skeptic

Yep; definitely still here!!

Good to see we still have "April Fools".

Some questionably aimed ones on Scouts-L today. One, regarding the Jamboree brought a post from the National Commissioner about not being funny, even April 1st. Trouble with these kind of jokes is that less seasoned scouters may not recognize that they are "jokes"; and even a few seasoned ones may misconstrue things. That can lead to some truly unfortunate outcomes.

Sorry!!! How do tents made from uniforms work? Most of our scouts are too small to make it alone, so does it act as a patrol activity? Again, sorry for the terrible thought; but it has been nagging at me to post. Old guy humor (?) I guess.

In regard to overlooked individuals in the founding of BSA, one must consider Robinson, from the YMCA. It is very possible that without his early contributions and support, BSA would have foundered. He was instrumental in landing West, which may have been the most important piece of the initial efforts. He chose to return to his position with the YMCA. If he had not, he like would be one of the "founders" for sure.

Mostly because he was not directly involved in any major way with the actual program. He was a strong supporter of B.P. and a friend, and B.P. credited Burnham with giving him a lot of knowledge that was helpful to development of the eventual final plan; but Burnham was too involved in his many personal adventures to be anything more than a resource from which all the main founders found help. Burnham's scouting was more that of the military or frontier type, rather than what eventually became "Scouting", as developed by B.P.

Few thoughts and a question. Adults should make every effort to be polite to youth in their interactions. And, if they over-react, or do something out of bounds, they should be willing to apologize if necessary. On the other hand, youth need to respect adults, at least partly, simply because they "are" adults. We have far too many people who seem to think "whatever 'I' want, feel, or think is all that matters", and that they therefore can ignore or disrespect anyone with whom they disagree. Unfortunately, this is the example too many kids see in many adults today, and so they model it. Over the past couple of decades, "attitude" has become a far more difficult problem with youth, and it is not missing from scout groups. So, sometimes, maybe more often than in the past, adults may not have truly earned respect; but they may also not deserve "disrespect". Tough call sometimes; but I must still side with mature adults in most cases, given enough knowledge and perspective. The question; "why is using personal equipment even an issue?" I do not see how that could even be a problem; unless somehow, someone thinks the troop then is responsible for it should something happen to it. It certainly has never been a problem in our unit. Eventually, most scouts tend to have their own basic equipment.

In regard to the stat chart from 2008: It certainly suggests that there are still crews sponsored by "traditional" BSA. Of course, one must wonder how, if all such groups were moved to Exploring. But, there are other possibilities. They might be poor reporting by councils; they may have since been moved, because they had yet to do so when this was compiled; they might be LDS crews that are actually Varsity, and are in LDS communities. Hopefully, the errors have mostly been fixed by now. But no matter what; the entire argument is selfish and petty, and really has little or no positive impact, as it just puts a good community program out of business. Of course, those that fight so hard to have their way really do not care, which tells us more about them than anything else. You all should be so "proud". Okay; have fun. Ignoring this from on out.

Just for clarity; the fire and police units noted are part of Exploring, which is part of Learning for Life. As pointed out numerous times, they are an off shoot of BSA, but have "different" requirements for membership. Yes, "one" judge has ruled that the branch is still in violation; but that is a "local" decision and certainly has not been universally decided for the whole country. And, I have to say Merlyn; since when do you "tell" anyone is the BSA what to do? You can suggest, or complain, or whatever; but you do not have the authority to "tell" them what to do, or how to define certain terms or determine "actual" legality of things in BSA decisions and actions. Ed; please consider just ignoring Merlyn rather than continuing to either let him bait you, or attempting to bait him. Both of you simply appear in a less than positive light with your adolescent bickering. JMHO of course.

There are two different types of "feeder" packs. One is a unit sponsored by the same group, often with a similar number with an extra digit. The other is a pack that simply traditionally feeds into a particular troop for various reasons, often family and friend related. Under the new registration formats at National, a related unit, sponsored by the same group, can actually "promote" cubs from the pack directly. They cannot "promote" cubs from non affiliated units. So, paperwork wise, that can be and advantage. But, having a regular feed certainly makes a huge difference. Even a few each year helps with balance going forward. If you end up with the big gap in the middle, it can kill the unit due to lack of leader aged scouts in the middle and partially disconnected almost aged out scouts, as noted by someone else.

Usually, it would seem simply forming a new troop, or even two in this case, might be the best solution. You also might look at breaking out your seniors and forming a Venture crew if you do not already have one. In a few instances, due to history and keeping the direct connection to a unit number, I have heard of troops simply splitting and meeting on two different nights, or two different locations on the same night; but they continue as one unit on paper and for district and council activity. That of course means having a large pool of leaders from which to draw. I wish I had even a little of that problem. We lost both of our long time feeder packs in the past five years, and the other packs basically continue to go elsewhere. We have almost disappeared due to few new members, since we have not on going pack affiliation anymore. We have tried to get a pack going, but so far it has floundered and also is not growing. The few webloes that it had just came into the troop, and the younger boys, of which there were only six, suddenly were gone due to 3 families picking up and moving out of the area, and one simply stopping his participation when the others went. So, we have a number, but pretty much no pack at this point. Hopefully we can rejuvenate it somehow; but I have to focus on the troop. Funny, we have a willing and cooperative sponsor, a great meeting place in which we have met since 1928, yet we have trouble getting members. Being on the "wrong end" of town is a factor I'm afraid. But we persevere. Good luck with your "problem".

Mine was a 502 Bad Gateway this time. Maybe it is the weight of the never ending thread???;-)

Ahhhhhhhh!! Rational and common sense comments. How refreshing. Thanks!!

Gee; that sounds familiar. What was it, about 110 posts back I suggested something similar? Good luck.

Likely impossible to say, if you mean "all" of them. Now if you are referring only to merit badge and rank insignia, and only the Boy Scout portion, one could likely come up with a good approximation. Add in the cubs, various senior programs over the years, and Lone Scout, and it would get next to impossible I would think. Just an opinion.

Okay; we just got a reason to pass the bill. Rush Limbaugh is promising to leave the country should it be passed. Says he will move to Puerto Rico, which I understand already has National Health Insurance. How many will miss him, should he actually do it?

Until last year, when I became Medicare eligible, my only affordable care was through the absolute minimum level of VA coverage. While it was/is better than some have available, it certainly was not particularly convenient, especially for basic stuff. Why was that? I got down sized and was very soon "priced out" of coverage, as has been discussed over and over here and in the media. I can see a lot of reasons why there are concerns about the insurance companies, as well as areas of the medical providers too. We read about the salaries of the people on the top of these companies, and they are often as obscene as those of the top banking heads. We read about "a few" doctors who are multi-millionaires doing specialties that often are seen as unnecessary, while apparently opting to ignore basic care to those who cannot pay. But, these same doctors will appear as "wonderful saviors" when they suddenly find the ability to bring someone from another country and do miraculous things. While few would want that child or special case to suffer, it still makes you wonder where these people find the resources when we have basic suffering that goes untreated here in our own communities. I suspect that "most" doctors do not make obscene profits and live up to their oaths as best they can. A few literally struggle almost as much as those to whom they reach out. Considering the training and dedication it takes, we should not begrudge care givers "comfortable" life styles. But, we who are on the lower part of the societal pot also likely often wonder "why" some seem to never have "enough comfort". While hard work should be rewarded, and innovation as well, it is hard to fault the majority in our society who question why those "very few" seem never to "have enough". Pardon my naivete, but why is a million dollars a year not enough to live on, especially if it is supplemented with other perks, such as access to places to stay and ways to get there without paying. Every time I look at my own life, I see that there was a short period, when I was still fully employed, and so was she, that we pretty much had no concerns. And we were no where nearly as well "compensated" as CEO's and the top echelons directly below them. So, a few questions. Should hospitals really be "for profit"? Should there be a "ceiling" on how much is enough, for heads of large companies? Wouldn't society, and shareholders, possibly be better served if the extreme compensation was paid to those who "actually are responsible, the workers in the business". There are really no easy answers to these problems. But until that "huge gap" between most of us and a few starts to close, we will continue to have more and more upset and rebellious people. But, "most of us" still need to recognize that "needs" and "wants" are two different things. If we cannot pay, then, if not a necessity, we need to accept that we do not need it at the moment. We need to, as a society, get back to taking responsibility for our own choices and actions. That includes "some type of Tort reform", not only for medical suits, but civil and accident cases as well. Okay, I guess I need to take off the "rose glasses" again.

Can we have pie before the nap??

Basically, Scoutfish is simply pointing out the obvious again. Taxes, in some manner, are an integral part of life in this country, and most countries. We all pay them in some way, even those who try not to pay some. So, technically, he is pointing out; no one should be able to use any of the publicly supported facilities, nor should they be paid from public funds, if they have a belief in God. Now, of course this is over-projection of the intent by the anti-God, anti-religion groups; but it has some credence at its basic level. "WHERE DO! YOU DRAW THE LINE?" Should Scoutfish's in-laws, who worked for the government, not be paid if they believe in God? After all, the money comes from taxes that Merlyn paid, or someone similar to him. That, I think, is what Scoutfish is asking.

Scoutfish; You can give all the info' you choose on the term, but neither of the two will admit fitting any part of them. I sometimes wonder if they are not really two faces of a multi-personality and are simply baiting themselves. Just try to ignore them 99+% of the time, as they will not stop.

Mr. LeRoy: You know, there was a time when public entities were not afraid to represent basic, majority beliefs of their constituents and clients, because most recognized that was a reasonable thing to do. When the challenges began, then many various responses materialized. But, that has nothing to do with this suggestion by me. What I am saying is simply that those opposed to the idea of God in scouting need to recognize that this has "always" been one of the keystones of the program, even in the original version of B.P. So, please, stop trying to twist this into "your" narrow minded agenda. Thank you. I will now continue to ignore your incessant whining.

It seems to me that we need to quit lumping the God and Gay issues together; they are not the same. While there are similarities, one is literally based on views regarding physical characteristics and responses to life style choices. The other relates directly to a foundational tenet of Scouting, belief in a spiritual entity greater than oneself. As such, I fail to understand why it continues to be put in the same arena with the Gay issue. It IS something that should be accepted or rejected at the point of joining. If you cannot accept it, then the organization is not for you. On the other hand, much of the contention on Gay issues stems from the over the top, public view, of a small, but strident few, in the Gay community. This translates to a "lifestyle" in a lot of minds, and it is one that is not deemed acceptable to many. And while the issue may have many similarities to infidelity, free-style heterosexual life choices, and even drugs and alcohol to some extent, most individuals engaged in those types of life choices do not try to make it such a public thing. I suspect, as has been pointed out numerous times, that even many in the Gay community are often chagrined by the "over the top" displays of likely a small percentage of their communities. But, because it is so out spoken, and often outlandish, it really pushes buttons. So, maybe it is time for reasonable people to stop putting the two in the same basket. Just my views from having lived more years than many.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Perhaps someone has more background on Dale's ultimate decision to make a public challenge to the dismissal from BSA. I am aware of a number of incidents that have been pursued in court, some of which got tossed or settled without trial, that were obviously "coerced" by outside sources looking for viable "victims" to advance their agendas. So, I wonder if James Dale might have initially simply accepted the decision as part of life, and gone on without a challenge? Who pushed the issue at the start, really? And, after the final SCOTUS decision, has Dale accepted it, and moved on; or is he still involved in the continuing attack mode of current challengers? Just Curious if anyone has "factual" evidence one way or the other.

Reverence and some type of higher consciousness is a cornerstone of Scouting. If you cannot accept that premise, then you should not be part of the group. It is so tiresome that this simple "fact" seems to be ignored by so many here. Removing a cornerstone of a building will eventually lead to its collapse.

Guess I am ignorant of proper knot use for shoes, as I have never used a square or granny knot to tie them; or at least not on purpose. We were taught to use a slip knot, or bow knot, and if we could not tie it tightly enough, secure it with a second one. You just pull one strand to undo it. Not sure why you would want one there that would very possibly get too tight. Finding a way to make knots seem useful to kids today is difficult, as we use so many other types of attachment devices. A good example is the taut-line. They seem to not understand that the little tab device on the rope that stops back sliding can easily slip, or come off. But it takes a few extra seconds to actually tie something; and they do not want to take the extra time. Kind of like the shoes that are always coming undone. We are now encountering on occasion a bit of the same syndrome with compass work; many seem to think the GPS is the only thing they need, and that it is better. We all know, or should, that it is not only not always accurate, but sometimes simply does not work due to low power or blockage of signals. Always new challenges.