Beavah

Bah, you're folks are bein' overly paranoid. Unless yeh have a really tight connection or get to the airport late, odds are yeh won't have any problem with lost luggage. Arrive as a group. Arrive early. Remove all old airline stickers from luggage (if yeh leave old ones on they might get scanned instead of the new destination stickers). Put on good nametags. You'll be fine. And if somethin' odd happens, it's just part of the adventure. Kids don't mind bein' in dirty clothes for a day. Let 'em deal with it. Seems less than Thrifty to spend all that extra money guardin' against something that's unlikely to be an issue, and not that big a problem if it is. Shipping companies lose stuff too, eh? Beavah

Yah, what decisions is da committee votin' on exactly? Generally speakin', if da committee is votin' something contrary to the recommendation/desire of the Scoutmaster, that's a recipe for conflict or at least a recipe for needing to look for a new Scoutmaster. The actual practice in different troops varies quite a bit. If the committee is a parent committee and the SM is a parent, then odds are the SM should vote like the rest of the parents, eh? He/she doesn't get disenfranchised as a parent just because of doin' the most work (as a SM). If the committee is a true CO committee of individuals selected/recruited for their outside expertise, then the SM might function as indicated and report to the committee but not vote. Just depends, eh? Beavah

Yah, fullquiver, can I ask why folks are afraid of checkin' stuff on the plane? Scouts check backpacks and duffles on planes by the droves every summer. If you're worried about the baggage busters, throw your backpacks in a cheap outer duffle to keep the straps and things from catching in the equipment. Yeh can transport stoves and empty fuel bottles that have no residual gas in checked luggage just fine. See http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1187.shtm. Problem is just that you don't want to set off the vapor detectors, so the stuff should be well cleaned and aired out. If it smells like gas, it won't go. Yeh can also use new fuel bottles, pick 'em up at the destination, or ship yours in advance. Pretty cheap via UPS. Fuel you'll have to get at the destination, of course. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

While the new MBC may review the work, making the Scout do the work over is not in keeping with the way the Merit Badge program works, and the MBC should be taken aside for a friendly (or not so friendly) cup of coffee to discuss. An interestin' opinion, but lacking in a citation . There's no such thing in da BSA literature or program as a "partial" merit badge, and while blue cards are offered as a record-keeping option for units they are not required, nor is a counselor obligated to sign off requirement by requirement on a blue, green, or purple card or computer program. Record-keeping aids should not drive the program, and they certainly don't define how the Merit Badge program "works." The MBC alone decides when a boy has met all the requirements and completed a merit badge. He or she is free to accept prior work, or not. He or she is free to accept da word of the SM, or the boy, or another MBC with respect to an individual requirement, or not. But as KC suggests, a MBC's approval of a badge is a personal statement that the boy has fulfilled all the requirements for the badge, so da matter is one of his personal honor. And personal common sense. Sometimes yeh accept prior work, and sometimes yeh don't. Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't. Yeh can have as many cups of coffee and conversations with chairs (or sofas!) as yeh like, and the answer should still be the same. The Merit Badge Counselor decides. For the original poster, one reference document is Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures (page # depends on the printing), but it's the same in all the literature. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I tell each boy what requirements he may sign, based on his demonstrated expertise in those requirements. Dat's a nice way to go, eh! Yeh don't see it much because a lot of troops (adults?) want a more formal system, but the lads often recognize when one boy has particular skill cooking or knot-tying or whatnot, and recognizin' it in this way does everyone good. B

Yeah, merit badges become the program when we insist that the boy fully and completely master the material and retain it. Yah, but that's da Boy Scouting program, eh? Badges in Boy Scouting aren't supposed to be awarded for "exposure" to material or what a boy has done. Badges are only supposed to be awarded for what a boy is able to do (ACP&P) or in other words for proficiency (Rules & Regulations). That means some retention and mastery, eh? At least of the requirements for the badge. Da requirements are of course only a small part of the discipline the badge represents. That's where "exposure" comes in. We expose lads to the bigger issues of emergency response and first aid while helping them become proficient in aspects of it laid out by the First Aid MB requirements. We expose lads to the issues of World Citizenship and international relations while helping 'em become well versed in da basics set out by the Citizenship in the World MB requirements. A badge every three weeks doesn't get a boy the full benefit of the mentoring and skill of each counselor, nor is it enough to help a boy develop da real skills and understandin' set out by the badge requirements, nor is it enough to really expose him to the fun and complexity of the topic beyond the requirements. I'd never judge a lad based on having a huge number of badges on his sash, of course. But I confess I would make some negative judgments about the program the lad was part of, and would want to think about how to get the adults in it some more trainin' and support. Advancement is just a method, but we should try to use it in da best way possible, eh? Beavah

Yah, troops in our area are all over da board on this. I think for T-2-1 requirements (other than scout spirit and SM conference), it's most common to have at least some older boys allowed to sign things off. For S-L-E requirements, it's usually reserved to adults. Some units keep everything to the adults. Some delegate more to the lads. One unit I know does somethin' like only Mr. Jones the EMT signs off first aid, only da youth and adult BSA Lifeguards can sign off water safety requirements, only your patrol leader can sign off camping requirements, etc. - kinda skill expertise-based. B

Yeh can let a boy fail, but yeh should never let a boy flounder. Answer to your question just depends on where your troop is at, eh? Scouting is always a process of tryin' to get to full youth leadership. We never quite get all the way there. When we get close, they up and graduate and we get a new bunch of rascals. Yeh can let a boy fail, but yeh should never let a boy flounder. Failing is what happens when a boy has the tools and ability, but hasn't put it all together yet. Maybe he's stubborn and just has to try it differently, maybe he's just tryin' to figure out how it fits together. Failin' is like getting blown up at level six in a video game... it's a bummer, but a lad knows how to start over, and knows if he keeps tryin' or gets a hint fro a friend he'll figure out how to make level seven. Floundering is what happens when a lad hasn't been given da tools, or is put in a situation well beyond his current ability. It's like not knowin' how to turn the video game on or hook up the joystick. Just leads to frustration on everybody's part. Yeh give instruction, guidance or support to a lad who is floundering... preferably in advance, before they flounder! Yeh show him how to hook up the joystick or guide him through the basics on level 1.... that is to say, yeh do youth leader training and show 'em how to get going. Doesn't take much, though. Boys learn fast. Key is to know when to back away after yeh give enough to get 'em going. Yeh can let a boy fail, but yeh should never let a boy flounder. Beavah

Yah, hmmm. I'll be honest, I've never been too impressed by da notion of earnin' all the merit badges. Always struck me as a sign of Advancement Method run amok in a program. Very wide but shallow as a puddle. I'm much more impressed by the lads that do a smaller number of badges really well, and dig into 'em deeply. Especially when they hit a subject that really tickles their fancy and they take it well beyond the requirements into the beginnings of a career or lifelong hobby. That's more what the program is for to my mind. Less broad, but more rich and deep. Beavah

Yah, funny thing to come back from some weeks of vacation and visitin' camps and such to another knot thread . I reckon it's worth rememberin' that we're a civilian service organization, eh? I respect and admire our men and women in military service, but that's not Scoutin', and da comparisons to military uniforms just don't fit. So I expect it's best if we think about what's common in da civilian world, and how civilians look at us, leastways if we're not doin' our scouting on a military base. Generally speakin', most civilian folks don't wear their awards or recognitions on their sleeves. In that context, it's certainly possible for others to perceive us poorly as adults for wearin' lots of bling as adults in a kids' program. One need only look at da occasional TV satire to see the joke made out of fat adults with an over-blinged scout shirt. Thinkin' about it some more, in many uniformed services (includin' the military), yeh don't wear ribbons on a daily basis. Your daily-wear BDU or police, fire, EMS uniform is practical and simple. Only rarely do yeh pull out the dress blues, for award ceremonies and funerals and such. Someone who wore their bling on their duty uniform would be out of place and very much an egoist. That may be a good example for us, eh? In our daily Scouting, at meetings and outings, our uniforms should be practical, simple, and un-blinged. Some CO's and religious traditions might factor in, eh? One Catholic IH who is a religious sister told me once that she wore the simple uniform of her order because it is a sign of humility. No awards, no adornments, no jewels, like a priest's plain black working uniform. If a scouter, scout, or troop is part of a tradition that places value on humility in its leadership in that way, I would expect they would follow suit. Other traditions don't place as much emphasis on humility, and might do differently. No one right answer. Personally, in my experience over many years with adult scouters, I think on average the knot thing is mostly about adult ego and doesn't add much to the program. Yah, sure, it gives a few adults who are motivated by such things a reason to pursue training, but I'm never really sure that they get what they should out of training because they're not completely focused on how to improve their program, just on gettin' da doodad. Yah, sure, there's some level of settin' an example for the lads, but that's easily done by wearin' a simple, clean uniform, which has the added bonus of not distracting the attention away from the boy leaders. Yah, sure, there's some measure of helpin' new folks recognize those with experience, but in my experience it's offset by the tendency to be off-putting and silly lookin' to other new folks, especially those who don't have a scouting background. And yah, sure, there's an element of thankin' those who nominated us for da few knots that require nomination, but I've always found myself that I'm amply thanked by the smiles and handshakes and looks on surprised faces of those whom I've nominated, and don't really give a whit whether they wear their knot at the next committee meeting. So each person has to decide, eh? It's worth bein' aware that some folks think less highly of those with less bling. And it's worth bein' aware that some folks think less highly of those who wear a lot of bling. If you're a practical sort, yeh might adjust to da circumstances. I like velcro . I personally only put on da full range of knots and whatnot when I think I'm dealin' with a twit who gets impressed by that sorta thing. Mostly I keep it simple and limited to da program/position in which I'm servin'. No cub knots if I'm in a Boy Scouting position; no unit knots if I'm in a district position, that sort of thing. Those are just excess insignia. Beavah

Yah, again we're off assumin' the troop leaders are a bunch of louts trying to be mean to kids. Shame on us. A Scout is Loyal. Krb09, in answer to your question, like any voluntary youth program, a Boy Scout troop can remove a boy from their program at any time for any reason. It's their program, eh? In any cases where it's a disciplinary/behavior matter that might affect another troop's program, I think we all would expect them to inform other troops in the area of the issue. That's just common courtesy and good youth protection. And, yep, as a voluntary program, no troop is obligated to take a new member as a transfer or any other way. That's why it's a membership application. Remember, none of us are entitled to have other adults offer opportunities to our sons for free. When adult leaders in a troop aren't comfortable being responsible for a boy, it's both their right and their obligation to ask him to look for another youth program. Yah, so that answers krb09's questions, eh? Without any further information, it's hard to offer any advice. It may be that the troop leaders are uncomfortable with being responsible for the lad following the incident the previous month. That's their call and their right, but it usually comes into play only if there was some odd behavior on the part of the boy or the family (perhaps like throwin' around the term "negligent" in a legalistic way?). It may be that there's some behavior by your son that truly warrants dismissal straight-up. There are lots of things that fall in that category for troops. I would call the Scoutmaster and politely ask for a briefing on what the behavioral issue was so that you can address it with your son. Regardless of the reasons or that conversation, I reckon both of your sons need to look for a new troop. Most troops will consider what a prior troop says, but that won't be a determining factor in their welcoming a new boy if there's acknowledgment of the issue on the part of the boy/parents. And it sounds like at this point a new troop will be a better fit for both you and your sons. Beavah

Yah, Cali, welcome to the forums! To answer your question, if your old troop has been good about filing their advancement reports with your council, when you submit a transfer application to your new troop, your new council should be able to call up your records on the ScoutNet computer system and transfer everything automatically. It helps if you know your current council #, but it's not a big deal for them to look it up. As a backup, it's good to have a copy of your troop's records (the advancement reports they've submitted), or your rank/MB award cards or blue cards. Now, I doubt that your SM really hates you. Most adults really don't have much time or energy for hatin' kids, eh? Just that some adults and kids "click" better than others as partners or friends. Even if yeh didn't get along, I think it's pretty unlikely he'd try to torpedo your records, and there's no way for him to do it even if he could, eh? What I'd suggest is meet with him and your troop's advancement chair before you leave. It shows good character to try to leave on a positive note, even with people yeh don't get along with. I bet if yeh do that, you'll be surprised at how much they'll help you out. Stay in Scoutin' and find a good new troop to join. Look for good people you want to be with and help lead. Good luck! Beavah

Yah, NickP412, there are lots of ways of runnin' a troop, eh? The BSA in some literature recommends a New Scout Patrol for a time, perhaps up to a year. Before that, the BSA's program literature recommended what you're used to, where young boys joined real patrols when they crossed over. Yeh can find a bunch of long threads in these forums about the plusses and minuses of both systems (and a whole bunch of other permutations). They're a good read, and you can print 'em out and give 'em to your Scoutmaster and fellow PLC members to consider. I've seen troops run just fine either way. In the end, the success of a troop depends on the quality of people in it. Good people adapt to most systems. Now if you were to ask me which system I prefer myself, I think it's da one you grew up in, where patrols are permanent rather than age-based, and when you join a troop you join a patrol (like joinin' Gryffindor House when yeh join Hogwarts). I think that in many cases works best for kids learnin' and growin', and better for safety and patrol method/youth leadership. It's certainly the classic method that Scoutin' used for many, many decades. It really doesn't work well is when adults are weak/clueless and there's a lot of bullying type stuff happening, and it takes a lot of effort to break in new scout parents who are used to da age-based older-person-run dens/patrols in cub scouts. Beavah

Yah, what a tom-fool thing for the state to do, eh? I hope the lad finds some good representation and PR folks and fights the thing. The boy walked out on his own. Turns out he didn't need all those resources anyway. Most of da folks lookin' for him were volunteers, and whether volunteer or professional you don't get to whine about conditions or injuries you cause yourself when undertakin' a rescue. That's why you get paid or why you volunteer. If yeh aren't capable of managing the conditions safely, yeh shouldn't be out. Rescue services are part of the sharing of risk we agree to with our tax dollars. We pay taxes for police protection for the insurance - we want the police around when we need them, even though we recognize that our dollars are like as not goin' to help our neighbor or the tourist to our state or the drunk bum who gets picked up and taken to the shelter. At the point our taxes aren't providing those services, we should demand 'em back. It's nothing but theft to reduce services and force taxpayers to keep paying AND then pay for private insurance in addition. New Hampshire's land managers have long had a reputation for bein' visitor-unfriendly. I'll happily join the boycott. Beavah

if the situation is egregious enough (and what the SM did at "Thorns and Roses") comes awfully close, the IH and COR can act in the best interests of their Chartered relationship, thank the person for his service, and inform him (not the general public) that he's done. Situation doesn't have to be "egregious" at all, eh? The IH/COR can act however and whenever they like in the interest of their program. So can the Troop Committee, eh? Units don't have to wait for things to get awful to make a change, nor should they. How they go about things is up to them. But I know very few CORs and fewer IHs who act unilaterally. Unless dat's really the style of their CO that everyone buys into, those that do act unilaterally tend not to have a troop for too long. And we've got to remember there are a lot of CORs-in-name-only out there. Tellin' them to act unilaterally is a disaster. Bit like da CCs who start thinkin' they're King. Yah, I know a lot of folks 'round here are down on WB, eh? I still think we do a better job than what you're claimin' at WB21C and NYLT than what you're claimin'. We do teach when directive leadership is appropriate. Even spell it out a bit in our youth handbooks, and practice it in some first aid and emergency response drills. In this particular case, da COR wants to work through the committee, eh? So that's where it should go. We might wish da COR was more a take-charge fellow, but then we also don't know if herbie represents a small group of loud disgruntled people either, eh? Is there another side? Is da COR tryin' to get the adults to act like adults and work it out themselves? Too hard to tell from afar. I'm still with herbie and desertrat that a negotiated resignation is most desirable. Contentious committee meetings among parents on two sides of a SM-removal issue can really damage a program if people aren't acting like adults and the meeting isn't tightly run. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, in the parent thread we got a bit off on a topic which wasn't related to what da poster was askin'. Seemed like an interestin' topic to spin off, though. belayerStLouis opined: 4 to 6 scouts is the answer to your question - it doesn't work. Be ready to receive tons of advice but your question has been answered and you really are an adult patrol leader, 6 kids isn't a troop. What's everybody think? Is a troop with only 4-6 active lads really too small? Guaranteed to fail/not a real troop? Are there things such a unit should be thinking about or that would help a small unit with program? Beavah

Yah, I'm goin' back to da original question about meetings per month (rather than troop size). Just depends, eh? Do yeh have stuff that isn't getting done? Are there meeting room or family conflicts on the other weekends? Would your youth/parents buy into more meetings? Yeh talk about a "successful program" having more meetings, but I think what you need to start with is what do you see as being "successful?" You're gettin' out on a lot of campouts. Are the boys learning and growing? Don't use advancement as a measure of success either, eh? It's just a tool that we use to help boys learn other things. Somethin' yeh might consider is to keep your current meeting schedule, but meet for longer. Instead of an hour, meet for two or three, but run your meetin' outdoors or with a lot of youth-directed activity. Think of it more like a sports practice than a parlor gathering. Closer to da spirit of scoutin' anyways! Yah, sometimes da trend with weekly meetings is to make 'em into indoor, fill-the-time sorts of things. All that having been said, there are reasons why most troops do weekly meetings and why they're generally recommended. Yeh have to find what works for you and your kids and families. Have yeh asked the boys what they think? Beavah

The COR has firing authority over every adult in the troop. There is nothing the committee gets to vote on. Yah, I wonder what our Woodbadge and NYLT courses would tell us about da proper leadership style for cases where you have a highly skilled group (who knows more about Scouting than you do) and an important decision? Da COR and IH have final authority on adult leadership decisions, eh? But they absolutely can choose to exercise that authority through the troop committee, and in most cases they should. There aren't many CO's that believe in the dictator model of governance, or in unilateral action more generally. In most COs da IH him/herself is elected in some way. A COR expecting a voted decision from the committee before confirming action is entirely proper. For selectin' a new SM, I believe there should be good committee buy-in in the form of a consensus decision or vote on the recommended candidate. For a removal, how to go about things depends a bit on da circumstances, eh? An all-parent committee where da SM has both friends and detractors can easily get out of hand. A unilateral action by the COR/IH can alienate troop families. Sometimes even if they support the action they can be put off by the way it was done. Hard situation all around, but I reckon you go with the decision of the folks who are closest to it and have da authority to decide, eh? If yeh can get the SM to step down voluntarily "to pursue other interests," that's often best. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

What's the event, GreatScott? If it's just a pack meetin', I wouldn't wear the uniform. I think it creates confusion for boys and parents, since you aren't servin' the pack in any way as a registered leader. They're apt to turn to you for things (and you might be apt to answer 'em) when they should be properly turning to the Cubmaster, den leader, or CC. If it's a more formal scoutin' event - a Scout Sunday, a parade, that sort of thing, where you're really representing Scouting more than actin' as a parent, then I'd wear the uniform. That's what the uniform is for, eh? To show that you're functioning in a way that represents Scouting and Scouting service. Blue and Gold is perhaps on da edge. I personally think yeh should go in the uniform of the office you are serving in. If you're going as a parent, I'd wear the uniform of that office, rather than the lesser office of Unit Commissioner. Da highest offices in the land wear the uniforms of civilian citizens, eh? But if you're bein' asked to represent Scouting in some way during the ceremony, then by all means go in your green and tan. Beavah

Yah, sorry Calico, that's just not da way it works, eh? The most expensive classes and hardest to schedule or handle economically are singleton courses. When yeh have multiple sections and instructors, your overhead and costs go down, not up. Universities love big intro courses with lots of sections and students. They're cash cows. It's da small graduate seminars that are expensive. To reframe your example, if you have one section of a course with a capacity of 100, you might have a regular professor teach it, and you might not be able to fill it because you can only offer it at one time which may conflict with other courses. If you increase to five courses each with a capacity of 100, students will have lots of choices when to take the course so you get maximum usage, you can pay a regular professor to lead the course and use graduate students or adjunct faculty for less cost to teach additional sections. When yeh only have two courses, a 50-student missed projection of enrollment means you're 25% under capacity. When yeh have five, it's only a 10% under-capacity situation. More efficient, eh? On the utilities side, electricity costs from turning the lights on for more classes is a variable cost, eh? Of course if yeh add students your variable costs go up, but those are paid for by the extra students' tuition. Heating the building, depreciation on the building, general maintenance, central administration and such are fixed costs. The more students you have to distribute the fixed costs, the cheaper it is. So if you pay the university president $200K and have 100 students, that's 2K per student. If you have 200 students, that's 1K per student. Combine distributing the fixed costs wider with having a higher % capacity usage (and the possibility of usin' less expensive staffing) and yeh find it's significantly cheaper per student when yeh have bigger programs. Now at some point if you're addin' capacity you have to add a new building. What yeh need to understand is that generally speakin', capital funds like adding a new building come from different sources of revenue than operating funds. In a lot of ways, capital funding is easier to obtain. So that doesn't really "count" when you're lookin' at operating costs. This is the same in any business. I reckon in education yeh get fewer economies of scale, but it still applies. Of course, all this is a bit theoretical, eh? We really haven't had a big increase in higher ed capacity nationwide like you're talkin' about. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Let's also not forget that 20 years ago, the precentage of high school graduates planning on going to college was much, much smaller than it is today. Taking into account the much larger number of students today, the tuition rate may not seem as bad - sure, it may have outpaced the rate of inflation, but likely has barely kept up with the number of students. Yah, hmmmm.... I reckon there's a law of economics missing in that somewhere. Usually having more customers allows you better economies of scale by filling up your classes and distributing fixed costs among a larger pool of people. It would be really odd if havin' more students increased da per-student costs. But I suppose that's higher education for yeh! I'm with Lisabob, eh? I reckon California's plight is just a small version of da nation's. Vote yourself benefits, and vote yourself low taxes. The borrow-and-spend routine that's ramped up over the past 8 years to hit a maximum this year as we bail out all of those wonderful private-enterprise risk takers. Problem is, that urge to borrow and spend can be exploited by the dishonorable as a darn effective wealth redistribution scheme. Rob from the average middle-class taxpayer and give to the wealthy. Multiple times! Crash his investments, crash his home value, reduce his job prospects, devalue his currency, sell him worthless companies, saddle him with a share of the national debt, and send his sons into harm's way without adequate support. I reckon dat's the only "wealth redistribution" that's been goin' on and that's worth worryin' about. Beavah

Yah, I'm not fond of formal letters except when there's poor parenting involved. Just call the lad up and schedule an informal SM conference. Listen to him, and figure a plan. Expect that at least half the time yeh do this, the boy will promise you the world, agree to all expectations, and not follow through. In which case, you drop him from the roster. For the other half sometimes you'll learn he really wants out but his parents etc. want to earn Eagle. You can be his friend by helping him leave with good feelings and your support. And sometimes you'll win the lad back, and he'll perk up and find a way to contribute. Whichever one it is, you'll be doin' your job as SM by helpin' the boy learn responsibility, or helpin' the boy make his own choices, or helpin' the boy reconnect with the program. All of 'em are good outcomes. Beavah

What is news to a lot of angry taxpayers and a lot more angry parents of college kids, is that the state has either cut or failed to increase funding for its 15 state universities for practically all of the last 10 years. Yah, no question your state is gettin' hammered, Lisabob. A state that's having its tax base evaporate is inevitably goin' to be taking big cuts. Here's da thing for the rest of the nation, though. Tuition and funding for higher education overall have been outpacing inflation for decades now on the national scene. I can understand that zero increase or decrease is bad, but a lot of what's happenin' that way right now is the result of increases that were way too high for many years. Yeh can't expect people to forever devote a larger portion of their income to higher ed. Eventually they run out of money. And yeh can't expect all the rest of the citizenry to keep ponying up greater-than-inflation increases either, eh? Eventually they run out of money, too. The attitude durin' up cycles always seems to be "get everything you can" rather than "plan for sustainable operations." Now maybe direct democracy governance can be blamed for that in CA. But what's the excuse of professionals in higher ed administration? Beavah

I guess what I see are that these scouts are just lazy about planning. Nah, not lazy. Just don't know how, eh? Given modern parenting's version of adult-run schedules and play dates, I bet a lot of young scouts have never even planned to meet their friends down the street for a game of catch. I know a lot of adult scouters who have a hard time envisioning and planning a high adventure trip for kids. Best not to set the bar too high for your young fellas. I think yeh need to think of your first one or three HA trips as "jointly planned" by adults and boys. As in the adults set up da structure and the kids follow along and participate in some of the details and decisions. Get a few successes like that under your belt and the boys' knowledge and confidence will improve to the point they're ready to take the reins. Beavah

Yah, signal jammers would be a great thing... Except they're illegal. Not kosher to interfere with someone else's radio signal, eh? Otherwise I reckon we'd all be settin' up jammers on FM stations that broadcast rap music. Beavah