Beavah

The reason seems clear enough too. We don't teach Scouts to play war. We are not a paramilitary organization. Never were, never will be. If you want to play war, then play it outside of Scouting. Nonsense. I defy yeh to find a single sentence anywhere in any BSA publication that gives that (or any) reason. Here in this thread CalicoPenn and others have offered what they felt were "clear enough", and they weren't the same as yours. Fact is, war games have been part of Scouting since its inception. What do yeh think Capture the Flag is, pray tell? That's why it's always better to give reasons and explanations than just state prohibitions, eh? Because reasons and explanations help everyone learn and inform their own judgment. If the real purpose is to ban war-games, then we need to stop Capture the Flag, but squirt gun shenanigans on a hot day might be just fine. If da perceived risk is that young, excitable LEOs might shoot a kid who brandishes a toy, then we need to teach boys only to play on private property like a scout camp or paintball place and not run around the neighborhood, and always to use bright colored toys. If da risk is that toys somehow make kids more likely to point a real firearm the wrong way, then we need to do more serious training with real firearms so that boys unequivocally know the difference. If it's a belief that toy guns lead to boys becoming violent sociopaths, then we know we also need to ban most video games at the lock-in. Any one of these would be more clear than da general "simulated firearm" paragraph as worded. Just like First Aid, eh? We teach the why and the when along with the what, because it's da only way that works. Beavah

In most cases it depends is probably the answer but if it has to be yes or no, and there is not a mitagation of risk then no will be the answer. Yah, hmmm... I can't wait to see da risk mitigation plan for marshmallow guns. . Seriously, lad, do yeh think we're all completely daft? That da average SM won't stop boys who have igniters rigged to their marshmallow guns or cubs who are runnin' around with water pistols near a cliff? I find myself sympathizing with shortridge. If "it depends" is the right answer, then just say that, for heavens' sake. If the answer is "you're the leader of record, you know your boys, your families, and your local conditions, use your brain", then say that. That would be refreshing for 90% of da volunteers, and avoid da confusion. For the other 10%, just say "if you're uncomfortable makin' the call on your own, that's a sign that you should get more training or hire a professional guide before yeh do this activity." Beavah

Well, I see da Justice Department has gone ahead and dropped all its inquiries, except where the interrogators actually killed their subjects instead of just torturing 'em. Nice to know Obama's administration is consistently inept. To celebrate the event, it's worth reflecting briefly on the words of one of the senior CIA interrogators who has come forward: The value of intelligence gleaned from CIA torture is in fierce and highly politicized dispute. One of the very CIA interrogators who avoided Justice Department prosecution, Glenn Carle, writes in a forthcoming book, The Interrogator, that close review of most specific claims of critical intelligence obtained from rendition, detention and enhanced interrogation techniques shows that, in almost every case, the intelligence obtained was faulty and subsequently discredited or suspect, or of secondary importance. The architects of the torture policies, Carle continues, are either sincerely misinformed persist in their delusions, are protecting from criticism the policies they have advocated and the men who made them, or are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge grievous error. Straight from the horse's mouth. Beavah

Yah, teapots and tempests, eh? Speaking from afar, all this sounds just like ordinary adult childishness. A few people don't get along or get bent out of shape by each other's personalities. Get over it, act like adults, and focus on the kids! Some folks are just bull-in-a-china-shop types, eh? But they tend to be hard workers. So if I understand the lay of the land right now, ASM's husband has resigned, so there's a new treasurer. That will make ASM less likely to be involved in any campership stuff. So far so good. My remaining questions still stand. Is she good with kids? A reliable ASM? She still has the support of the SM? If so, great! The new CC just stops muckin' around with the SM's side of da operation and takes over the adult communication so that the ASM doesn't feel the need to. If the information gets out to everyone from da CC then no one need ask the ASM. All campership apps go to the new treasurer. Easy peasy. If the ASM isn't good with kids and doesn't have the SM's support, then yeh have a different issue, but that's completely unrelated to anything mentioned so far. Beavah

Are you asking under Roberts Rules of Order? If s/he voted in the original vote, then no. I s/he didn't vote, then yes. Yah, hmmm... There are lots of versions of ol' Henry Robert's Rules out there, but as far as I know this would be false in all of 'em. Committees and other "Roberts Rules" bodies are deliberative assemblies, eh? There's no notion of a separate branch of government that possesses a veto. Once a motion is approved it's approved. It can be reconsidered for a short space of time, but that's considered tryin' to hijack da process, so it requires a motion by someone who voted in favor of the original motion, which would not be the chair in ordinary operation of Roberts Rules. Again, neither the Chairman of the Board nor the Speaker of the House can "veto" a vote taken by those bodies. So we're back to "No" on the original question, but yeh need to tell us more, operatingeng. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I can see folks further up the chain stuggling to decide if allowing "simulated firearms" to be pointed at other people sends a mixed signal Yah, like I said, da two rationales for this rule that people speculate on are that either pointing toy guns somehow breaks down muzzle control/awareness for real firearms, or that boys running around playing "war-games" is bad for PR. It's all just speculation, eh? There's no evidence to support either claim, and no evidence that either claim is the real rationale for the obtuse paragraph. And the BSA does advertise "simulated guns pointed at simulated humans" video games. For all we know, someone in Irving just got pissed that the Laser Tag Business Association didn't give a big enough FOS donation. That would even make more sense. Beavah's

Yah, i82Much, welcome to da forums, eh? I too am curious why a CC would quit over the behavior of an ASM. That just seems odd to me. If a CC and treasurer just do their jobs and communicate with the parent community, they can run da campership program themselves, eh? There wouldn't be an opportunity for the ASM to even insert himself. Now, I find nothing wrong with a SM (or the ASM in the SM's absence) deciding what adults can go on a campout. That's pretty normal. Summer camp site space is often limited, and having too many adults runnin' around causes headaches for youth leaders. I think you'd want the adults at camp to be trained and have some experience, eh? Parents can always visit if they want, but da in-camp adults should be those who best contribute to the program for the boys. So I'm not really sure from what you describe whether any action is merited with respect to either the CC or the ASM. Yah, yah, one parent feels like she was "belittled" but frankly, parent misunderstandings and complaints are normal even for the best scouters in the country. We all botch communication sometimes, eh? Da question on my mind would be how is the fellow with the kids? If he does a good job with the kids and the SM supports him, then I think yeh keep him as an ASM and expect the CC to step up and take a bigger role in parent communication. So I can't answer your question without more information. Maybe yes, maybe no. Mostly, I think everyone should sit down and talk things out like adults. Save the drama for reality TV. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya operatingeng, welcome to da forums, eh? Generally speaking, the answer to your question is "no.". A committee chair is like the chairman of the board of a corporation. He or she has some duties within the committee, but has no authority outside of the consent or approval of the committee. He or she is honor-bound to follow the direction of the committee even if he or she disagrees. Now, in scoutin' the owner of the unit (a unit is a cub pack, scout troop, venturing crew, etc.) can override the committee, or fire them all. The owner is the chartering organization, and within the chartering organization that authority usually resides in the president/pastor/CEO (called the IH in boy scout lingo). Because that person is busy, the authority is usually delegated to a Chartered Organization Representative (COR). The COR can override the committee, though he/she shouldn't except over somethin' very serious. Where it gets tricky is that the COR can be the CC. It's not typical, but it's common enough. In such a case, the committee is more like an advisory board than da "board of directors" role talked about in the scouting materials. So if your CC is also the COR, he or she can "veto", but that's acting as a COR and not as Committee Chair. Of course da normal response of a committee is to resign en masse, which is why a COR should never do that lightly. Now, can yeh tell us a bit more? Usually with more information, we can be more helpful. Beavah

Yah, I think RichardB has made it clear that he's respondin' on the forums as a scouting volunteer and not in his official capacity, eh? Yeh can't expect officials to offer "official" guidance outside of official channels, eh? And it's worth rememberin' national just provides program materials for units and program franchising support and a hiring pool for councils. Everyone still has to think for themselves. I think by any rational reading of da G2SS plain text language, a simulated firearm includes squirt guns if it includes laser tag guns. Those two things look more like each other than they resemble a firearm, eh? And both are clearly designed to simulate "shooting" at other people. Same with marshmallow guns and whatnot. So it doesn't surprise me at all that multiple councils are banning squirtguns. And to be fair, both da hypothesized reasons for this whole paragraph in the unauthorized activity list apply: da concern over lessening muzzle control protocol for real guns and the concern of public perceptions if the scouts are organizing large squirt gun combat operations (or "assassin" games) as some camps seem to be. Again, my understandin' is that H&S wanted to repeal this silly prohibition but someone up da chain (and not in Risk Management) reversed 'em. That's why it's one of da only "safety" rules that has nuthin' to do with safety. But like everything, it's all a bit opaque. Anyway, I don't think it's reasonable to expect RichardB to comment under da circumstances, especially if yeh want an "official" answer. Let's let the fellow hang around and be an ordinary Joe. After all, he's da first guy in Irving to peek out of da bunker into the connected world, eh? It would be a durn shame to frighten him off. Beavah

Yah, interestin'. If I remember what my old buddy Archimedes used to say (yah, yah, as the lad's say I'm old enough to remember ancient Greece... Or is it grease....)... Yeh float if yeh weigh less than the amount of water you displace. Or in other words, yeh float if your total density (mass/volume) is less than water (1kg/liter). Now if yeh read da popular claptrap online, everyone talks about muscle to fat ratio, eh? Because fat has a density of about .91 and muscle about 1.04 (compared to water with a density of one). Yah, and I suppose it's true that if you're really fat that will help. But in my experience workin' with kids yeh don't really run into this, eh? Da differences between muscle and fat density are too small for it to matter much. What really drives floatin' is bone (density of around 2.5 or more!). Bone makes yeh sink. To balance out bone yeh have empty spaces. Three in particular, eh? Chest/lungs, hollow organs (stomach, etc.), and head (sinuses and other open spaces, eh? Not because you're an airhead;)). So there's three things that matter for kids. Two yeh have control of. The first is how much they're willing to let their head go under water. More is better, since da empty spaces are more on the face side than the back, eh? Second is relaxation. When yeh tense up your chest and stomach muscles in particular yeh squeeze the hollow organ spaces down. Cold water can be an issue, because yeh naturally tense up and shiver. Really good muscle tone doesn't help. Yah, and I guess there's a third which is technique... gettin' em to inflate and submerge those hollow parts, eh? What yeh don't have control of is da bone to volume ratio, eh? Depends on lots of stuff like lung capacity and torso length and bone size. I was always a floater even though I was a skinny lad, probably because I have a long body and short legs and relatively narrow bones . Beavah's Third thing yeh have control of is technique, of course. Da more yeh can get 'em to fill

gun and firearm are synonyms BTW No they're not. A firearm is defined in da law in most states, and typically refers to a personal, carryable weapon that fires a dangerous projectile usin' explosives. A gun is a generic colloquial term referrin' to anything that fires any sort of beam or projectile, from the electron gun in an old style TV to da 16 inch guns on a battleship to the radar gun the cops use to give yeh a speeding ticket. there are some folks and a few with law degrees who might have suggested this is not "kind" BTW Name one. Yeh have to stretch credulity beyond da breaking point to reach a conclusion that being hit by a marshmallow in a mutual game of marshmallow shootout is "unkind". And of course, because of da 3 G's "flaming" marshmallows aren't allowed in the BSA . (congrats, though. Even da best pyrotechnic scouts I know never considered flaming marshmallow guns. Can't wait to tell 'em!) B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm wondering how the police officers who shoot people with water pistols (seems there's a couple of news articles about this happening somewhere in the US every year) would answer this? Yah, not to interfere with a good story or anything, but these are pretty rare and mostly involve airsoft toy guns not squirt guns. Police officers also shoot people carrying garden hoses, cell phones, wallets, glasses cases, inhalers, and the like. I'm not sure it justifies a worldwide ban on cell phones or asthma meds. Rather, it shows that people, especially trained law enforcement officers, who choose to point real firearms at other people should exercise extreme care and caution, eh? Now of course if yeh are actually engaged in a crime like robbin' a bank, I reckon it doesn't matter much whether yeh have a toy gun, a real gun, or a finger in your pocket. Da issue is the crime. But we're not talkin' about that, are we? We're talkin' about a bunch of kids runnin' around a camp field or woods with squirt guns. That's pretty easy to distinguish from bank robbery I reckon. Note the lack of a bank. All of da police officers I know, and I know quite a few, let their own kids play with squirt guns. And paintball, for that matter. Yah, I get that some folks have philosophical objections to or irrational fears of toy guns, eh? And to eating meat, and to wearing uniforms, and to single-sex activities, and to taking pledges or oaths, and to adventure sports, and to youth leadership, and to almost anything else. I'm happy to support 'em and their family, just so long as they don't try to take such things away from everyone else's kids. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, sure packsaddle. All of those are sins, eh? Or more accurately, all of those can be sins. Even flying kites, if it means you're flyin' 'em in thunderstorms to tempt fate, or flyin' 'em instead of doin' something else where you are really needed, or... Gamblin' can just be entertainment, or, as some bankers demonstrated with financial derivatives, it can be a sin. Da problem you're strugglin' with is with rule books, not with sin. We all recognize sin at some level, eh? We see people hurt. We see people hurt themselves. We see people make choices that make 'em less than the person they could be. And we recognize all da same things in ourselves. As far as sin goes, rule books are just guides for those who are learnin', eh? Just like your students have textbooks. Is everything in a freshman biology text really perfectly accurate? Nah. And even if it were there's no guarantee the kids would read it right. When yeh take students off to your island paradise, I'm sure yeh have permission slips and booklets and all the rest. There's stuff in there that's pretty solid, there's stuff in there that yeh put in to be helpful but you know doesn't always apply and all the rest. We use books to teach, eh? And lectures and whatnot. But in the end the books and the lectures and the whatnot aren't the Truth. In the end the student has to experience the world, and think, and step on da occasional sea urchin. Learnin' how to be a good person's the same, eh? Yeh can start with da Textbook, and lectures/sermons and whatnot. They're pretty good, eh? But even when the textbook is perfect there's no guarantee folks will read it right. In the end, we all have to experience and build a relationship with God and the world, and think. Yah, sure, and step on da occasional sea urchin. There's stuff I used to think was fine, that now I recognize was really selfish/sinful. Wish I had listened to the Textbook. There are other things where I now understand I was just readin' things wrong, because I brought too much of my own baggage to the text. It happens. Beavah

Yah, FScouter, what straw man do yeh see here? Thomas54 and JoeBob both report that two councils in different parts of da country both interpret G2SS to prohibit water pistols as simulated firearms, and have eliminated activities and prevented youth from "carrying". So it ain't hypothetical, it's real. Glad to know you're embarrassed by it, though. I think we all should be. Beavah

How would you feel if, in your role as adult leader, a youth presents the same challenge to you when you speak of a Scouting "rule"? What, yeh mean that somewhere there are scouts that don't challenge rules? Better not let that secret get out. I think da difference is that scouters workin' in units don't generally write rules down. Leastways, not unless they're in one of those units that has a 250 page unit bylaws/handbook thing. It's just an adult or SPL or PLC that has program authority for that group that makes da rules. Challenges are fine for da most part, but they're more based on reasoning ("Why is this a good rule?") than whether the person actually has a written authority. Most of the BSA-rule stuff happens when some trainer or other district or council scouter dreams up some new thing and then falsely claims that it's a BSA rule. Sometimes that happens at units, too, eh? I reckon it's generally because the person doesn't really have the gumption to be honest and just stand on his/her own two feet and say they'd like to do it this way for this reason. Instead they want to appeal to "authority". Usin' the old "Where's it written?" line sometimes works to get 'em off your case, but da real problem is re-educatin' (or removin') them so that yeh get a more service-minded, principled, or rational approach. Beavah

Did not last years brochures show a cup scout with a marshmellow gun shooting at the camera? Yah, da cub can use a marshmallow gun, just so long as it is used on an approved range shootin' at designated marshmallow targets. I feel for RichardB tryin' to defend this nonsense because from what I understand the Risk Management group tried to reverse the position and create more sanity years ago. Honestly, the whole thing should just be deleted, or perhaps paintball should be limited to "a commercially run paintball establishment providing appropriate protective gear" or somesuch. There's no safety issue here, and as close as I can tell our reputation is hurt more by this silly stuff than it's helped. I like Get Outdoors, though, eh? Arm your scouts with "Heat illness preparedness and prevention devices." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If flying is just to aggitating for people, they can drive, take a bus or ride in a train. And where does it end, ScoutFish? Yeh don't need to fly for your job, I get that. So you don't feel it's important to protect your fellow citizens who do. I get that, too. But we saw in Oklahoma City that yeh can do quite a bit of damage with a car or a truck, eh? So can I send my federal agents to da end of your street to take your car apart and frisk your wife randomly? After all, driving on government-provided roads is a privilege. If she doesn't want to be subject to frisking she can walk or ride a bike. Too bad if that costs her her job. Anyone who lives in a town near train tracks could potentially be carrying a bomb that could derail a train and kill hundreds or thousands of people. So no walkin', skateboardin', or biking without being X-rayed and frisked by passing government agents whenever they want. After all, walkin', skateboardin' or biking is a privilege unless you're on your own private property. If yeh don't want da aggravation, yeh shouldn't live in any city or town or part of da countryside served by rail lines, or yeh should stay home. Too bad if that costs 90% of the country their jobs and homes. And if yeh don't think that givin' government agents that kind of power will inevitably lead to abuse, I point yeh to the entire history of humanity on the planet. Allowin' da federal agent to frisk your wife means allowin' the guy two years ahead of your daughter in school to "frisk" her repeatedly for fun once he puts on a uniform. Allowin' da federal agent to delay you means allowin' da Obama federal agent to delay a Republican adversary and his family. Don't think for a minute that all of the neighborhoods or people chosen for "random" security checks are goin' to be random. So where does it stop? How much abuse of your fellow citizens, how much dismantling of American Liberty are yeh willing to tolerate in exchange for no demonstrable improvement in security whatsoever? That's why we have da 9th Amendment, eh? The right to travel, to make use of public conveyances and such without undue impediment is in fact a right. Allowin' Congress to infringe on such is fundamentally unAmerican or at least not very conservative, which some might argue amounts to da same thing. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

And we've seen what the alternative is. Nah, not at all. Da problem of guys with boxcutters or other small hand weapons takin' control of a plane to run it into buildings was solved in October of 2001 by hardening the cockpit doors and door locks. Ever since then the sort of attack used on September 11 has been impossible. And actually, if yeh think about it, even without hardened cockpit doors 9/11 became impossible on 9/11 with Flight 93. Up until then, the advice given passengers and crew members was always to go along with hijackers, because they tended to be odd, confused sorts of people and that was the safe thing to do. After 9/11, the standard response became for passengers and crew to aggressively resist. And that, by itself, without any additional security, would prevent another 9/11. As demonstrated when Akhmed the Village Idiot tried to blow up his shoe and was immediately taken down by his fellow passengers. The strength and safety of America is its citizens, not its government. So da TSA security theater does nothing to prevent another 9/11. That problem was solved on 9/12 by simple changes to cockpit doors and how crews and passengers respond. In fact, from what was found in Bin Laden's place, Al Queda long since recognized that and moved on to other targets like trains. You'd be amazed at da dangerous toxic gunk transported by rail across this country. The right hit and we'd be evacuatin' whole cities. So all TSA is accomplishin' is making folks annoyed and frustrated by unnecessary and irrelevant security measures. That doesn't enhance our security, it weakens it, eh? Because real security depends on an alert, responsive, and collaborative citizenry. The sort of things that America and Americans are best at, at least when they're not bein' harassed and distracted by government agents feelin' up their daughter or their grandmother. Beavah

I fail to see how a water gun is a "simulated firearm". Yah, you and da rest of the universe with a functional IQ above 25, eh? . Whether it's a super soaker or an electronic toy. Since there's no substantive safety issue with any of da "simulated firearms", speculative consensus is that this is somethin' between a fear that if yeh allow boys to point squirt guns or laser toys or cap guns at each other that it somehow means they'll point real firearms at each other on da rifle range, and a belief that allowin' lads in uniform to run around with toy weapons makes da BSA look too "militaristic", at least to a couple of large donors That's all just speculation though. Only thing official to come out of Irving is da bogus safety claim. It's hard to avoid Twomorrow's conclusion, eh? Me, I don't enforce any of da simulated firearm nonsense. Gave up years ago when it got extended to marshmallow guns. I think across da country that's been da consensus at the unit level for some time. Most folks just ignore da whole thing, or at most interpret it as just meaning paintball and run that "unofficially" if they want. But at da council level, there's always more pressure to tow the line, eh? Kudos to your scout for handling another adult absurdity with obedience and grace. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... I think Alabama makes a worthy point, eh? Every SM should be conscious of da fact that new parents are like first-year boys, eh? They don't know anything yet, so da "stock answers" like "ask the PL" can come across as a bit clipped or annoying. I think yeh solve lots of that with some good materials to give new parents and a required orientation, eh? It's especially helpful to have an old parent or two get up and talk about how awkward they felt when the SM told them to have their son do it, or call his PL or whatever, but how surprised and proud they were when their son did do it, and how much it meant to his growth and self confidence. Parents need a bit of a fellow-parent-non-scouter support group to help with da transition. I think scoutridge makes a worthy point too, eh? Scouting is like school or a sports team or a band program. It's an activity run by others that's offered to families. Just like da other youth programs it has its own rules and expectations. If yeh yell at da ref, yeh get ejected. He or she works for da program, not for your family. In da case of scouting, it's a program run by volunteers out of the kindness of their heart, who spend hundreds to thousands of dollars of their own money and hundreds of hours of time away from their own family just to provide a below-market-cost program to your son and family. Da proper response is "Thank you so much!", with a healthy dollop of sympathy and understanding for when da scouter is tired or curt. Here's some other good guidelines, whether you're dealin' with Scoutmasters or coaches or whatnot: Don't approach 'em when they're with kids. When they're with kids they have to be focused on the kids, eh? Save your question for genuine down time well after the end of the meeting when the SM has the luxury of bein' able to give you his full attention. Use your resources. Da SM/coach/band director isn't there to answer your every question on demand, and it's unreasonable to expect 'em to. Yah, yah, it feels like just a quick question from you, but if every parent does it the poor person's time to get home and see his own kids is quickly eaten up. Read the manual. Call another parent in the program (your troop might have a scout parents unit coordinator, for example). "Have your son call his PL" is just a gentle way of redirecting yeh to other, more appropriate and responsive resources. Start with a thank you rather than a demand, and sometimes say thank you without having a question or request. People respond best to supporters, eh? And they tend to treat folks who bring nothing but problems as ... problems. I always tell new people to a program that they're not allowed to complain about or try to change anything until they've first identified and given recognition to all of the good things that should not be changed When yeh notice a weakness, a tired, snappy coach, a stressed band director, your first instinct should be "How can I help?" rather than to start complainin' or pointin' out faults. How can I strengthen the community for everyone rather than choose sides? . Yep, it's your responsibility to raise your family, eh? But if yeh want anyone else to help with that, whether it's da school teacher or coach or SM, then yeh have to conform your family behaviors and expectations to what they're offering, not vice versa. Yeh accept the stuff that doesn't work for yeh as part of the cost for the other benefits yeh receive. Beavah

LOL. Yah, it's not so much da rules of the road as it is the culture of (relative) driving civility. Yeh should try Greece sometime, SA. It'll make your Chinese experience look like sedate grandmothers driving. Beavah

Sigh. How quickly we forget that any power or right we surrender to the government can be used by that same government against us and our family/friends as to "protect" us. If yeh want a government that controls commercial transactions and travel, yeh need to move to China. Or just take a look at what's goin' on in places like Syria right now. Or look at uniformed agents of the government abusing elderly cancer patients, groping children, and harassing fellow citizens. I think we have to be careful about eroding rights that we as individuals don't have personal interest in. If you've never protested anything, then it's easy to say "you don't have to assemble to petition the government for redress of grievances." If you've never written anything, it's easy to say "you don't have to write and publish freely in the press." Yeh can always talk quietly in hushed voices in a private closet in your house. Same with non-enumerated rights, which are inherently public, not private. You personally might not have to travel or fly, but some folks most certainly do have to fly. They have jobs that require it. They need advanced medical treatment only available elsewhere. Da bulk of paid commercial air travel is business travel, not vacations, eh? Yeh can't take your skateboard to the business meeting in NYC. Just because you don't happen to value a particular right or activity, doesn't mean that it isn't vital to someone else... or to the economy/nation at large. People I know are being hurt, eh? Elderly women are being abused. Children are being groped. Uniformed agents are harassing our fellow citizens, like packsaddle and his students. On and on. Real harm. Real damage to society. Occurring every day. And all being endorsed and condoned by well-meaning but foolish folks who will ignore any real, present harm because they are wet-their-pants-terrified of fictional risks from a mostly defunct bunch of upset goat herders in the Afghan mountains. I reckon perhaps we've been too wealthy for too long in da U.S. We need to be reminded that strength comes not from protecting what we've "got", but by protecting who we are. I agree 100% with JoeBob, eh? Ten private companies doin' different things and responsive to the airlines whose business relies on maintaining the goodwill of da passengers would be far more effective... and polite. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The competency expected is that you do what the requirement says. Nothing more, nothing less to satisfy the requirement. Yah, that reminds me of da fellows who come drifting over a town in a balloon. Having gotten themselves a bit turned around, they shout down to a fellow below, "Excuse me, sir! Can you tell us where we are." "Yes, of course I can! You're in a balloon!" The balloonist turns to his buddy and says, "That fellow must be a council scouter. His answer is perfectly accurate and totally useless." What The Blancmange and others are talkin' about is interpretation of the requirements, eh? So when First Aid MB says "prepare a first aid kit for your home" (and display and discuss its contents), does that mean the lad can put a couple of bandaids in a zip lock with an alcohol wipe? When later on the requirement says "Explain what action you should take for someone who shows signals (side note: signals??) of shock" does that mean the lad can just say "I'd raise his legs"? Or does it mean that the lad has to know enough to recognize what type of shock and respond appropriately? After all, raising the legs of someone in neurogenic shock from a brain injury might worsen the problem. When it says "show the steps that need to be taken for someone suffering a severe cut on the leg" does that mean he's expected to demonstrate exposing the artery and properly placing a vascular clamp? Yeh can go on and on with this stuff, for almost any badge. The requirements offer an outline or guide to components that make up basic proficiency in a skill, eh? But they really aren't an actual standard of performance, eh? That's left to the MB counselor. Beavah

Yah, I agree with lighter shafts for kids... and properly sized arrows. The high initial wobble, though, strikes me as a technique issue with the release, or perhaps improper nocking. Younger fellows with low draw strength bows aren't goin' to get the kind of arrow speeds where any fletching can provide a strong correction. Yeh might try usin' mechanical releases to see how much they help, eh? That would give yeh a sense for how much workin' with the boys on release technique could improve things. B

Yah, shortridge, I sorta agree with you, eh? One can argue, though, that many acts of actual corporate governance by the private board even of a NFP should properly be limited in distribution. For example, if national is considerin' buying property around The Summit, being open about that might cause speculation on the price. There's a difference, though, when you're talkin' about program committees and working groups like the Advancement folks. That's just materials development, not corporate governance. There's no reason to keep that "closed", especially in the BSA where there isn't any competitive pressure because of its monopoly status. In fact one would expect that the members of those bodies would be actively soliciting opinions from the people they represent, don't yeh think? Of course aside from perhaps being good practice, there's nuthin' that compels 'em to be open. They should, however, be compelled to align what they do with the Mission, Values, Rules & Regulations of the BSA. Beavah