Beavah

Yah, and now we've added AIG to the taxpayer-backed bailout, eh? Not even a bank, an insurance company! Though by all accounts, it was one that was expert at lobbying and influence-buyin'. Eisely, I can't buy your notion that these massive interventions in the private sector aren't bailouts just because some of da equity holders lost their equity. Especially not given the executive multi-million dollar severances, or the dividends or profits equity holders made in those firms in years past. But da real issue is that it's a bailout of all those who lent money to such poorly run, insolvent firms, or who were counterparties in derivatives with such insolvent firms. Caveat emptor. If yeh buy an exotic mortgage-backed derivative from a crook thinkin' it's a great deal, yeh lose. Yeh don't expect the taxpayer to take on the crook's obligation just so you can get paid. Socialized risk, privatized profits, pure and simple. Just a grand theft from da taxpayer and the nation. I also love da folks runnin' around calling for more regulation who were da same ones in the Gingritch Congress who voted to dismantle the depression-era regulations on bankin', and have been in favor of decreasin' required bank reserves. I'm not fond of too much regulation of markets, mind. But when they eliminated those prudent regulations, the other parts of the depression-era package should have been eliminated at the same time, eh? Director immunity and deposit insurance backed by the taxpayer. If yeh gamble, yeh gamble only with your own money. Beavah

Yah, srisom. I assume that neither of 'em is a minor? You say the "powers that be" at the council knew about and approved the arrangements, eh? So if the man's boss approved, I'm not exactly sure why it's your business? Too many other factors can be in play; the availability of cabin space bein' one that immediately comes to mind, but lots of others are possible. Beavah

It certainly is the case that there is a weaker level of knowledge about outdoor skills than there used to be.... There is instruction at REI, AMC, Sierra Club and other such places. There is prolific skills information on the net. Yah, there's da rub, eh? BSA Scoutin' pretty much relies on the adult leaders comin' in with a fair bit of personal knowledge of outdoor skills. In terms of outdoor skills instruction, all we really offer is IOLS in a weekend and a brief online Hazardous Weather Avoidance thing. Yah, sure, and there's efforts afoot to try to offer LNT Trainer. If someone really is comin' in with fairly light personal outdoor experience, we really have to steer 'em to outside resources like REI, AMC, etc. Except those aren't readily available to most of our members. First Aid trainin' is similar, eh? With fewer and fewer young folks gettin' outdoors, it's a fair bet that if we have a problem with adults havin' outdoors experience, it's only goin' to get worse. I can't see "readin' the manual" being a viable alternative for most folks. The BSA Fieldbook is our best outdoors manual, and it's pretty good. While it describes a kayak Eskimo roll pretty well, I don't think any of us would claim that's enough to learn an Eskimo roll. For someone who is a novice at buildin' fire, a book about buildin' fire is similarly not enough. So what do those folks do, eh? After the 20 minutes or so assigned to axe use at IOLS, they go back to their units and duplicate that experience for kids, eh? They give a lecture about safety. They set up a bunch of rules about handin' an axe to people and setting up an axe yard, and then they give the lad a couple of swings and sign him off. They read about "treating for shock" in the handbook and then they quick-sign off a lad for doin' the same thing. But if yeh ask either of 'em what shock is, or what its symptoms are, they can't tell yeh. That might be a reason for some of the "bogus" signoffs, eh? If so, I reckon the only way to fix it is with a lot more time and development spent on skills trainin' and coachin' for adults. Or screenin', I suppose, but I've yet to see a district actually verify expertise in any way even for MBC's. Mostly it's "I've been a scouter, so I can counsel Camping MB" or whatnot. FCFY and camps and such have probably exacerbated that problem by puttin' a time limit on things, and not givin' folks a sense that they should take as much time as necessary to learn. Remember, it's the unintended consequences of a policy or program as much as its intended enactment that determine whether it's worthwhile or not, eh? Like skeptic says, NCLB was a well-meaning policy initiative, but its unintended consequences have been really harmful in some important ways. Same happens with BSA program sometimes, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

And just to add another fly to the ointment... I was told today by a senior person in Supply that they were "encouraging" troops to swap out all the red shoulder loops on old uniform shirts immediately for the green ones. Primarily as a mechanism for helpin' troops (and Scouting) look more uniform. O'course, it also may sell a few more loops in da short term. B

Yah, shortridge's observations ring true to me. Could it simply be that the awarding of "bogus" awards is simply attributable to da adults lack of outdoor skills? (Or, in the case of MBs, to their lack of expertise in the subject matter of the badge)? That would also explain why so many folks cling to the letter of the wordin', because they don't have enough skill or experience to interpret the meaning. Beavah

Yah, be very, very careful about gossip and repeatin' gossip. Yeh can do a world of hurt to other peoples' reputations. And if not provably true, they can do a world of hurt to you by way of a defamation claim. The claims you're makin' here on this board, if you repeat 'em to others with a name attached, you are rightly liable for. There lie dragons. I think if you address this at all, you address specific observed behaviors that you have personally witnessed and not accusations of infidelity. Discreetly. To the male leader in question privately, and then perhaps to the Chartered Organizational Rep. or Institution Head of the CO privately - but only if the CO is one that shares your personal values as an institution. Your values on romantic behavior and flirting, that is, not your values on gossip - the IH should be someone like a pastor who has a much better sense of discretion on the latter. So if the troop is chartered by your church, for example, yeh might mention your concern to the pastor, as much to provide a path to counseling and help for the man and his family as anything. Then yeh butt out, and make your own decision with regard to where your son does his Scouting. Beavah

Yah, I'm not sure many good adult leaders get frustrated by others, period. The same personality which has patience and good humor with kids is the same personality that demonstrates patience and good humor with adults. Courtesy and kindness aren't limited to those of a specific age or number of years service in Scoutin'. Each lad comes to us with his own quirks and his own story. We have to take 'em as they come. Same with each adult. Sometimes adults aren't in the right position for their skills or personalities, true, just the way some lads can shine as Quartermaster when they stumbled as SPL. The best sort of scouter works with each as they come, and helps each find a niche and develop. The worst sort complains about how lousy some/most kids or adults are these days. Now, it's true, there are a few truly bad eggs. Happily, as GoldWinger points out, they are very rare. Beavah

Yah, thanks, Ed. Though I think I was referrin' to rank badges, eh? GW pointed out some of the likely suspects, eh? Summer Camps, Merit Badge Universities, and FCFY. I'm hard pressed to name a camp that doesn't short lads on some badges. Part of that is pressure from parents and scouters, part of it is just havin' a young staff that isn't great at keepin' to the standards. I've seen da misunderstanding of FCFY drive a lot of it, too, especially because lots of first year boy scouters are comin' up from cubs. They're very much ingrained with the "do your best" standard and da notion that most boys should earn awards in a fixed, one-year time period. A few troops do what OGE suggests and refuse to allow their boys to take some badges at camp or MBU's. But they're trudgin' uphill into the gale in a lot of cases. I'm sort of fond of Kudu's test, eh? A First Class Scout should be able to solo backpack for a Friday - late Sunday weekend, followin' a route both on and off trail, for at least 15 miles or so, without adults. And then row or paddle across the lake and swim the last bit to finish. Every MB and rank should have that kind of practical, adult-less standard. Not "tell" or "explain". DO. Beavah

Bogus ranks and bogus MBs are a festering pus-filled ulcer on Scouting's integrity and trustworthiness. Yah, GAHillBilly doesn't mince words now, does he? So, takin' him up on his challenge, here's a new thread to vent about pencil-whipped "he tried his hardest" "we get everybody to First Class in a Year no matter what" badges. After yeh vent for a bit, then time to roll up our sleeves. What causes this approach to advancement? How would you suggest we fix it? How hard is it to hold the line? I reckon over the years I've seen as many complaints here about Darn GateKeepers holding boys back, eh? Yah, I personally know several lads who gave up on their quest for Eagle after the district approved Eagle Scout for another boy who was, in their eyes, a mean bully who had no outdoor skills to speak of. Lack of honor on our part has a price in da hearts and minds of lads we care about. Beavah

If you think about it a scout who is making progress toward a rank is not in need of a BoR just because it is a 6 month anniversary. I think this is the notion that the trainin' module is trying to correct, eh? At least one materials writer did think about it, and decided differently. In order to stay properly in touch with the program and how the program is doin' for all the boys, the committee needs to check in on the boys regularly. And boys who are making progress also deserve adult contact time and encouragement, eh? They need that. There will always be some go-getters who are advancin' quickly. I reckon there will always be a lad or two who is trailin' behind and merits some special attention. The point of regular non-advancement boards of review is to give some attention to all the rest of the guys, eh? Those lads in the middle who are easy to overlook. And to let the committee hear from them. Has the added advantage of makin' BOR's not a pass, fail, test or "I'm in trouble" kind of thing, eh? Beavah

One disturbing trend I found at the end of my time as SM were many boys who simply did not care about advancement Yah, RangerT offered the above quote in the parent thread, eh? I confess I've seen some of this as a long-term trend across many units as well. It was interestin' to me that RangerT reported boys who were very involved in scouts talkin' about how school, sports, work, etc. made 'em care less about advancement. Perhaps the "adult pushed" nature of all those things is wearin' 'em out. And I do think advancement is an "adult pushed" thing in most units. Any other folks seein' this? Beavah

Yah, packsaddle's got the right of it, BobWhite. I'm an old-time conservative. Doesn't bother me that the Democrats are behavin' honestly like Democrats. Frustrates the heck out of me that the Republicans are behavin' like nitwits. It takes no moral fiber or honor to stand up to your opponents. It takes honor and character to stand up to your own party. To tell your friends "No!" and stand on principle, eh? The Republicans in general and this administration in particular have no honor. The Democratic Congress is keepin' the bailout dollars on the CBO budget, at least for the moment. Hard to imagine the Democrats being the party of fiscal responsibility, but there it is. B

Yah, I reckon this is one of those areas where understandin' the history and development of the program helps yeh to read materials in their proper context, eh? A periodic review of the progress of a Scout is vital in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Scouting program in the unit. The unit committee can judge how well the Scout being reviewed is benefiting from the program. The unit leader can measure the effectiveness of his or her leadership. The Scout can sense that he is, or is not, advancing properly and can be encouraged to make the most of his Scouting experience. - ACP&P (p. 28) Scouts who are not advancing should also come before the board of review. The board should show interest in these Scouts' rank progress... Let the Scout know that he has the support of the board of review members and that there is no doubt he can achieve the next rank. The board's concern and supportive manner will both help the Scout's confidence and impress upon him the importance of advancement - Committee Handbook (p. 31) Similar statements run through other materials, eh? While in each case a reference is made to making extra effort to focus on a boy who is not making any progress, that's not the same thing as only holding non-advancement BORs for such boys. In fact, if yeh did it that way, it wouldn't work nearly as well. The poor lad would feel singled out or "in trouble" rather than feelin' like it was a regular thing where people showed interest in him and encouraged him. We don't call BORs to embarrass a lad like that. As OGE points out, a BOR should be a regular thing that a scout looks forward to. That lookin' forward helps him focus and push himself to advance, because he has a target. He knows the folks who care about him are goin' to be checkin' in, and we all know that boys often don't focus until they know someone is goin' to be checkin' in, eh? It sets the right tone for everybody. The committee is learnin' how each boy is doing and therefore how the program is doin' overall (not just how the "best" boys are advancing). The purpose is to learn how each boy is doin', not to pass or fail or examine. When a boy is ready for a new rank, the board acknowledges it; when a boy isn't ready but has made some progress the board acknowledges that and encourages. Can't say that it really takes all that much time either, eh? In a troop of 30, yeh can schedule a monthly BOR and see 5 boys each month. Plenty of time to do that, eh? Even with a few extra lads to advance along the way. Much healthier tone overall, IMO. Part of da problem may be that some folks really like to scare the lads with a big, bad BOR. Makes 'em feel more important. Can't see it myself. Beavah

The notion of holding regular, non-advancement boards of review for all scouts has always been a part of the Scouting program. Nowhere in the materials is it ever suggested that BORs should be only for those advancing, or for boys who aren't making any progress toward advancement. It's always been that each boy should sit for a regular BOR. At some BOR's he achieves a new rank. At some he just talks with the board and they review his progress and encourage him. That should happen whatever his progress is, eh? If he's halfway through his next rank, yeh talk about his experiences, praise his accomplishments so far, and encourage him. Yah, the notion of a Board of Review only gettin' together for consideration of advancement is part of what gets people into notions of "passing" and "failing" and testing, eh? If yeh hold regular BORs it's part of the committee's work keepin' an eye on the program, part of other adults carin' for and encouraging boys, and not such a fearful, officious thing, eh? Problem is it takes adult time and commitment, eh? Lots of folks just get lazy about it, and only hold BORs when they have to for advancement. Beavah

Yah, so I sit here and am readin' the press reports of the meetin' with the NY Fed and the major financial institutions attemptin' to arrange a bailout of Lehman Bros. After a bailout of Bear Stearns. After a massive taxpayer takeover of all of the risk (but none of the profits) of Frannie and Freddie. Of course, AIG and Merryl Lynch and the American auto makers are waitin' in the wings with their hands out. Then President Bush announces that, naturally, he's keepin' all of the bailout dollars off of the books and not part of the federal budget. Easier to steal taxpayer dollars to bail out execs with big salaries if it's not recorded anywhere, eh? Especially when you're already runnin' a 408 billion deficit this year on the books. A Republican president has managed to socialize all of the risk from financial speculation while privatizing all of the profits. And nobody's battin' an eye. Beavah

Yah, ursus, I hear yeh. So here's some examples from a few troops and crews I know who do independent patrol outings. Option 1: Drive to a trailhead, but have the patrols go in different directions. Each patrol leader files a route plan with the SPL and SM. Older scout patrols may hike a big loop, younger patrols may do a shorter out-and-back, but everyone's hikin' to a different spot to camp on their own, usin' a different trail (or are separated by departure time on the same trail). Land managers are happy because small groups are better LNT practice. File one tour permit for the whole outing. Adults camp at the trailhead, or do their own route and file their route plan with each Patrol Leader. If there's a weaker patrol that isn't ready for this level of challenge, a couple of Troop Guides go with 'em. Option 2: Boys bike different routes, camp at different spots, meet up at final destination. Out of shape adults drive sag wagons, available by cell phone if needed. File one tour permit for whole outing. Option 3: Adults drive boys to site, boys set up, adults leave. Return to pick 'em up at the time they requested. Option 4: Go out sailin' with a crew to do a quick checkout, review the charts and weather, have 'em drop you off at the dock, and wave as they depart. Check in by radio or at their ports of call as needed. Lots of other things are possible, eh? For tour permits, just file 'em with the approving adult signing. In terms of liability, we're liable as adults, same as we always are. Insurance applies, same as it always does. Just like you're liable in most states for what your son does on his way to school, or what he does when yeh give him the keys to the car. If you don't think you've taught him well enough, don't give him the keys! But if we've done our job as scouters, the keys to the backpack are a lot safer than the keys to the car, eh? A nice way to work up to this is what Kudu suggests. Camp apart from each other. Then go on hikes where yeh hike apart from each other, but end up camping in the same area (still spread out). Then as yeh get comfortable, loosen the apron strings a bit more. The kids adjust quickly, it's the adults that need lots of little baby steps to get over their fears. Before yeh let the kids go, they should have a clear plan, and the plan should include "what to do if there's a problem". Talk through the plan with the boys and the PL. Some units will set up some sort of communication check-in, like a phone check-in at 8pm from a known cell-accessible point, or leavin' a marker when they cross a road or trail to confirm they made it that far. Maybe the first time yeh try it, do it somewhere that's a short hike or easy navigation or whatever gives the adults fewer ulcers. Of course, for any of this to work, the requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Camping MB, the quality of your Patrol Leader Trainin' and the like all have to be "real", eh? Yeh have to actually meet the BSA's standard of proficiency in outdoor skills, not fake it with a quick signoff for parroting a lecture and approval from a "no retesting" BOR that makes excuses for 'em forgetting what they learned two months ago. The boys actually need to have the skills. If yeh feel it's necessary to threaten your guys with dire consequences if they misbehave, then you and they aren't ready. When they get back, sit down and do a roses & thorns discussion. You'll see bright eyes, and get a whole host of tales of daring-do and "fish stories" that you'll hear repeated for months if not years. Just listen. Yeh don't need to critique. The experience did that for 'em by itself. Parents? Explain it, and put it in your permission slips. Make it a normal part of your orientation process for new parents. For nervous nellies, bring 'em out on a campout and let 'em see your guys in action, and coach 'em through understanding. Parents fear the unknown, but if you're a known entity and the activity is known to 'em, they're usually fine. Have I done this kind of thing as a direct-contact leader? You bet. And I've had the pleasure of knownin' other scouters who regularly do it better than I ever did. That's the whole point of Scoutin', eh? Youth leadership doesn't have any meaning until the adults are out of the picture. Beavah

Yah, TnT, let me try to sort through some of that confusion for yeh. It is the role of the Board of Review to make sure the requirements have been learned and completed. One way of doin' that is to check signatures in the boy's book, eh? So it's not wrong to have a good conversation with the boy and then tell him he did a nice job on his board and he'll get his badge as soon as he shows you his book next week. It's also not wrong to have da AC vouch for his merit badges and the SM to vouch for his other requirements in person, and give him his badge that night without his book. The board should accept any reasonable evidence that the boy has done his part in meetin' all the requirements. What you do want is everybody to be on the same page. I think it would have been a fine thing had the adults listened to your son's request and rescheduled. But if the SM worked hard to talk him into proceeding, there needed to be an understandin' of that by the board members. A SM in such a case might meet with the board first for a minute to clue them in, eh? That's also a good habit to get into for lads with other issues - a quick meeting with the board to let them know this boy is shy and will need encouragement, this boy has ADHD and might fidget a lot, etc. As to the last bit, scoutin' isn't school. Yeh don't get to the test and then pass or fail because the test happens at a certain time for everybody. Scoutin' is like learning to ride a bicycle. Anyone who really tries eventually succeeds. Some early, some late, some after extra effort. But as a parent, you would never, ever talk about how your boy had "failed" to ride a bike, eh? You and every other adult would just be encouraging him, and he himself would recognize that he hadn't mastered it yet. And he'd keep tryin' and havin' fun until he did master it! That's what Scoutin' should be. I think all the obsession with adult stuff like parsing requirements and filing written statements and opportunities to appeal as though we were some judicial proceeding sets the wrong tone. We're a kids' game, where it's fun to learn and grow and get to the next level. Beavah

Yah, I think you have some work to do TnT, but it's not all with the committee members on the board, eh? I think the real issues here are how you've set your troop up for the boys to think about advancement. Everybody talkin' about "passing" and "failing". A lad who is goin' for Star Scout who is terrified to get out of the car because he forgot his book?? Good heavens! As a group you are puttin' entirely the wrong emphasis on the Advancement Method, from the CC and SM on down, eh? It's not about passing and failing. It's about playing and scoring and being cheered on. A lad who is goin' to be Star Scout should be leapin' out of da car just for the fun of playin' the game. You haven't failed the unit because of lack of clear guidelines and all that, eh? Your unit is failin' for too much adult guidelines and adult-driven judgment in what should be a youth pick-up sport. BOR's should be fun and friendly and happen whether or not advancement is on the line. Books should be a tool the boys choose to use, or not, to play the game. You're right as a parent (and parents that are CC and SM, always a risky combination) to stay out of this when it comes to your son and the board. Yeh have to let that lie. But you've got work to do in fixin' how you look at advancement in your unit. I'd begin with the CC and SM. Read some of the old masters on scoutin'. Figure out when you're going to have SM conferences just for fun, without havin' anything to do with advancement. Same with BOR's. No lad should ever be afraid to get out of a car. Every one should be racin' to get into a scout meeting before the car even comes to a stop. Like video games, eh? Yeh might not make it to the next level every time, but it's always fun to play. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, packsaddle, you and Merlyn have to stop lookin' at the world through your black-and-white glasses, eh? The world is in technicolor. Da BSA's position on this has never changed. All that's happened is that they've responded to attacks by folks with personal agendas. When yeh write a legal brief or a legal document to make an argument in an adversarial court proceedin', by necessity yeh have to draw sharp contrasts and accentuate the "lines." Like some of da stuff on the Unit Money Earning Application, yeh "reserve all rights" and even push da limits of the rights that you might have. That's makin' the best argument in a dispute, and it's how our legal system is structured. Da legal system is not our business, eh? It really has very little to do with day to day, high-quality Scouting, because workin' with kids generally doesn't involve people with personal agendas tryin' to hijack the organization. So if a lad joins up and muddles through the Oath with his fellows, we work with him as a scout. If along the way he has doubts, questions, becomes rebellious, tries on a bunch of religious and areligious hats... we work with him as a scout. Only when someone shows up and says "I refuse to agree to the "God" part of the program but I insist on joining anyway" does it become a dispute, eh? And only then do we dust off the policies and such that say "we reserve all rights." We aren't dealing with kids in a youth program, then, but with disputatious adults in da bigger world. So if yeh ask us informally, as a friend, how we mentor youth in our youth program who question the existence of God, that has one answer. A youth program, mentoring answer. If yeh dispute with us your right to participate in our program even though you refuse to share our values or meet our expectations, that has a different answer. A legal, adversarial, answer. Same with anything, eh? Some scouts in uniform soliciting contributions for troops overseas at their CO's church, nobody is goin' to bat an eye. A scouter in uniform appearing on a political commercial to endorse the Libertarian candidate is goin' to earn a "cease and desist" letter. As BobWhite points out from time to time, our documents lay claim to all uses of da uniform, everywhere (and even claim some rights which we don't have ). By Merlyn's argument, we should be servin' legal notices on kids for askin' for donations for our troops, to be black-and-white consistent. But that's not the reality. We're consistent with bein' a youth program in a technicolor world. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Merlyn's provocative post led me to thinkin' that it might be nice to share how each of us handles/would handle a young lad struggling with belief in God, or professing at some point to be atheist or agnostic durin' his scouting journey. To clarify further, I'm not talkin' about someone who comes in with an agenda tryin' to join and then makes a stink about the Oath or somesuch. I think we all recognize that we politely say "no" to such folks. I'm talkin' more about unchurched kids, ambivalent kids, kids who at some point get rebellious or lads who are thoughtful and questioning. Now before we get goin', I put this in the Program Discussion area deliberately, eh? I ask everyone to be courteous and not turn it into an "issues and politics" thread. Just sharin' ideas and techniques among fellow scouters. Merlyn, feel free to listen in and spin off issues & politics threads to your heart's desire, but please allow this one just to be a discussion among BSA scouters. Beavah

Yah, sometimes I think we should require Roundtables to seat everyone at a round table, eh? Nobody is allowed to stand up and pretend that it's an auditorium by makin' announcements or some dull presentation. I know there's folks who think they're servin' the purpose of roundtable by doin' that sort of thing. Just like scoutin' with the boys, though, we should be baiting the hook with a format that unit leaders find desirable and worth comin' to. Otherwise I don't reckon we really achieve our mission. So I suggest round tables. And coffee. For Boy Scout and Venturing Roundtable, avoid the little-kid stuff with crafts and beads and such and just treat people like adults. One of the most effective RT commissioners I knew just picked a nice location, made sure there were refreshments, and set a topic for the evening. Somethin' like "bring your troop's annual calendar to share." That and just a few tricks to break up cliques made for some wonderful RT's (at least until the DD started insistin' on announcements... ). Beavah

Interestin', fullquiver, thanks for sharin'. There also seems to be a pullups equivalent at http://twentypullups.com . Both could be good for boys workin' on Tenderfoot or Personal Fitness MB. B

But I do understand it, Beavah. Nope. Yeh just think you do. Like someone who has read a book about Hinduism, but has never been a practicing Hindu and has not even grown up in that culture. You think having read a few isolated pages from various texts and read about a few incidents with Hindus means that yeh know what Hindus really believe and act like and support. Oops. Substitute "Scouting" for "Hindu". Yeh see how ridiculous it is. Beavah

No adult app. required for the IH. When yeh do online recharter, you can just change this as part of the process online. Otherwise, your registrar can do it for you. Beavah

Yah, I'm confused, Rythos. If this is not a Scouting activity but rather an open house at the camp you work for, then it doesn't much matter what any of the BSA materials say, eh? It's up to your employer and the parents in your pack to make their own decisions. If you're doin' this as a Cub Pack activity, then your camp is "A commercial wall", eh? It's a facility that is typically hired out for pay with trained, paid staff. That kind of climbin' is age-appropriate for all levels of cub scouts, includin' Tigers. All yeh should have is an adult leader trained in Climb on Safely, and check to make sure the camp has gear that will actually fit the little guys properly. Either way it should be a "go". Have fun! Beavah