competent professional trusted with da care of children to exercise your own best judgment, taking into account da best practices of the field and your local conditions and students. No different for a unit scouter. The BSA is a resources and materials provider, contracted by your Chartering Organization. Like da textbook publisher, they provide materials and training for a fee, includin' a safety guide, monthly newsletters and da like. Your Chartered Organization can institute policies for you, so if yeh want policies, yeh look to them and to any applicable state law and regulation. They'll have a few policies about safety, especially youth protection issues, but not too much else. For da rest, you are expected to act as a competent, responsible adult citizen trusted with the care of children and to exercise your own best judgment, taking into account the best practices of da field and your local conditions and scouts. For that, you are personally and morally accountable; yeh can't fob it off on followin' G2SS or the NOLS Wilderness Handbook or the Prentice-Hall Guide to Safe Outdoorsmanship, nor can you ignore those things. Those can be good information, but they do not relieve you of liability or responsibility for using your own judgment. Not sure where or when we Americans got away from da notion of personal responsibility, eh? But it's a bedrock principle of civil society and citizenship. Da BSA is just a fellow (corporate) citizen tryin' to be helpful. It's not the law. Now, would any competent and caring science teacher allow 7th graders to mix dangerous chemicals without all da right equipment? Of course not. Nor will any competent and caring scouter allow a 7th grader to be alone in the tent with a non-relative adult at night. Neither the science teacher nor the scouter needs "policy" to know what's appropriate or what's good practice. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Having knowledge of hyperbole is a stupid rule. Honestly, this stuff just leaves me dumbfounded. By any read of any law or precedent the President meets da qualifications. It's really hard not to just lump this "birther" nonsense in with alien abduction. Nice to know that da governor of Arizona has a brain, though. Can't for da life of me figure out why the state would want to spend millions on a completely indefensible legal position. Oh wait... this is Arizona. Da logic that BS-87 uses would exclude the children of military service members who married while overseas but whose children were born and raised in da U.S. It would also exclude children born and raised in da U.S. one of whose parents hold dual citizenship. And a host of other cases, none of which are conscionable. Of course, it would also exclude George Washington and all of da founders, which is why such a strained interpretation is ludicrous even on a strict constructionist basis. Beavah

Yep, that's me! But if yeh read closely, I don't think you'll find anywhere that I said explaining is wrong, or guiding is wrong, or demonstrating is wrong on their own. What I noted in the long quote above is that EDGE, the method as a whole, was missing all of the components identified by sound research as being important to good teaching and learning. Note that's not the same as saying it didn't have any components that were sound. It's saying that the method is woefully incomplete. And that's why either a good teacher is addin' in all kinds of things not included in EDGE, or a novice (like many a lad teaching a skill at summer camp) often fails despite being trained in EDGE. It's also why even when we teach EDGE in Trainer's EDGE, we don't follow EDGE. Da other thing someone else mentioned (packsaddle, I believe) is that it takes a lot to know how to give a good explanation to different learners. It takes even more to be able to understand what makes for an effective demonstration, and still more to understand how to be a good coach. And when? When do I skip Explanation and go right to Guiding? When do I go backwards from Guiding to Demonstrating? When is a boy or a group ready to be Enabled? So even within da few teaching methods EDGE does employ, there's really not enough to help a lad be successful with those steps. We see it in questions here from adults, eh? "How do I get a group of ADD 11-year-olds to pay attention to my explanation?" "When can I allow a patrol to hike on its own?" So if trained adults don't get it, expectin' a young scout to get it seems unlikely. All those things explain why no one else uses EDGE. It's shallow and incomplete and doesn't take into account either the learner or the instructor. EDGE, as a whole, as a model or guide to instruction, fails. If yeh follow the instructions, yeh won't get a tasty cake. That's not the same thing as sayin' never explain anything, or never use flour in a cake. Beavah

LOL. Yah, I like Blancmange's solution . I was actually surprised, since I have a copy of da last G2SS which is where I pulled my stuff from. Then I downloaded last month's revision with all this new language. Da folks in Irving try really hard, eh? They're under a lot of pressure from different sides and have a very limited staff. I sorta like the new direction with G2SS which is returning it clearly to a guidance document, which then allows for more colloquial and not policy-like language. I think people learn better from ordinary language, eh? It's only us weirder fellows who get into policy and legalese. Of course, that will mean we have to break ourselves of da habit! Shortridge, go easy on da head there! (or go easy on the wall ). Yeh have to remember, I come at this from what is perhaps a different perspective. You're an adult who has been selected by an organization and approved by the BSA as someone they trust with the care and welfare of children. You are expected by society to exercise your best judgment and da full breadth of your experience in that task. Yeh might think about it as being a professional, as opposed to being a piece worker. A piece worker is given a task and told how to do the task. A professional is given a task and expected to use his experience and judgment and resources to accomplish the task. As with any citizen charged with the care of others, you are personally responsible for doing your best and for da choices you make, and your chartered organization shares in that responsibility. We in the BSA would appreciate it if yeh did a good job, too, because we insure you and it affects our reputation as well. But yeh can't duck that responsibility or foib it off on following a book. It's da responsibility of every citizen who is entrusted with care of another. Nothing in the BSA is law, that would usurp your responsibility to exercise care and judgment in the safety of children. Nothing. The BSA is just a contracted provider of program resources. You are the responsible professional and citizen. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)