saltheart

Rarely did I have the occassion to give another the opportunity to impart the "minute" to the Scouts. Although I did have a handsome corps of adult leaders, few ever gave thought to the notion that they might participate in that arena. But every once in a while one of them stepped forward, usually with something on their mind regarding a past or upcoming event in the troop for which they felt they had sage advice to share. And I never refused the opportunity, for being as rare as they were, I knew the subject they felt keen on speaking to was important to them, and the boys. Regarding the whole notion of the SM minute, I always felt that the last 10 minutes or so of the meetings was, indeed, the SM's time for sharing and speaking directly to the Scouts, as a group. Whether or not that time included the traditional SM minute (it usually did) pretty much depended on the situation, and who else might desire time to share a thought with the troop. There was no hard and fast rule that only the SM could play that role. Certainly, if the SM were ill, another would have to take the part for the night. And as such, I did not hold fast to any rule in that regard other than the last 10 minutes were mine...for whatever purpose I felt necessary or appropriate .

While perusing the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists within these forums, and stumbling upon this thread, I am reminded of how, as a Scoutmaster, I used to have a couple of standard questions that I'd ask each and every Scout in SM conferences. I especially liked to use one of them when I sat on Eagle Boards of Review in the many troops in and out of our District. That one questions was... "Quickly, tell me which one of the 12 points of the Scout Law is most important to you, and why." The object was to not allow the Scouts great lengths of time to think, but to get their first impressions, and gut reactions. At first, when I was a novice SM, the question was simply one on the list of things to ask, and I made no notes in my written or mental diary of the boys and their growth. As time went by, the questions, especially a couple like this one, took on meaning that I could not explain to others, only to say that I cared not what word the Scout chose, for they are all equally important in my mind. What was important was the why. Why did the boy choose that word. The reasons given to my question, "...and why?". As each boy grew, through those answers, not the choice of word, I found I was able to glean more insight into how the boy grew, how Scouting might have impacted him, and how he might proceed from that day forth. And my little written and mental diary became quite important as I watched each boy grow to be a young man, Eagle or not. I was, and still am convinced that there is no one most important word in the Law. That "importance", if we must seek it, is in the meaning the Scout finds in the word, not the choice of word.

...and that was my assumption all the time...

In some ways, I often feel a sense of sadness for those who opt to make a career out of that which they love...Scouting. It is a very limited market and employment opportunites can be scarce. Moving up the ladder within is unlike the ladder outside the organization. It has fewer rungs to climb, and they're scattered hither and yon. For one entering the realm of Professional Scouting, he/she must resolve that employment and/or residence in one location may be a fleeting notion if upward mobility and higher wages are to be. It's really unfortunate, but within the community of Scouting, small compared to other communities of employment, opportunity to climb the ladder knocks infrequently, and usually the call comes from afar. OGE's observation is, sadly, not specific to his district, but rather to the specific to the trade. And it always will be. Just about the time we realize that the DE fits the bill seemingly to perfection, the door opens for him to grow....elsewhere. And we can only hope that the shoes left behind to fill, can be.

Personally, I think a knife is a knife is a knife....except when it's a sword. And that, I believe, is where the intent of the phrase "...does not encourage the use of large sheath knives" lies. I have a rather large collection of knives. Each and every one has a purpose. Each and every one was purchased with a need or plan in mind. None of them are swords. None of them are "Rambo" beasts. None of them are cheap, overly fancy, good-for-nothing-but-looking-at knives like some of the junk one sees in stores or in magazines. Oh, and many of them are folding knives. But the greater percentage are fixed blade sheath knives. And I've used them camping for many years. I've never taken more than 2 on any trip. And if I take 2, one is small and folding, and the other is larger and fixed. I use them for cooking, for firewood preparation, for trail clearing (if necessary), for tent stake making, for plain ol' whittlin', and for just about any purpose I might need a tool. Keeps the load light if I have one thing that can do many, many things. And that is the sense of importance and place and need I used to impress upon both the Scouts in the troop, and the parents of the Scouts in the troop when discussing equipment needs and safety. I had a habit of matching the boy to the tool in my mind. Watching early on how he handled himself, how he paid attention (or not) when working at meetings and on trips. Picking out the little character traits and behavioral patterns in the first year. Watching to see what importance each Scout placed on the equipment he used, the rules of such use, and both the written and taught, and the common sense safety rules that ran throughout the troop. I never told a Scout he could not have or use this or that knife in the troop. But using my observations (and those of the SPL who was taught to "see" his fellow Scouts in a hopefully similar fashion) the "needs" of each Scout were attended to by the adult leadership, the senior Scout leadership, and the parent corps. If there's one thing I'm proud of regarding my tenure with the troop, it's that the "suggestions" made by those "attending" to the path each Scout walked, and examples set by those each Scout followed, created an environment where things that were not necessary for life in Scouting or in the woods were hardly ever around. No Gameboys. No loud radios. And no swords. Sheath knives were there. And they were used for the Scouting purposes necessary. That's all. As with any material possession in life, what one uses it for comes in large measure from how one is taught to use it, and the opportunites one is given to practice that use, be observed, retrained when necessary, and held accountable for his actions. Knives are no different. And for my money, I always preferred that the boys learned the "how and where" of knives in Scouting, not on the street or somewhere else.

Every once in a great while, something crosses my desk (screen) that takes my breath away, and gives me a reason to pause, and lose myself in wonder. Such a thing came my way this morning. Perhaps you've seen it...if not, I offer it as a means to take a moment away from your daily regimen and toil, and pause... ...and wonder... http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com Peace...enjoy.

DS, I have nothing but the utmost respect for adult volunteers in Scouting. And I don't think I'm selling them short at all. They all have opinions on the subject, but if most are like me, and the many I know, we find it easier and more comfortable to sit on the sidelines and discuss things amongst ourselves privately, rather than standing in the light that Mr. Sibler has placed himself squarely in. My posted thoughts are simply that, posted thoughts wishing that there could be one loud and public voice by the hundreds of thousands of volunteers to look the opposition straight in the eye and say, "Now you wait just a minute there friend while we explain things to you, and let you know why we hold Scouting so dear." Perhaps that's just foolish wishing. But I do think a common voice of loud support by volunteers in a public manner would be a force to be reckoned with. And you're right, I do have quite a bit of respect for the paid pro's. Certainly I've met a couple in my years that weren't worthy of the position they held, but the large majority have diligently approached their careers as more of a 24/7 thing than most of us do. They get paid to perform a certain set of tasks, but those tasks, at least in our area, never provide for a 9-5 job. I respect those who can do so much...for so little in compensation. I was offered a professional position many years ago when our particular business croaked, and I was one of many out of work. After the initial interviews with the folks at the Council office, I had to say thanks but no thanks, and I stood in awe of those who could make a living with a family on the wages paid, and the hours committed. I still do. I couldn't make ends meet within that structure, so I had to take another path. My opinion on the issue of gays and religion in Scouting is immaterial to this part of the discussion. But my opinion on where the professional stands in the line of fire is material to the discussion. The professional can not speak from the heart, only from the perspective of the employed, no matter where his/her heart is. The opposition and media will always see the professional opinion as that which protects a career and a profession, not heart and soul of the organization. Only the truly committed volunteer participant can infuse the discussion and argument with the passionate POV that comes with the territory. The professional can take off the hat and robes of the position and speak from a different stance, but he's still the pro. When the opposition has marched up to the door, bent on casting down the doors that define the organization, the only defense will be in the large numbers of those who love the organization enough to stand firmly in support, and vocally is the best start. Aa far as I have been able to detect in my short tenure here, you are the only admitted professional participating in the forum. Perhaps Bob White is also, but haven't run across the admission. I quite honestly respect your position and your reasons for not joining the fray vocally, whatever those reasons are. I'm sure you're actually bustin' at the seams to speak, and perhaps someday you will. I look forward to that possibility, but do not require it. As you are, is fine by me. I have, myself, deleted far more than the long-winded posts I've presented thus far...type...think...delete...retype...THINK...etc. It works for me, although I'm probably still far too apt to mouth off when prudence would dictate silence, closed mouth, fingers in pockets not on keyboard, and eyes and ears open. "Coward" is hardly a term I would attach to anyone who picks up the baton to pass along within this thread, or any thread dealing with such fragile and emotional issues. Certainly not you. A better way of looking at your position might be as one who sits and ponders, until his moment arrives. Peace.

Figures...I posted this in another thread, but I suppose it belongs there as much as here...so, begging your pardon, I'll repeat it here, too... I attended my first Wood Badge many years ago, when the sun and moon were still brand new...or so it seems. Since then, if there's anything about WB that this four-beader has learned about the course, it's that a well constructed and presented course is just chock full of subtleties. And a learner going through the course looking simply for the questions and answers, the right and wrong, the left and right and up and down, will miss them completely. That is especially true with someone who enters the course with preconcieved notions and misinformation about the course. And knowing a little about the course, rather than starting as an eager blank slate can be starting with misinformation. Folks shouldn't look to deeply or seriously into the realm of Wood Badge and what some call it's mysteries, even when they finally get there and start their own very first day in the course. Tis best just to let it happen, enjoy it, participate fully and enthusiastically, ready and willing to go wherever the course takes them...looking certainly at, but also beyond the obvious. That is where the secrets of Wood Badge lie, and no one can tell you exactly what they are, for they're very different for each and every participant. Just enjoy it.

I attended my first Wood Badge many years ago, when the sun and moon were still brand new...or so it seems. Since then, if there's anything about WB that this four-beader has learned about the course, it's that a well constructed and presented course is just chock full of subtleties. And a learner going through the course looking simply for the questions and answers, the right and wrong, the left and right and up and down, will miss them completely. That is especially true with someone who enters the course with preconcieved notions and misinformation about the course. And knowing a little about the course, rather than starting as an eager blank slate can be starting with misinformation. Folks shouldn't look to deeply or seriously into the realm of Wood Badge and what some call it's mysteries, even when they finally get there and start their own very first day in the course. Tis best just to let it happen, enjoy it, participate fully and enthusiastically, ready and willing to go wherever the course takes them...looking certainly at, but also beyond the obvious. That is where the secrets of Wood Badge lie, and no one can tell you exactly what they are, for they're very different for each and every participant. Just enjoy it.

It should be remembered that in both cases here, Philly and Boston, only the Boards have been heard from thus far. Not the rank and file. Not the 87,000 members of the Philly Council, nor the thousands within the Boston Council. When the cards are finally laid on the table, and the question is called within each council, as it ultimately will be if by no other means than public sentiment and opinion within the ranks of volunteers and parents, then and only then will we know where each membership stands. The Council is nothing without it's membership. And experience teaches me that the Boards do not have their ears to the rank and file sufficiently to "know" what the rank and file's thoughts are. When the issue comes to the fore within each council, the memberships will speak.

There are times when one needs to call a spade a shovel, and Mr. Silber apparently had reached that point. I do believe he employed good judgement in his presentation and argument. I do believe he left no unanswered questions. And I do believe there will be thousands of cheering volunteers out there who will be grateful that someone, even if he's only the Council President (thanks for pointing that out DS), finally stood up and gave back some of what has been dished out against the BSA. There is no longer any time to sit this one out and just let the other side shovel their public nonsense against the BSA with impunity. The BSA, as professionals, must stand stalwart and maintain their decorum. The volunteers, those millions who man the stations to keep the organization alive for the boys, are very much better suited to take the argument right back at the opponents. And I cheer Mr. Silber for having more guts than I (to date) in standing up to be counted on the side of Scouting with no ifs, ands or buts. No one can doubt his stand. And, if you think about it, that all by itself is mainly the reason that the tide continues to rise against the BSA. For the only outspoken folks so far have been those who can least afford to speak their minds in a fashion that the other side would understand. There has been no tsunami of volunteers revelling in and putting very public voice to the joys of Scouting in such a public way as Mr. Silber in defense of Scouting. Light dawns on MarbleHead here...and I now believe that were there to be such a public outcry and voice by the thousands and thousands (perhaps millions) of volunteers in defense of Scouting, and is praise of it's program, methods, and goals, in even half as public a manner as Mr. Silber, the opposition would realize that they are not dealing with a paper tiger. There is, indeed, power in numbers. And I believe that the "numbers" within the Scouting community have yet to make themselves known in the forum where this argument with the UW is being conducted. Silence is not golden in this realm, at this time.

Yes, it's refreshing to actually hear an executive speak in a manner akin to the rank and file ... angry and driving the point home while trying to clear the air on the subject, leaving no doubts about the stand. I respect that. As to the donation thing, and the UW...it has always been my practice, and I shared this with my children, that when I have money to donate to a specific cause, I donate "directly" to that specific cause. Not through middlemen like the UW. I believe direct donation gets a bigger bang for the buck.

The honor is in the fact that no matter your prior reasons for having to leave, those who are putting together the staff and course this time feel that your skills, your experience, your enthusiasm, your leadership, and just plain "you" are just the kind of person they want on staff. And, having served on many a WB course in every position, I know that means a lot. Congrats.

Good food for thought, dsteele. I've been around Scouting for, well, let's just say a very long time... And, to use a rather ill-suited rhetorical phrase, perhaps we've gotten just a little too fat and happy in our reliance upon funding from middlemen charity like the United Way. And, given that the issues raised by the BSA stand on gays in Scouting (which I support, by the way), the problems with the United Way using what it deems to be its big stick with which to beat the BSA into submission will not disappear, ever. As long as there are those both in and out of the United Way who will seek to wield that stick, Scouting will have a funding problem. We can't beat that. And we're not about to change our ways. So, what to do? Having no specific answers, I can only offer my thoughts that the BSA, all of us, may have to suck it up for the short term before United Way funding disappears altogether, which it will, and find other sources, or make them. This is very much akin to our country's problem with reliance on foriegn oil. We need to find sources of oil and other energies that will make us unreliant upon those things we can not control. Same thing here in Scouting. The program and the organization are far too valuable to change just to please those that would have us do that. They're also far too valuable too allow a wooden stake (named United Way funding) to be driven into the heart of the organization. We need to seek other resources. As dsteele alluded to, getting there may hurt a bit...or a lot depending on how vigorously and enthusiastically we give our energies to finding solutions. But, as I believe that the US can find its way to being far less dependent on foriegn oil, I also believe that the BSA (you and I and the whole crowd and program) can find its way to being close to self-sufficient as compared to now. The courts have agreed that we have the freedom of association. The other side also has the right to send their money elsewhere. Those that truly believe in the BSA can avoid the likes of the United Way and donate directly to the BSA. (I do that anyway. Always have, with each and every charity I support. No middlemen like the United Way necessary.) So, we need to start the hunt. Actually, we're late getting started, and the other side has a clear advantage at the moment. So, I'll put the thinking cap on with others in our Council. You?

Absolutely this is a black and white issue. We can not and should not set ourselves in the position of keeping secrets from parents, unless, and only unless an abusive relationship between child and parent is suspected. In that circumstance we have pretty specific legal obligations to report to authorities. Youth Protection training should be teaching us that. But we are not trained nor are we licensed to maintain a Scout Leader / Scout relationship of the same nature as client / attorney, or doctor / patient, or even that of Priest / Parishioner at Confession. Were not tattle-tales all. Were not all going to report to Moms & Dads that Johnny has a crush on Suzie. But out of simple respect for the authority and responsibilities of parenthood, we must afford that respect to the parents of those in our care in Scouting as we would expect afforded to ourselves. There can be no confidentiality curtain imposed by an adult leader between a parent and his/her child. That charge was never given us by the BSA, nor anyone connected to Scouting. Should an adult leader choose to impose that curtain, secretly or otherwise, he/she does so at their own peril. I would suggest that the answer to Bobs query is that the leader who attempted to impose such a curtain of confidentiality between parent and child through Scouting would not serve long in his/her position, or boys would be leaving the troop not by their own choice. There may very well be parents out there who would be quite at ease knowing that a Scoutmaster is keeping secrets about their son from them. But I somehow have doubts that any of them post in these forums.

Figures...I posted this in the "other" thread, only to find this one now. I'll take the risk and post it here also.... Just some food for thought, (interjecting himself warily into the discussion...) As a Scout Leader I always made it my business to bring the Scouts to the understanding that I was their Scoutmaster, a mentor, a guide, (hopefully) a good example to follow, and perhaps a friend. But I also did my best to include in that understanding that I was not their "best friend" as one of their peers might be. I was still an adult. Still (usually) a member of the their parents generation. Responsible for their care while with me, but ultimately responsible to their parents as to things that transpired within the troop while they were there...the good, the bad, and the questionable. I never defined for them where the line was that, once crossed, would obligate me to talking to Mom & Dad, as I knew I must, as these boys were not my sons, and I could not, under any circumstances, name myself to the rank of parent. The boys understood this, and the conversations we had were always with that understanding. What I found in my years was that, if anything, it helped to get the boys to "think" when talking to adults in the troop. And I don't think it ever kept the boys from discussing issues that they might not feel comfortable talking to their parents about at the outset. It may have been that they used me (and the other adult leaders) as sounding boards prior to taking the discussion home...as was always encouraged by us because with important issues, Mom & Dad needed to play their part. Our part, my part, was more akin to facilitator in bringing the boy to the point where he knew he must travel that path. A key element for me in this was the realization that setting the example included, in part, showing my charges that making tough decisions that might involve some personal pain and anguish between the start and the resolution of discussing issues with parents. I believed then, as I do now, that boys and girls, and even adults who have not yet learned, can become stronger and more confident when facing their issues head on with the confidence that the road they travel, no matter how bumpy, is that which they must pass.

Just some food for thought, (interjecting himself warily into the discussion...) As a Scout Leader I always made it my business to bring the Scouts to the understanding that I was their Scoutmaster, a mentor, a guide, (hopefully) a good example to follow, and perhaps a friend. But I also did my best to include in that understanding that I was not their "best friend" as one of their peers might be. I was still an adult. Still (usually) a member of the their parents generation. Responsible for their care while with me, but ultimately responsible to their parents as to things that transpired within the troop while they were there...the good, the bad, and the questionable. I never defined for them where the line was that, once crossed, would obligate me to talking to Mom & Dad, as I knew I must, as these boys were not my sons, and I could not, under any circumstances, name myself to the rank of parent. The boys understood this, and the conversations we had were always with that understanding. What I found in my years was that, if anything, it helped to get the boys to "think" when talking to adults in the troop. And I don't think it ever kept the boys from discussing issues that they might not feel comfortable talking to their parents about at the outset. It may have been that they used me (and the other adult leaders) as sounding boards prior to taking the discussion home...as was always encouraged by us because with important issues, Mom & Dad needed to play their part. Our part, my part, was more akin to facilitator in bringing the boy to the point where he knew he must travel that path. A key element for me in this was the realization that setting the example included, in part, showing my charges that making tough decisions that might involve some personal pain and anguish between the start and the resolution of discussing issues with parents. I believed then, as I do now, that boys and girls, and even adults who have not yet learned, can become stronger and more confident when facing their issues head on with the confidence that the road they travel, no matter how bumpy, is that which they must pass.

Ummmm...folks, I think if you go back and re-read my post you'll find that it was the University of Massachusetts (UMASS) that I referred to as being where the name issue lay...not the Minuteman Council. Lord, no. To my knowledge there's no issue there.....yet. And I hope it stays that way. Be that as it may, the point is still the same. There is a move afoot across this country to sterilize our history to be nothing more than "feel good" memories. And that is just a little bit more than scary. Towards the end of my first post, I referred to a fear that school books shall soon be thus homogenized, and students in the future will not learn the same history we (old-timers) learned. It's happening already, in California. The State Board of Education in that state has already undertaken the effort. It's not too hard to see where this may be going.

Some folks get all the excitement... Our ordeal overnight, with only the sleeping bag, presented us with perfectly clear skies, fall moon bright and clear (like a light bulb in your face), cool temperatures and no bugs, and soft sweet meadow grass on which to make a bed. Ah yes...I remember it well. Of course, many I participated in after that were downpours at 2:00AM. Guess we were just lucky.

Very well said, Mark. I'm a life-long northerner (Massachusetts), and also have little reason to sympathize. But history is still history. And It's our history, whether we like it or not. I would also agree with TwoCubDad. We seem to be approaching the precipice where our history will become little more than feel-good and sterile. And it will not be only those we percieve now a "evil" that will be removed from the public view and speech. It will be those for whom we've held high regard. Witness the very recent debacle here in Massachusetts where a vocal few sought to have the team name for UMASS teams changed from "Minutemen" to "Wolves". Wolves have very little to do with our state history, human or natural. Minutemen have everything to do with our history. But... The Minuteman was white. And so the vocal few object. The Minuteman was male. And so the vocal few object. And the Minuteman has a gun. So the objections multiply. Fortunately, cooler and clearer thinking head prevailed. But why did we get to that precipice at all? I have this fear that down the road a piece, the public objection to those like Lee may translate to even more sterile school books where some, like Lee, will be removed altogether. But the masses will feel so much better. Sad that we have chosen to trod that path.

Too much money? Yeah, I'd side with those who might think that a troop can, indeed, have too much money. IMHO, fund raising should be target specific. A troop running any type of fund raising effort(s) should have a real target for the money raised, not just the idea of having tons of money in the bank. Therefore, as much as it might not be against the rules, I'd never approve of an effort by my troop to raise money so that it could have $50,000 in CD's. The policy we've maintained over the years, the good ones and the bad, in as much as we could keep to the target, was to raise sufficient funding to run the troops basic program...awards, ceremonies, some trip subsidizing (but not a lot), equipment, etc. Our target budget was about $5000 a year. And our written and stated goal was to spend all of it, each year, for the scouts who earned it. Of course, we had a separate account with an extra $1000 for emergency equipment replacement, repair, things like that. But beyond that, none of us felt comfortable with raising money for the sake of seeing how big a pot we could raise. We were quite comfortable with what we had, and we used it well. Special situations and circumstances arose from time to time requiring extra funding, and we attended to that on an as need basis. We were (and still are) quite fortunate to have a group of alumni parents who no longer had sons in the troop who were always there to help when necessary, though. Every year that I can remember, we had Scouts who had needs beyond the normal...Dad lost his job, family circumstances not good, separations, divorces, and those who were just plain really needy. And for those folks, this special group always had money to burn by way of donation to the troop to help those in need in the troop family. No questions were asked. Special circumstances. Special methods employed to keep issues and needs private. No embarrasment for anyone. That's where the monies came from and how they were spent. And we still follow that. It works for us, and the money is just enough. Guess I'm not sold on having too much more than enough. But, that's just me.

The notion of voluntary term limits is fine...for districts and councils where "volunteering" for the duties and offices at those levels presents ample and qualified candidates. But in some areas, like our council, many times the district offices would go unfilled were anything mandatory to be the rule. And this does not even begin to address the issue of talent and enthusiasm. In those same offices, when a good qualified person is found, it's hard to say "time to go" after a certain period knowing that filling the opening again will be like pulling teeth.

So many jokes..... So little time......

Absolutely it was the boys idea...er..should I say "realization". As I said, years ago, when the whole tradition started, it was the Scouts who voted not to hold weekly meetings during the summer. "Fine", I said, "what will you do?" That was when they informed me that they intended to keep the monthly outing schedule going so as to not miss a month of the year when they would be out camping...together, as a troop. "Great", I said, "go for it". Then, shortly thereafter, the SPL contacted me saying the he wanted to schedule a planning meeting for that years June trip. Well, one thing lead to another, and soon he realized that the planning would take as much time and effort as it during the other 9 months. And, the meetings just kept happening. To be sure, only those Scouts who were going on the trip attended, and that was less than the troops full strength of 70-75. But we usually had somewhere between 30-45 Scouts on any given summer trip/event. So the planning and preparation was as in-depth and necessary as during the "regular" Scout year. In the long run, even when the troop as a whole voted to "take the summers off", there were those who wanted to keep the campouts going. The older Scouts came to understand what that meant in terms of "taking the summer off". The younger ones, who wanted to camp, came to learn the same thing, every year. Some years the numbers were higher, some years lower. But the notion of "taking time off" maintained the same meaning. By the way, the question was put to the troop by the SPL each and every year..."shall we take the summer off, or keep the weekly meetings going?" The answer was the same almost every year. I do recall a couple of years when, for whatever reason, the troop voted not to stop, even knowing that many of them would be unavailable due to family commitments and vacations, etc. And I never ceased be amazed.

Our troop always takes the summer off. The Scouts decided years ago that they wanted June, July, and August for themselves. Except for the monthly camping trip, that is... And the planning meetings that would necessarily take place for each camping trip... And the gear preparation meetings that would necessarily take place for each camping tip... And the last minute inspection meeting that would necessarily take place for each camping trip... It was in the late 1970's that one vigilant and observant Scout noticed that the meetings required to put together summer trips amounted to meeting once a week...like regular meetings...the ones they opted not to do so they would have the summer for themselves. He mentioned it to the SM, (me), who just smiled. And he kept his mouth shut. Since that time, every once in a while, one or two Scouts, well schooled in the art of observation, will pick up on the obvious. The look on the face when the light comes on is precious. But each in his place has kept his mouth shut, and just moved forward....smiling.