Beavah

Yah, hmm... Hard cases make for bad law, eh? I consider abortion to be an abomination and murder, eh? But I really dislike dogmatic stupidity when the Christ would instead exercise compassion. Faced with a choice between the right to life of the young abused girl and the right to life of her children, who would dare to condemn a person for whichever choice they made? Certainly not the God that I know and serve. Even the civil law recognizes as justifiable a homicide which is reasonably believed to be absolutely necessary in the defense of the life of another. Beavah

Yah, I reckon if yeh read a little further you'll discover that John Paul II, while a critic of da Marxist communism he grew up in was an equally vociferous critic of laissez-faire capitalism. The Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. - Sollicitudo Rei Socialis Yeh left that part out, eh? In fact, yeh mis-translated as "socialism" when the original documents were referrin' more to the state-run communists of Stalin and such, eh? Yeh also left out da rest of Leo XIII's words: The dignity of workers also requires adequate health care, security for old age or disability, unemployment compensation, healthful working conditions, weekly rest, periodic holidays for recreation and leisure, and reasonable security against arbitrary dismissal. Now go back and read those same documents yeh mention and look for what John Paul II calls a "preferential love and option for the poor" a phrase coined by Latin American liberation theologians, eh? And of course later refined and adopted by Vatican II. My once-a-month Jesuit attorney lunch colleague says it appears in almost every one of his encyclicals. The preferential option for the poor is, the Pope said in Sollicitudo , a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods . Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage," which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods . Yah, and then we have your American bishops, who I think wrote one of da most interestin' pastoral letters on da role of Christians in economic life I've ever read: These duties call not only for individual charitable giving but also for a more systematic approach by businesses, labor unions and the many other groups that shape economic life - as well as government... Government should assume a positive role in generating employment and establishing fair labor practices, in guaranteeing the provision and maintenance of the economy's infrastructure. It should regulate trade and commerce in the interest of fairness. Government may levy the taxes necessary to meet these responsibilities, and citizens have a moral obligation to pay those taxes. A system of taxation based on assessment according to ability to pay is a prime necessity for the fulfillment of these social obligations. You're part of a very rich, very thoughtful Christian tradition on economic equality and social justice, eh? While I don't share your beliefs and disagree with their perspective in a number of ways (I'm more fond of BrentAllen's notion myself), I think yeh should honor your own tradition enough to understand it more deeply and prayerfully. In many ways I think that's our role in Scouting, eh? Not to tell the lads what they should believe, but to push 'em to explore and test and learn more deeply about their own belief and understanding of God. I do however withdraw my jibe about bein' a cafeteria Catholic, with my apologies. It was meant in cajoling humor. Never explain as willfulness that which can be explained by lack of understandin'. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, or another option if you've got a good venture patrol ASM is to have him/her green light the lads to hike at their own pace and set their own distance, eh? Essentially, give 'em approval to leave the adults in the dust. Then the ASM-VP can have the conversation either about how much fun it is to do a shorter hike without those pesky kids around, or about how we adult volunteers should never be the ones holdin' the kids back. Or both. Alternately, if nobody in your unit has the gumption to stand up to these folks, find another troop/venture patrol/crew nearby that does have some savvy, and have them invite your boys along on a few joint treks under their rules. Occasionally I've had a senior scouter type start to criticize the hikin' skills / cookin' skills / LNT practice of the adults the same way they're doin' to the kids. Demand guide-level performance from the adults since that's what they're tryin' to be: guides rather than mentors. Work their tails off so they're too busy tryin' to meet the standard to be able to bother the boys. Navigation challenges, bushwhack segments that they have to make in the designated time, all the T-2-1 review, etc. If yeh really want to drive the point home, have the boys test 'em and critique them. Yeh might even get away with the boys telling them the truth at a Roses & Thorns, but it'll work only after you've run the adults a bit ragged and they've seen the boys outdo 'em skills-wise. Last option is to use the BSA Philmont rules and institute a requirement for all adult participants to meet the optimum weight and Wilderness First Aid training for Venture participation. That should act as a reasonably strong "interest filter." Beavah

Yah, Lisabob and KC have given yeh the scoop, eh? In reality, your troop is "owned" by the church, and they can replace leaders as they see fit. As yeh might expect, about half the time in these cases it's that the CC is actually in the right, and the other folks just aren't quite understandin' the program or the desires of the sponsor. A bunch of other times it's adults behavin' like children when they should be just learnin' how to work with and be courteous toward others with differin' personalities and ideas. Can yeh give us some other information on what the issues actually are? Practically speakin', if a CC and a few committee members and the SM and his/her ASMs are together on an issue, I don't think you're goin' to make a change. The assumption is always that those doin' the hard work of running the program are the ones who get the benefit of the doubt. On a practical level, when the sponsor isn't directly involved, there are other options that might be able to help address issues. One in your case might be to have the other members of the committee talk things out respectfully and ask for a change, or vote a change and present it to the church for approval. Problem is misbehavin' adults tend to not be able to have those respectful conversations. A fair number of committees have terms for their officers (typically one year, coinciding with when the unit "recharters" with the BSA), and the natural thing is to select or affirm those folks at the time. Gives yeh an opportunity to make changes in a natural way without gettin' people's hackles up too much. So at that time yeh can have someone else step forward, and the SM and a couple o' friends of the CC can suggest she step into some other role and let the other person have a shot for a bit. Sometimes the Scouters (Scoutmaster, Assistant Scoutmasters) in your troop can help make a change by talkin' to folks. How yeh proceed depends a bit more on the circumstances, personalities, and what the issues are. There might be folks in your area called "unit commissioner" who can help navigate those waters. Yeh get a hold of 'em by callin' your council office and ask for the number for the "district commissioner" for your area. Mind, now, the commissioners are just friends and advisors, but they can often help with talkin' to folks and with the procedures and whatnot. But when it comes down to it, if the scouters and CC are content with the current state of affairs, yeh can't make a change without tearin' the troop apart. Your real choice is to go elsewhere. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Stick to the Church. It makes hard moral decisions a lot easier...Though perhaps you could say socialism was immoral. Income redistribution does not necesarily strike me as moral. Yah, it's fun havin' just a surface knowledge and bein' judgmental. TheScout, the ethics of your church embrace the value of personal poverty more than almost any other in the world. "Go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor, then come follow me." That was Christ's admonition to the rich man. Income redistribution as a requirement for being his follower. It is at least taken seriously by many of your Catholic clergy, eh? Catholic religious orders take vows of poverty - holdin' no personal propery whatsoever, eh? Evangelical vows, you call them. Celebrated moral values. Pure, unadulterated COMMUNISM, let alone socialism. If anything, as close as I can tell as an observer, with da exception of a small cadre of corrupt bankin' officials and bishops which is typical of any organization that size, your church is one of da strongest worldwide advocates of socialism on the planet, from a moral perspective. Yah, and one of da strongest critics of the immorality of unregulated capitalism. You one of those "cafeteria Catholics" who just picks and chooses what agrees with you when you want to feel self-righteous? Beavah

What does state's rights have to do with racial ugliness? You're jokin', right? As for da rest, do you have any notion of how hard it is to conduct military operations on a long supply line in a remote area? Any notion of the diplomacy required to secure staging areas and overfly neighboring countries? B

Yah yah yah. We get your position, Kudu. That havin' been said, I've been on many an Eagle board of review where boys admitted that the badge they got the most out of was one of those required badges you despise so much. Personal Management is common. Citizenship is common. And I know more than a few men who found their career because of one of those frickin' (cotton pickin'? dastardly?) career-style merit badges and the relation they built with their counselor. I think there's merit () in gettin' away from MB classes and universities all that drivel. Scouts should not be school. But that's not the same thing as sayin' we should get rid of all non-outdoors-focused merit badges. Done well, such merit badges can bring boys together with great ideas and great mentors, and help 'em learn a lot of practical skills. After all, self-reliance these days means managin' personal finances and bein' able to repair your car and havin' a career you love and are good at, eh? A lot more than it means bein' able to track a gopher. Beavah

Yeh mean "Busy Body" isn't a role? Tarnation! How come almost every scout unit seems to have one assigned then? B

Yah, Merlyn, sad to say yeh might have the right conclusion there. The tragic underbelly of some of the Ron Paul states-rights crowd is its nearly overt racial ugliness. Problem with both Rwanda and Sudan is logistics, eh? Devilishly hard to get to landlocked entities. B

Yah, GreyEagle's Law. Once again we're off into the land of shoutin'. why can the BSA make some people pariahs by excluding them Yah, clearly we're either bein' hyperbolic or we don't know the definition or history of the word pariah. Simply excludin' someone is nowhere near treating them as pariahs. I expect that you'd call the cops if the local homeless fellow came in and set up on your couch, eh? But excludin' him from your couch isn't the same thing as treatin' the homeless as pariahs. It might mean you're treatin' the homeless like your mother-in-law . But I'm sorry that you think it's "nonsense" to have to tell a group of 15 year old Scouts that BSA thinks that homosexuals can not be the "best type of citizen" Yah, you're getting things all mixed up. Been around Merlyn too long. "Best kind of citizen" is from the DRP, and refers to belief in a higher power. Has nuthin' at all to do with sexuality. Beavah

Yah, Kudu's delivery is always a bit off, but there's some wisdom there, eh? Get the boy doin' what he does best in the troop. That's where self-worth and efficacy and a sense of personal control come from, eh? What we do best. 1) While the scout said it would be OK to tell everyone, the leaders thought it best that if he wants people to know, then he tell them. It's a privacy issue with the leaders. Bad call, IMO. The lad said "tell", so tell. Don't pussy-foot around. Far better that the rest of the gang learns from the adults under controlled circumstances with support available than if they hear on their own, and far better for the boy if yeh quash all the rumors at once rather than havin' him confronted with this piecemeal for the next two years. 2) The scout was a patrol leader in the troop. Since he was inactive the APL took over and I believe new elections occurred while he was gone. Find the boy a real leadership role like Kudu suggests. Especially since the troop does alot of work with wood tools and conservation work at one of the local parks. That was a big concern with the SM Tell the SM that is not a concern at all. There is probably zero risk that the lad is going to behave suicidally on scout trips, and certainly not around other boys. Scouting is his haven, eh? Follow Calico's advice. Treat him just like the other lads. 4) I advised a Sm conference with the scout (and a meeting with the mom & stepdad). Yah, maybe, but tread very carefully. The SM conference should be to welcome the boy back and say how yeh care about him, nothin' more. The meetin' with the parents should be so that you're aware of medications and counseling, and probably little more than that. 5) I sadvised the SM to challenge the boy academically by earning Scholarship MB, and see if scouts form the troop can help him out. this would help him out in school and in Scouting. NO!!! No no no! The last thing the lad needs is his scoutmaster naggin' him about his schoolwork (which in the boy's eyes means that the SM thinks less of him). Absolutely da wrong thing to do. The schoolwork issue is almost certainly a product of the issues which led to the attempt, eh? If yeh provide a safe place for him to grow and the other issues get fixed or he learns how to control 'em, the school stuff will take care of itself. 6) I also advised having a steady buddy or buddies to keep an eye out on trips. That's kinda of a challenge in my opinion as the troop is a young troop with most only one scout over 13. The scout in question WAS one of the role models for the rest. They will without you sayin' it, but I wouldn't do any explicit buddy thing that singles the boy out. And get away from "was." The boy IS one of the role models for the rest. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think things sorta changed when cell phones became rampant. Before, if you were near a phone you were either at home or you were at your desk at the office. In both cases, you were presumed available. Nowadays, our phones are always with us in meetings and at lunch and all that. Leads to different rules. I had a scouter at a roundtable recently show me some online meeting polling thingamajig his PLC uses. Person who organizes the meeting proposes several dates and times, all the other folks click when they're not available. Pretty cool. Free service with some funny name like doodle or frooble or somethin'. I had a lad whose EBOR I sat for invite me to his COH with an e-invite that when I accepted automatically dropped itself in my calendar program. Hee hee. I think it's fun growin' old then you can be delighted with all this new stuff. Beavah

Yah, da Community Organizer in Chief bit is a bit of adolescent name-calling that I reckon most scouts I know wouldn't engage in of their own accord. As far as I know these things have never been press events. Press events in da oval office are pretty rare. If it makes yeh feel any better, the Brits are all in a row because Obama met with the Boy Scouts rather than having time to do a press event with Gordon Brown on the same day. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/03/barack_obama_cancels_press_conference_with_gordon_brown_because_of_snow I reckon if the man's day is so busy that he's canceling the press conference with the Prime Minister of Britain but he still makes time to welcome the Boy Scouts to the oval office that our proper response should be "Thank you, Mr. President!" Beavah

Yah, TheScout, yeh remind me of a typical bright undergraduate, eh? Are you? There can be a certain fun and fascination in entertainin' oddball theories and pokin' a stick in the eye of established scholarship. Old folks don't know everything and all that. Thing is, eventually yeh get beyond "well, it could be..." and instead mature to "well, what is most sensible and likely?" And while that moves yeh back toward more mainline scholarship, I reckon it also moves yeh back toward the credible and truthful. As for WMD in Iraq, I remember never really buyin' it at the time. The explanation was too vague and it shifted too many times. I thought that the real intention of the war was to establish bases on the borders of Iran and Syria, two of the world's bad actors, which would help stabilize the area. Plus they had the experience from Gulf War I where it bought us cheap oil and economic expansion for a decade (one of da real impetuses behind the Clinton economy, which of course Clinton had nothin' to do with but took credit for). I think they were seein' another round of cheap oil. Neither of those reasons for war are salable, even though they make a bit of strategic sense, eh? I think there's been enough evidence from insiders and the kiss-and-tell books to conclude at this point that Iraq had been on the agenda of a bunch of the neocons well before 9/11, and that like any folks who are a bit arrogant and in love with their own ideas they tended to discredit contrary evidence and viewpoints while inflatin' the "we'll be welcomed with open arms" stuff. Nuthin' unusual about that. I think what allowed it to run off the rails was that the last administration was so all-fired determined to stack all da positions with group-thinkers. "Loyalists" perhaps, but also "yes men." That's the sort of thing that lets folks who are a bit arrogant and in love with their own ideas not to get the checks and feedback that they need. I don't think they lied so much as they convinced themselves and dismissed all other viewpoints and data, eh? And they had some decent thoughts. Saddam was a rat-bastard and riddin' the world of him was a service. Cheap oil does wonders for an economy. Havin' bases on the border of Syria and Iraq did make strategic sense. But yeh need to listen to the State Department when they talk about the ethnic issues, and the military when they talk about what they need to get the job of an occupation done, and the economists and civilian experts when they talk about the real cost of nation-building. Were they lyin' to the American people? Only to the extent that they were lyin' to themselves. Never explain as evil what is properly attributed to incompetence. And if one thing defined the neocon Congress and da Bush executive it was the incompetence born of group-think. Beavah

Yah, Karen_216. For the two older sibs who are Boy Scouts, no problem For the third grader who you're tryin' to get to join, no problem. For the kindergartener who might become a Tiger next year, probably OK but yeh want to talk with da council and the rangemaster about age-appropriateness. For the two girls, more of an issue. Certainly, they're not covered under the accident/health care coverage, but that doesn't matter to a lot of folks if they have their own health insurance. In terms of liability issues, that's one that yeh have to take up with your local council. Since they're authorizin' the event, it's on their dime. Even though the rangemaster is from your pack, he's acting as a council volunteer on the range, eh? So this falls under the camp property and liability coverage, which has a local component. They might tell yeh this is fine, or they might say no. If yeh have an inexperienced DE yeh might need to ask the council Program or Field director to get the real scoop. But none of us here in internet land can really give yeh an answer. Beavah

Yah, so da previous thread got me thinkin' about how behind-the-times a lot of us old fogies are with respect to communication. I get a laugh thinkin' I remember semaphore and signal flags. So I'm interested in learnin' about any units out there who are doin' things with more modern communications methods. What have you done? What have you learned? How's it worked? Even "What would you like to try?" SMS messaging, Twitter feeds, email lists, automated phonecalls, troop web forums, Facebook/MySpace stuff, Yahoo groups, iCal and RSS feeds, satellite phones, podcasts, photos-from-da-field-by-phone, Flickr groups, or three dozen other things I don't know about yet! Would especially like to hear from da young folks and scouts out there! How do you usually communicate with your friends? Beavah

Scouts should also be taught politeness (i.e. be helpful, kind & courteous) and respect my time and his fellow Scouts during troop meetings. ... There are very specific situations in which e-mail is NOT appropriate and trying to schedule something with one or two other people is a spectacular example that I use regularly. Yah, glad you folks don't work in my business, eh?! For us, email is the more polite form of communication, because it allows the person to respond when they are able, rather than interrupting/intruding on what they are doing the way a phone call does. Phone calls are reserved for emergencies when yeh have to interrupt someone, or yeh schedule a phone call (via email) when yeh need to have a more back-and-forth conversation. Schedulin' a meeting I almost never do professionally over the phone. Yeh do it with online schedulin' or polling software. My nephew who works in NYC does it by texting (works much better and is more courteous when on da subway). Different strokes, I guess. But I think we have to be open to the fact that the world these lads are goin' to live in is goin' to be different than ours, and some of our old-fashioned norms of communication are goin' to go away (or already have!). Fact is, phoning all the time is already considered rude in some circles when yeh should have emailed or texted. Me, I always liked doin' SM conferences outdoors. In-town, it's fun to do 'em at the ice cream shop or over a slice of pizza. Beavah

Yah, I agree. Scoutin' is this boy's safe haven. Let it keep bein' that for him. Don't make a big deal out of this. Let him return to his scouting life with as little disruption as possible. And a leader, quietly on the side should say "Billy, I'm glad you're here. You're one of our best guys, and are more valuable to us and the world than you'll ever know. Anytime you need me, you call, I'll be there. I never, ever want you to hurt yourself." I think, especially if no one else has done it, it's important to sit with the boy's close buddies in the troop who know what happened and give 'em some time to process and some counselin' on how to deal with it. Before he gets back. If yeh listen, you'll be surprised how much they know. Let 'em know it's OK to talk about it with Billy, let 'em know that just bein' his friend will help. Most of all, empower them. Give 'em some strategies on dealin' with such feelings themselves or gettin' help for friends. Yeh might save some other kid's life that way. He's not goin' to be the last peer they see in the dumps. Been through a bunch of suicide attempts with teens and scouts. A couple that made it past attempts, which still bring tears to my eyes and aches to my heart. It's OK to talk about it with the boy and with others. It's the conversations which aren't happenin' which make a lad feel trapped. At some point he's goin' to share with his buddies. That's a good thing. Encourage it, give it space. That's why yeh gave those lads some prep in the previous paragraph. And yep, there's goin' to be more goin' on at home (and perhaps school) than meets the eye. Accept that as gospel. Be available and non-judgmental if he wants to open up about those issues at some point. Professional help can help, but only a bit. Strangers like docs and counselors are still strangers, eh? They're on the periphery of our lives. Drugs can buy yeh a window to get over a rough patch, but aren't a cure so much as a holding pattern for this kind of teen thing. And watch out for 3, 6, 9 months down the line, eh? Right after an attempt, a lot of support flows in. But it tapers off after a bit. Mark your calendar now to do somethin' special to reach out to the lad in 3 months, and 6 months, and 9 months, and a year. Do it even if yeh think things are goin' fine. Don't worry about screwin' up, yeh can't. What you do or say doesn't really matter. What matters is that you reach out and that you love the lad. He's goin' to hear that message no matter how you stumble and bumble. The Great Scoutmaster calls us as Scout leaders for a reason, eh? Bein' there for lads really matters. Beavah

Yah, I reckon the lad is angry at his parents for doin' to him somethin' they'd never do to a "real" person, eh? Would I have a fit if Mrs. Beavah was ten minutes late? (if so I'd be havin' lots of fits ). If I were meetin' other family members at a gatherin', would I be upset about them bein' ten minutes late and cut 'em off from family communications? Do I tell George I'll never go golfin' with him again because he had to fix the john which made him 10 minutes late? Da message bein' sent is one of arbitrary control, not one of love and compassion. I'm sure that's not what the man intends, but it's what his son is hearin' loud and clear. There's a courtesy and character issue here, but it isn't on the part of the lad. In a similar vein, this whole language discussion is da same. I think sometimes adults who are interested in controllin' things make things into an issue when they're not. Yeh see it sometimes in advancement, when adults get all jacked up about somethin' or another. Now we're goin' out of our way to get our shorts in a twist over nonsense words? We're honked off because the kids aren't usin' vulgarity? That says a lot about character, eh? Ours. Bunch of randio-heads we can be sometimes. Beavah

I agree with MileHigh that it's also possible to do NSP's well. One of da things that is true is that bunches of buddies who come in together from the same school tend to stay around longer. Scoutin' is socially reinforcing - they talk about school in scouts and scouts in school. I lost him, though, at "new scouts in established patrols leave the troop more often because they are not part of the established group, as younger kids they get ribbed more and end up washing the dishes more." Blech. That's a troop culture problem, eh? I think puttin' boys in NSPs instead of teachin' older boys to be caring is abandoning our mission. We succeed at administering a program but not at teachin' character. The other issue for me is always "Obviously, many patrols are recombined or shuffled later", eh? That of course means da patrol method breaks down right when it could be havin' its biggest positive effect - older youth who have become comfortable and confident in a patrol steppin' forward to lead. Instead right when they're there, the patrol is gettin' reshuffled and they've got to go stormin' and normin' again. "Reshuffle" and "Patrol" should never be used in da same paragraph, let alone sentence. The two things aren't really compatible. If a NSP is goin' to be a real permanent patrol rather than joining permanent patrols after the job of the NSP is done, yeh have to bring in a big group of new lads to account for attrition. Dealin' with such a big group of 5th graders takes some really special Troop Guides, or (more typically) some top-notch adult ASM-NSPs. Beavah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Yah, I think yeh encourage the boy before the PLC trainin' (if yeh want to see this happen as a troop trip), or on the side if yeh want to encourage that as a first Patrol outing. I think it's great, eh? Talk to the uncle, talk the skatepark. Take on yourself whatever load yeh think is out of reach of the boys right now (maybe arrangin' for someone from a local skate shop to come out and give some pointers and keep an eye on safety). Yeh want the first ever patrol outing to be a success. B

Yah, I think you identify who among your 7th graders is a good natural leader who is becomin' independent enough to be ready to start his own patrol. Then you let him recruit some old guys to form the core of Patrol 3. Or, yeh just present the problem to the boys and let them figure it out. That works just as well as long as yeh have da right troop culture. Pretty much yeh want each patrol to have a good leader, a good organizer, and an enthusiastic/good humor lad from the current pool. I wouldn't worry at all about an SPL yet. Let that go until the boys decide there's a need or it just happens naturally. Three PL's ain't hard to coordinate. Last thing yeh might consider with 24 is just keepin' it at two patrols until the boys themselves want to split, and then let that play out. In most units, a patrol of 12 gives yeh campout numbers of 6-8, though I remember you folks have higher expectations so that might make your campout numbers too large. But the boys might notice that quick and take action on their own. Any way yeh slice it, a good problem to have. Scout Salute to you and your boys! Beavah If you go with your plan, you will be creating three brand new patrols instead of just the one NSP that will need a lot of attention. That makes it very hard to be boy run. By keeping them in a new Scout patrol for a few months getting them up to speed, you reduce the risk of a few months of frustration for the majority of the scouts. Yah, had to edit to add that this is one area where I don't quite see eye to eye with Eagledad . I agree with him that absorbin' new members is a challenge for the boys, but I think that frustration and challenge is a good thing, eh? Far from not bein' youth leadership, that is youth leadership and leads to a lot of growth. When yeh pull the new guys out to be babysat by a couple of older TG's, you reduce the opportunities for all those other 6th and 7th graders to be "one of the guys who's cool and who knows what to do" to the younger boys. Plus in BrentAllen's case, if yeh saddle a 7th grader or two with 12 5th graders all together in a NSP, they're gonna get creamed. Yeh have to divide and conquer that new bunch! Better if the new lads are in a patrol where the ratio of new to old is 1:1 rather than 6:1, and there's some teamwork already in place. Just a different perspective is all. A few units I know have done it that way with good results.(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think AlFansome's third paragraph is da way to go, eh? Your response to all the pack folks is "Hey, you're dealing with me now. I'll deal with the COR, but you don't have to worry about that. Now, let's work on..." That can be a fine structure goin' forward. The COR with his/her experience and desire to "push" for program pushes you to work on things while maintainin' your good working relationship, you then "translate" for the rest of the pack and build teams to get the job done. You're the buffer. Havin' a COR viewed as a taskmaster gives you a stronger hand as a CC and teambuilder. It can be a great way of usin' both of your talents and keepin' everyone happy and on track. Beavah

Grenades? Nah. Yeh should know better, Ed. Yeh use dynamite for fishin'. Just kill 'em with the percussion. Who wants to be diggin' all those fragments out of da fish? B

Gee Beavah, I always thought of myself as a member of the "strictly by-the-book, "no adding, no retesting" folks" list, but I would never argue that once a lad is signed off for the Tenderfoot requirements he never has to recite the Oath and Law again or talk about what it means, or for that matter, tie another square knot. So does this mean I am not a strictly by-the-book, "no adding, no retesting" folk? Yah, OGE, I've gotta tear a corner off your By-The-Book Chit. Leastways, if you're talkin' about advancement. If you're expectin' a lad to know the Oath and Law at a BOR or conference for advancement, yeh aren't bein' strictly by-the-book. As evmori seems to repeatedly describe! And this thread is about "for advancement", eh? Now, if you're not talkin' advancement, as I mentioned in my postscript, there's nuthin' that prevents a troop from workin' their goals usin' other methods. Yeh might not allow a boy to go on a high adventure or other campout unless he knows the Oath and Law or wears his uniform. Or yeh might make up a special award for lads who know the Oath and Law or wear their uniform or whatever, like a pizza party. Or yeh might simply be more positive as an adult toward boys who know the Oath and Law, leveragin' adult relationships. In all those cases, what you're doin' is really substituting an alternative "advancement" or recognitions program for da BSA one. Lads who really know the oath and law get to do high adventure, or get a pizza party, or get more recognition from Mr. Greyeagle. Yah, sure, it can work, although in most troops I've seen it doesn't work all that well. Far better to use Advancement Method along with all of da other methods to achieve the unit's goals. That's what it's designed for, eh? Some lads won't care about pizza or what Mr. Greyeagle thinks, but they will care about being given an award at a Court of Honor in front of their families and friends. For those lads (and the others at that COH), whether we expect 'em to know the Oath and Law to get an award matters. Beavah