sherminator505

"The current Wood Badge course isn't intended to teach what these other courses teach. It's stated purpose is different. I don't understand why so many Scouters misunderstand it's intent and purpose." I don't think that the new course's purpose and intent is misunderstood. What I think is misunderstood by many Scouters (including myself) is why the course was changed so radically, or why this kind of advanced training is being held up as preferable to advanced outdoor training, or why there isn't more emphasis being placed on traditional Scouting.

?

I think I may already know the answer to this one, but are Scouts in Venture Patrols within troops allowed to work on Venturing awards?

"However, your inflammatory rhetoric does so to the BSA which is merely exercising its' constitutional right of free expression." I think the phrase you are looking for is "free exercise."

We have a few too many hats as it is! Specifically, why do we have a different hat for every year of Cub Scouts? Overkill much?

This is a moot point where I live... I can hop in the car, drive two hours in any direction, and be well within council borders. One hour scarcely gets me out of my district.

"I think Wood Badge should take up the pre-1972 Curriculum, the one Kudu advocates and the current 21rst Century curriculum can become the Ernest Thompson Seton award. Rather than wooden beads, graduates of the course would wear tiny flash drives on leather thongs around their neck." Oh, were it just that easy! Anyone know where I might find the pre-1972 syllabus?

Beavah, I agree with what you're saying, except for one thing. I have three children in public school, and it has been my experience that the public schools tend to go "over the top and around the bend" more often than not. It is not an unusual occurence at all!

For me, it was about learning how to be a better leader for the boys, but that was the old course. As for today's training regime, I know nothing, and I'll admit to even less!

grew trip?

"And how real is this hypothetical situation? Or is someone trolling for info on how to get away with this?" Tinfoil hats are not recommended headgear for Scouters.

Deacon Lance, That sounds like a worst-case scenario. Have you ever actually seen that happen? What caused/would cause it?

BDPT00, Just for the fun of it (and to show my willingness to actually answer questions), I am happy to say that the presence of female leaders in Scouting and OA hasn't affected my effectiveness as a male role model to the Scouts one way or t'other. They're just there.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Deacon Lance, Do you believe that the presence of female leaders in Scouting and OA has impaired your ability to be an effective male role model for the Scouts, and if so, how?

One thing I've noticed about Vincent D'Onofrio: it seems that the roles I've seen him play are somewhat wrinkled characters. I've noticed that several actors today end up typecast to a degree despite their best efforts. Helen Hunt, for example, always seems to get paired up with flawed male characters. And of course, Jack Nicholson more often than not plays a certain kind of character that I really can't name in this forum. Oh, yeah. Hello, Merlyn. Anyway, I was wondering if any of you have actually met some of these actors, and are they really all that much like the characters they play?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Do I see anything *wrong* with a separate organization like Corps of Discovery? Not on its face. But I do think that it more deeply entrenches the divisions within the BSA that create a certain "us vs. them" mentality that eventually killed the old Exploring program. I feel that we should be developing the next generation of older youth to carry on the Scouting movement, and I feel that this is best accomplished by more interaction, not less. I also feel that there is a certain redundancy to having a separate Corps of Discovery, and further, I fear that such an organization would have a stigma of "trying to be like the OA." I don't think that such an impression would speak well to either organization. So no, I don't see this as either the best option or even a particularly desirable compromise option. As for the whole coed bugaboo, the Boy Scout program is boys only, as is Varsity Scouts. And the vast majority of OA members are Venturing age anyway. At some point, they will have to work with young women, and I really think it is healthier and less awkward to remove the mystique sooner rather than later. (This message has been edited by sherminator505)

When a say "the rest of us" I do refer to the rest of the forum, but I do not mean to suggest that the rest of the forum agrees with me. I am saying flat out that the rest of us don't know whether you might be right or not because you have not displayed the courage of your convictions and said why you hold the opinion that you do. Is it really that hard to say the words?

I have stated my opinion, and I have stated why I hold it. You have stated your opinion. Yours may be absolutely correct, but the rest of us may never know as you haven't yet explained why you hold it.

I don't view your comment as inflammatory. You see Scouting as a group of distinct boxes, whereas I see it as a continuum. As for your not wishing to make waves, due to your unwillingness to be forthcoming I can only imagine to what waves you infer...

"The current curriculum is designed for Boy Scouts and Venturing both. One of the main problems is making the lectures and examples relevant to both groups." One thing in favor of this approach is the fact that both groups are older youth. Unfortunately, this also leads to watering down of the curriculum, which in the end benefits neither group.

BDPT00 - I can't speak for BadenP. He could very well be talking about me. At this point in the discussion, I'd just like the other side to go ahead and state "what should be obvious." I feel that I have taken great pains to explain exactly why I'm for the idea, and I guess I have an unrealistic expectation that you will follow suit.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"All welcome except for the atheists*, Beavah; but you have no real respect for atheists." Come, now. I'm sure there are athiests out there that Beavah respects!

"What DeaconLance states is factual. It has nothing to do with what you, he, or I "honestly believe."" Actually, it does. What I am proposing is a change to the rules. Obviously, this change has not occured. I guess what I'd like to see is a genuine explanation of what the opposition is beyond "because those are the rules." In other words, what are your real reasons for opposing a change like this? Please tell us, when you say you like things the way they are, why is that? "The biggest problem I see is people keep bringing it up and mentioning it to Venturers. Then when nothing happens someone get bruised feelings. The answer is if asked, those are the National rules, end of subject." Interesting point. Why do you suppose that this discussion would bruise any feelings at all? After all, if rules are rules and they cannot be changed to accomodate Venturing youth who exemplify the ideals of the Order, then shouldn't they just accept that blindly?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"Does National - or any local councils that anyone knows of - survey former Scouts about their reasons for dropping out? It seems to me that'd be crucial in figuring out whether we're seeing an exodus over the three G issues, or between Cubs and Boy Scouts, or at the older ages, and, most importantly, why. Without that information, we're just guessing and recounting anecdotal information." Thank you, shortridge! This is an instance where the BSA COULD and SHOULD use some of that management theory we just love to talk about in these forums. It seems to me that while 3G issues certainly get us all excited, and gets Scouting a lot of bad press, it doesn't begin to explain the problems Scouting is experiencing. One aspect of BSA training that I know very little about is professional training. Does the BSA educate its professionals in data collection and making decisions based on that data? If not, I believe that starting to do this would be a great start toward identifying and solving the problem.

Do you honestly believe that Venturing youth do not subscribe to the same ideals as Boy Scouts? That a Venturing youth who has met the camping requirement has not demonstrated a commitment to Scout camping? That Venturing youth are not deserving of membership in the Order? Please, elaborate.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)