Beavah

Beav - are you saying that if I follow the G2SS wrt shooting and a scout with a sue happy parent gets hurt and brings me to court, the BSA will not back me up? Where'd yeh get that notion, Eagle1973? Da BSA has an excellent reputation for always standing by it's volunteers. Insurance coverage applies if someone sues you on da basis of negligence of some sort for a damage to persons or property arising from your participation as a volunteer in a scouting event. Period.

Is scouting intended to sabotage our relationships with our own children? Nah, not at all. It's meant to deepen relationships, which means moving them beyond the comfortable relationship of dependency to the richer relationship of mutual trust. Da helicopter parent is da parent who is stuck in and relies on having that dependency relationship with their son. Who coaches da lad on approaching the SM rather than letting his boy figure it out or fumble through it (never known a SM to bite), perhaps. Or perhaps not. Depends on how guilty you are feeling about it. . Or how much your son really was incapable of doing it on his own, in his own time. Helping a shy new boy approach da SM for the first time might be needed. I love all of jet's and especially SR540's example too. I'll add mothers who tie their son's hiking boots for 'em. No joke, seen it more than once. Yeh also see Little League parents in scouts, too. That's a related phenomenon, where da parent is living through their son's success or failure, and browbeats or manipulates or agitates against coaches or refs or scouters to guarantee rapid and complete "success" for junior.

Yah, my memory is that earlier versions of da badge required scouts to participate in one season of a team sport and one season or tournament of an individual sport. It would list examples of each. Not sure when da badge switched to just two seasons of any sport, but when the change is made it seems like they kept a partial list. I'd count swimming as just fine, given da new wording. Beavah

Yah, except it's not a society, Gern. It's a religion yeh associate with voluntarily. It's not governing your taxes or your life, it's giving yeh advice on your relationship with God. Like I said, I don't think GSUSA is oppressing men just because there's no path to a leadership role for me as a non-parent male. Scarecrow going to keep making his appearance? BadenP, I get yeh now. I apologize for misinterpreting your intent. There's nothing wrong with criticizing da institution for corruption when and if that is going on. But I reckon you're falling into a trap that's common eh? If you're a pschiatrist, after a while you can start thinking all people are crazy. If what you're dealing with is stressed and upset clergy, then after a while yeh can start thinking all clergy are that way. Even though you know they're not. And like listening to people complain about how terrible their troops are here, you're only seeing one side of da story. Yeh have to be careful not to judge based on that. As to the bit about them being the only true religion or way to salvation or whatnot, here's what da Catholics really say, infallibly: Likewise, other religions to be found everywhere strive variously to answer the restless searchings of the human heart, by proposing "ways" which consist of teachings, rules of life, and sacred ceremonies. The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all people... As a consequence, the Church rejects and repudiates as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination or harassment of people because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.... This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all people are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to their own beliefs, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether publicly or privately, whether alone or in association with others (within due limits). The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as providing access to salvation. Da original Latin is kind of poetic. But it sure seems like they teach yeh don't have to be Catholic for salvation, yeh can find capital-t Truth in non-Christian religions, and that religious freedom is absolute. I don't get their whole hierarchy and infallibility thing, but I have to admit to agreeing with at least this part of what they teach as infallible. Beavah

The reason I follow the G2SS is because if an accident happens, I'm covered by the BSA insurance, or at least I hope that I am. Aieeeeeeee! Yah, I think this urban legend will never die. It's like one of those internet chain letters from Nigerian dictators wanting to make you rich. Eagle, insurance is governed by something called an insurance contract, not by internal organizational documents like G2SS. G2SS is there to give yeh advice and guidance because no one wants to see a kid or adult hurt. Insurance is there for when you screw up by not following G2SS (or by following G2SS foolishly) and someone does get hurt. Please search "insurance" on the forums for dozens of threads with hundreds of detailed explanations. We now return you to your regularly scheduled riflery thread. B

It amazes me in this day and age that any woman would even want to be Catholic but many do out of fear from the lies of that tradition that they are the only true religion and the only path to salvation and all other faiths are false. Yah, sorry ScoutFish, I believe da statement quoted above is just bigotry, eh? Not to mention false in its characterization of Catholic teaching. Now maybe it's because BadenP is a fallen away Catholic, and such folks often seem to have a chip on their shoulder. But it definitely ain't the more nuanced argument you're making about the difference between policy and practice. Yeh won't get any argument from me that da Catholic hierarchy doesn't always live up to its own ideals. I reckon yeh won't get an argument from most Catholics, either. Same with scouts. I know I don't always live up to my own ideals, so it seems pretty silly to expect it of others, even those that wear funny costumes B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

The examples I have presented are based on my opinions, just that. Backed by facts, when available. Yah, I presented yeh with da facts, eh? In the original Latin, straight from da pen of Pope Paul, cosigned by da bishops in their infallible council or whatever. Simple, easy to locate facts which yeh couldn't be bothered to find. Facts located by a young Catholic woman who does not feel in the least bit "oppressed." You're not making personal attacks, eh? You're making broad smears against an entire group of people. I'm saying it's disgusting and shameful, because I believe it's disgusting and shameful. I recognize that yeh think da straw man argument you're proposing is rational, but I'm telling you it isn't. And yep, I say da same things when religious folks like that pseudo-church in Kansas make broad smears against gays and irrational correlational arguments. Beavah

Sorry, Gern, religious bigotry and prejudice like BadenP's post above and some of da others are to be strongly opposed. If yeh don't understand that to be a part of Scouting, then I reckon yeh don't really understand Scouting. I may not be a Catholic, but I don't much care for bigotry against their religion. It's shameful from scouters. Yah, I also recognize that a miserable feature of modern American public discourse is to ramp up the rhetoric until it is well over the top. Ordinary policy disputes become "he's undermining the constitution!". Ordinary differences of theological perspective become "they're oppressing women!". If yeh meant it as talk show hyperbolic rhetoric, then forgive my interpretation. That's just being a Limbaugh-esque bloviating cad, not a bigot. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, good luck JimFritz. Let us know how it goes. So now you went and confused me again Beavah.. Are these groups that have conciously defined themselves as using the BSA program to run a youth outreach program, or are thes groups that are running a social outreach program and thinking they are running a QUALITY BSA program? Yah, folks here on scouter.com always seem to like drawing these bright lines in the sand so they can label another group or argue a point. I don't think that's the real world. Da real world is mushier. Yeh just have a troop that has a certain character, eh? Da character comes from da CO, and the adults, and in some cases the youth in it. It's self perpetuating, because folks that like a troop like that are attracted and stay, and folks that don't like it leave. A few folks can describe their vision and program use well; they tend to be experienced or exceptional scouters. Most don't have that clear a focus, or haven't seen enough other units to know where they fit in terms of program use. "Quality" is a different thing, eh? First, I think quality depends on what your goals are. If your goals are teaching outdoor skills, then quality is an Eagle Scout who is ready to be hired by a guide service. If your goals are to run a church ministry, then quality is kids who deepen their connection to their faith. Da old BSA Quality Unit was mostly a numbers gig. The new one is a bit better, but is mostly more of da same. I don't remember any lines on da form about whether the boys could still tie knots after a sign off, which seems to be what JimFritz finds most objectionable about his current unit. Don't remember meeting plan reviews either. So I reckon his troop has a decent shot at hitting da BSA's definition of quality unit, eh? Now is da BSA Quality Unit award really a good measure of quality? Probably we should spin that off as a new thread. I don't think so myself. When we played the "what should new parents look for as a sign of a healthy troop" game a while back, not a single scouter here mentioned Quality Unit patches or da criteria. As for da sample meeting plan stuff (troop program features, used to be Woods Wisdom), those are just resource materials, eh? I confess I've almost never seen what I'd consider a quality troop run with that meeting plan. When yeh see troops do that verbatim, it's almost always very adult run. Some of da troops I think of as strong units often just have their patrols show up at a meeting and go on a bike ride or a hike or a service project. At the end, they gather briefly for fellowship and then go home. None of this adult foorah and agendas and ceremonial. But that's me and my scouting is a kids game viewpoint. Someone like Pappy of Amusing Memory I reckon would delight in a unit with spit-and-polish ceremonial. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, TN, I hear yeh. Da thing of it is, teaching your son to shoot is a lot different than teaching a good sized group of boys who are not related to you. Teaching groups is different than teaching individuals. Harder to control and anticipate. Teaching kids not related to yeh is different than teaching your own son. Yeh don't know 'em as well, can't anticipate them as easily, they don't know, trust, and obey you as well, don't understand what you're saying as easily. Other boys will do things your son never would, and your son can surprise you when he's around other boys Seen lots of folks who did just fine teaching their kid make a complete disaster of teaching a group of kids. There's a reason why we have National Camp School. Beavah

BadenP, I think yeh must have lived such a sheltered, Western life that yeh no longer understand what da real definitions of oppression and suppression are. Da GSUSA won't let me be a unit leader, but that's not even close to oppressing, suppressing, or hating men. I had lovely young intern from a Catholic college spend an hour this afternoon doing Gern's homework for him. Shame he couldn't to it himself before maligning her faith. That whole "mentally awake" thing. Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God." ... God created man and woman together and willed each for the other... The woman God "fashions" from the man's rib and brings to him elicits on the man's part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Man discovers woman as another "I," sharing the same humanity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church 369-372. Fundamentum ergo tollitur omni theoriae vel praxi quae inter hominem et hominem, inter gentem et gentem, discrimen quoad humanam dignitatem et iura exinde dimanantia inducit. "No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between human and human or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned." - Nostra Aetate, #5. Declaration of the Second Vatican Council. Yah, "perfect equality as human persons". "Both with one and the same dignity." "No foundation for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination." That sounds like da definition of "oppression" and "suppression" to me, eh? I gotta tell yeh, as a non-Catholic and scouter, that I find da prejudice and slurs about da faith of fellow scouters quite disgusting. If that's what some of you are conveying to youth in da BSA, I wish you'd quit da program and go crawl back under whatever rock yeh came from. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Moosetracker, they are a BSA troop, eh? They do run da BSA program. What makes 'em a BSA troop is that they have a BSA charter from the BSA. So long as they have a BSA charter from the BSA, da claim that they aren't a "real" BSA troop is a lot like da claim that some kids aren't "real" Eagles or some fellows aren't "real" Woodbadgers because they did the WB21C course. It shows the kind of program you prefer, and its a bit mean/nasty to youth and adult members. Only da BSA gets to determine what a BSA troop is, not you, not me. This unit is a BSA troop, with a BSA program. Full fledged. They have no less right to use da ranks and badges as a part of their program than anybody. They are using da BSA program the way they are supposed to - to advance their own mission and goals. They are using some parts well, some parts not as fully, same as every other unit out there. If yeh really want an organization that is uniform and implements da materials the same way across the country, good luck. I wish yeh the best in finding one. That's certainly not the BSA. We provide a service to support COs. And if yeh think da diversity of unit programs is too much in Boy Scouting, just wait until yeh get involved in Venturing! I think yeh should also read da Varsity program materials; that would not be a good fit. Now, would it be nice if all troops were up front about their scouting vision? Yah, sure. I encourage it. But yeh don't often see a troop saying "Hey, we're an advancement mill" or "Hey, we're an adult-run outing club type program" or "Hey, we're an olive-and-khaki Young Marines type program." Most unit folks only have experience with one unit, so they always see their program as the BSA program. That's the reason I disagree with yeh about Jim knowing better. Jim knows different. He knows a different way to use da BSA materials. The conflict and resentment come not from Jim having more experience, but from Jim having a different vision, and different values. That sort of conflict at the adult level is intractable, eh? Yeh don't get adults to change easily, and adults are less tolerant than kids about differences in vision. Jim does have some skill and some vision, eh? And some stated desire to work as a mentor with kids. He should probably be a SM somewhere, after he builds up some more time supporting youth leadership and using advancement for a purpose rather than as a goal. I might be steering him toward a Scoutmastership in a receptive unit. But I think we all agree that havin' him start a war in this unit is goin' to be at best unproductive and at worst do a lot of harm to the program. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Is that combo sufficient to keep the BSA paper pushers happy? Yah. Now, to follow up on your paper-pusher comment, is it enough for you to consider the activity really safe? I think you'd want to look at da age and experience of the kids, the number of shooters and setup, da number of shooters per instructor. I think you'd really want to pay attention to da difference in instructing kids and instructing adults, eh? Da NRA is geared a bit toward the latter. I think yeh would also want to take a very close look at your impromptu shooting area. Kids are funny, silliness happens, yeh can't always control point of aim, so it sure helps to have a setup that places some physical barriers. Da BSA requirements are the first step of trying to advocate for safe practices, eh? A good unit goes further, beyond the paperwork, not less than da paperwork. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, NJ, I think that may apply to the slow shrinkage the last 10 years, eh? But I don't think yeh can claim that demographics or social issues resulted in the precipitous decline in da 1970s, particularly since by 1972 we had moved through most of da social upheaval of the 60s. I think boys like adventure and challenge. They're wired for it. When we dilute the challenge, or water down the adventure, we lose their interest. B

If you have another word that describes the systematic oppression of women, I'll be more than happy to substitute it. Interesting version of tolerance and scoutly reverence yeh have. Just curious, have yeh looked up what da Catholics really say themselves about da role of women? Whether oppressing women is OK? Or are yeh deliberately avoiding factual data to maintain your prejudice? B

Yah, sounds like da Utah unit submitted registration, which then overrode the lad's registration in your unit. So da Utah unit was the unit of record for the summer advancement. What that means is yeh can decide whether or not to accept da scout's application to transfer back to your unit. I agree with da others, a conversation with the summer SM is in order, and with da family. Get everybody on the same page from now on. Perhaps Bacchus can comment, or someone else from Western Region.... What is it with da seemingly large numbers of youth who troop hop for da summer out there? That does seem to be an LDS phenomenon, and it does seem to match accident reports. Seems like quite a few injuries/fatalities have been to these "guest" scouts, perhaps because da leaders don't know their skills/behavior. As a canoeing MBC, I confess I'm baffled by baccus's claim that it's a two hour badge. It may well be that da expectations where he's at are vastly different than da rest of us, which might be why da original poster is struggling. The thought that a new first year scout would finish Canoeing MB in 4 hours, let alone 2, I find laughably tragic. If the same low bar is being set for other badges and advancement, I expect many if not most units would have a problem with it. B

Yah, I agree with moose's number 3, eh? Da thing that causes real change in a unit is changes in leadership. And I agree with moose that it's best to try to see da best in people... all da people, including those being talked about negatively by the poster. It's very clear that JimFritz wants a traditional, outdoors-school scout troop, eh? One with a substantive advancement focus, real patrol competitions, flag and uniform etiquette, etc. Most of us, including myself, are sympathetic. We come from that side of scouting, eh? We run programs like that. It also seems pretty clear from what JimFritz is saying that this is not that kind of troop. It's a scout program that is run as a church youth outreach. Church youth outreach programs have a different character, eh? They tend to spend a lot more time "hanging out" and creating a comfortable but values based social environment for teens. They tend to be non-competitive, even anti-competitive. They tend to place a much higher emphasis on adult and youth relationships and not so much on advancement. They definitely do not have an outdoor-school focus. More even than a typical scout troop, a church outreach type program would be appalled at a new assistant adult bypassing both da SPL and the SM in order to lecture the group about flag ettiquette. JimFritz thinks this use of da scouting program as a church youth outreach ministry is "bad" scouting that needs to be fixed. That's in part because his adult experience in scouting is relatively limited, and tied to one troop. In reality, it's just different scouting, which can be very successful for kids but in different ways. Since it seems from what he writes that this troop is running da way the CO wants, the other leaders support, and the Unit Commissioner endorses. I don't see much change being likely. In fact, I think aggressively trying to push such change is disrespectful to da other leaders and to the CO that JimFritz is working for. Especially the go-behind-the-SM's-back stuff, eh? If instead of a church youth outreach ministry he's looking for an outdoor school, he needs to go find another troop, or start one. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, let me add that it sure seems like da lawyers and engineers have a better sense of humor, eh? Unlike da psychologists, we can laugh at and mock ourselves, and appreciate da mocking delivered by others. Packsaddle, wherever did yeh find that little bit of trivia. That was hysterical. Poorly written and I suspect only weakly researched, but really funny nonetheless. I want to be a successful rat lawyer! (come to think of it, I reckon quite a few lawyers are successful at defending rats ) I think da natural law I was referring to was a bit different, eh? But I stand before yeh appropriately mocked. Beavah

I just pointed out that rather than being an attack on a person's character, such a stereotype actually has a basis in fact Yah, do yeh really want to go there? Justifying arguments based on stereotypes because they have a correlational basis? I reckon you're only going to get me to make fun of da professional competence of psychologists again. Beavah

Or, there could be a documented correlation that people who have negative viewpoints of homosexuality are more likely NOT to have close relationships with openly homosexual people. There are people who study the demographics of prejudicial attitudes. Nah, Dan, yeh really didn't just claim that it's OK to dismiss an individual's viewpoint because the demographic group they're part of tends toward certain beliefs or practices, did you? However, some of those interpretations are still in practice and I used the Catholic church as an example. It was no smear, just observation....So for those who hold firm that biblical doctrine supports discrimination of gays should also hold to the biblical doctrine supporting discrimination of women. Et tu, Gern? So now yeh need to tell religious people what you feel they should believe, so that you can denigrate them for believing it? I think we have found da real definition of "Straw Man", eh? Gern, you've got me defending da papists, of all things. But seriously, before you go tearing them down for misogyny, don't you feel you should actually learn or read what they really believe about the role of women? Isn't that preferable to making stuff up about them? Honestly, gents, yeh usually approach things fairly rationally, albeit from your own point of view/prejudice. This has not been your best day. Beavah

It is an unfortunate burden that psychologists have to bear that people who have no training in the field whatsoever feel free to malign our work because they think they know better. Aw, poor Dan. Surely you're not going to tell me yeh never criticized a lawyer or a public policy decision. I reckon there are a lot more lawyer jokes, and even more engineer jokes, than psychologist jokes. But tell me... if someone is making a comparative conclusion like "modern superheroes are worse than former superheroes", isn't it necessary that da research methodology incorporate a comparison? Now, it could be I'm just a silly overly legalistic furry critter, eh? Perhaps as a professional psychologist yeh could explain to us how that works. B

Beavah, possibly I don't understand, but are you condoning giving rank advancements to scouts who blatantly haven't earned them? LOL. Yah, I don't think anybody would accuse me of that, eh? I reckon yeh need to read some of da archives, or even the recent thread "Scoutmaster options - Improperly accomplished merit badges". As you'll see, I lean toward your side in that argument, but I think it's really important for you to read and appreciate the views of CalicoPenn and da other side, too. Yeh need that perspective. I don't need someone telling me to give up on them, I am not going to do it. I don't need someone telling me to shut my mouth and keep quiet, this is even less likely to happen. Yeh asked for feedback as a gift, eh? So we're giving it to yeh as best we can from afar. But collectively and individually, da folks who are responding to you here have many times the scouting experience that you do. I reckon we're worth listening to rather than pulling the "I don't need someone telling me..." routine. Quite possibly your UC is also someone worth listening to, rather than dismissing him when he didn't agree with yeh. For some reason in my experience, adults who behave badly and do serious damage to troops always have this sort of self-righteous thing going on. Don't tell me what to do. I'm right and because I'm right it justifies any behavior I choose and all that. It's a kids' program, eh? Yeh need to stop treating it as a right-and-wrong issue. Some soccer teams are aggressive travel league competitors. Some soccer teams are recreational lets-kick-the-ball-around fun pasttimes. MVP in each is goin' to look different, eh? But both can serve (different) kids well. Da point of the Oath we took and the Law we agreed to live by is to challenge ourselves, our own viewpoints and behavior, eh? That's not a license to go save others from themselves because we think we're better. Yeh can't convert your son's troop into da troop you remember from your youth, and yeh shouldn't try. Again, yeh need to take a step back, give your son some room, and gain some perspective. Bulls in china shops only break lots of china before someone shoots 'em. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

LOL! Yah, forgot about muzzle loaders. Just goes to show yeh that BSA program materials including G2SS don't have any continuity editing, and yeh can't treat 'em like they're holy writ. Of course Boy Scouts may fire muzzle loaders in higher caliber than .22s. Da Rifle Shooting MB specifically states: Using a muzzleloading rifle of .45 or .50 caliber and shooting from a benchrest or supported prone position, fire three groups (three shots per group) at 50 feet that can be covered by the base of a standard-size soft drink can. Yet G2SS says "Boy Scouts may shoot single shot 22 caliber rifles only." There's a separate section for "muzzle loaders" which G2SS for some reason doesn't think of as rifles. Though I can't see any lad making da Rifle Shooting MB requirements with a blunderbuss. And I'd also forgotten about da range at Philmont using .30-06's. Just goes to show how hard it is to write "policy" when discretion is da better course. Beavah

Yah, Gern, quoting random bits of da Bible out of context is like climate change denier quoting random bits of da IPCC report out of context and without understanding of the underlying issues. All it does is mark you as being either prejudicial or ignorant. Yeh made a specific smear about Catholics, eh? I'm not a Catholic, mind. I think they're a bit odd. But I don't much care for smears. For your penance, yeh have to look up what da actual position of da Catholic church is on da role of women. They seem to do nothing but write stuff, I'm sure they've got whole treatises on it. Packsaddle, aren't you on an island somewhere? I think "natural" is one of those vague terms, here, and yeh aren't using it in da same context as it was written. I think those making a "not natural" argument are arguing from a position of natural law, which is a long, deep, rich philosphical and ethical tradition that underpins much of western thought and jurisprudence, both religious and secular. It's definitely not the "natural" in da context of "non-manufactured" or "untrammeled by man" which you imply. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, the fact that I was not only talking about JimFritz current troop, but also about yours & Scoutnuts attitude, I had to add the comment that this attitude comes from both bad and good troops, because I know that is where you & SN attitudes are coming from, is the pride you have in the excellence of your units, so you do not like those who come in new & full of sweeping ideas. Yah, hmmm... Huh? It's been quite a few years now since I was a unit scouter, eh? Though I do get out in da field with different units a lot more than most council volunteers I know. Not just at Camporees and such, but at unit outings. So my "attitude" is coming from my experience with a lot of different units that are not "mine" in da sense of being a unit scouter, eh? Comes from servin' scouting a lot of years in a lot of places and a lot of levels. And in those roles, spendin' a lot of my time helping when adults start trying to tear a unit apart through their own bad behavior. I've no doubt that there are things that need improvement in JimFritzMI's troop, eh? Heck, there are in every troop. My point is that there are good and bad ways to approach that, and right and wrong people to take da lead. A new parent with a different vision than da CO and current leadership who feels he is called to "save" them is IMHO da wrong person and the wrong approach. It's the sort of thing that ends up hurting or even destroying a unit, not helpin' it. Even if the "intention" is good. Can yeh imagine what da response of a parent or scouter like CalicoPenn would be to JimFritzMI's new emphasis on being strict about testing and ranks? How would that kind of adult shootin' match help kids? Readin' between the lines of his most recent message, the unit seems to have a lot of active, athletic boys who are enjoying their scouting experience. His son has a lot of friends. Da SM is properly directing issues to the PLC that JimFritzMI wants to take on as an adult. Could it be perhaps that JimFritz's emphasis on rank, advancement, and winning camporee events doesn't jibe with da troop's emphasis on fun and youth leadership? Point is, even if he's 100% right about da troop, that's not enough, eh? Yeh also have to be "right" about how yeh approach problems and differences in vision with fellow adults. That's what I'm calling attention to. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)