xlpanel

All I know is that a kid has a whole lot better of chance dying in a car crash riding with just one adult than being assaulted by one adult he is riding with. Perhaps the G2SS should mandate that scouts are only allowed to ride in cars with 8+ airbags, as they are going to reduce injury much much much more than requiring that a scoutmaster can never ride one on one with a scout. Everything you do is a calculated risk. Sleep in a tent? There is a chance if you are in range of a tree it could fall on you in the night and crush you. Do we need the g2ss to say all tents must be 300 feet away from a tree? Someone standing close to a fire could trip and fall into it. Does the g2ss need to mandate how far you must stay away from an open flame? You could spill hot wash water on your leg. Does the g2ss need to mandate that rinse water may only be heated up to a certain temperature, require every troop to purchase multiple thermometers, and inform council if the water got too hot? There is probably a 1000 to 1 chance that a youth will burn his leg with rinse water or fall into the fire before any adult tries to do anything to him. We could just declare that all camping trips are now to be conducted at the local mental institution, each kid is put in a padded cell for the weekend, and given cold liquid food as to not choke or burn himself. Of course, then you would still have to get there, which is dangerous in itself, so lets just stay home. But wait... there are chemicals at home that the scout can sniff... I guess the only safe option is to not have any kids at all anymore. If you don't have kids they can't get hurt, right?

I think the missing cans could have easily been a scout or leader realizing that since they watched you make the cobbler and there are left overs, even if they are sitting somewhere in your stuff, that you don't really mind them getting used. In fact, someone could have seen it as a favor as in LNT pack-in/pack-out they were lessening your weightload for the return trip. If you really had no desire to punish the person who drank the cans, the best course of action would have been to ask for the person who drank them to give you the empty cans so you can dispose of them properly. That way you can find out who drank the soda and slip in a statement such as "please dont drink soda or other supplies that you think are leftover without asking again".

I defended the boys as I was looking at the scenario as it would play out for me, in the district that I am in, if I was a boy in the OA. First, the troop that I am with is at the far edge of the district. In fact, it is the farthest east troop in the whole council. Our troop is the only troop that has people participate in the OA, except for two other guys out of the enitre district. So you already see what has set up: Furthest from everyone plus only one participating. Which Means: Four Hour Round Trip Traveling (240 Miles Round)trips to perform ceremonies over and over at the other side of the district for people you don't know and with troops larger than yours that have MORE OA members in the troop than yours does. BUT, since they do not participate, your troop has to do all the work for troops that have the members and resources to do it themselves. Thats why last year I told the district troops that our troop was no longer going to be performing ceremonies unless they were located in 20 miles of our town. We have done one since then, and the district has had a total of one ceremony performed.

While it would have been nice for the OA team to inform you they weren't showing up, they have no obligation to perform ceremonies for you. People in the OA do many other things in life, and may not have time to fit you in. The scenario where no one planned anyting on it sounds like the kids were being forced into the ceremony team, and did not like what they were being made to do.

Today is the day my brand new bright Red Scouter Magazine for Jan/Feb 2010 arrived in the mail. The first lengthy article in the magazine is about .... ETHICS! The magazine goes on to present the story of a web page on the internet that talks about students and teachers at a school. Specifically, the page "suggests that a married teacher is having an affair." Then the page goes on to continue that 1 boy knows who maintains the website, but he agreed not to tell anyone else. The principal wants to know, but the boy agreed not to tell anyone. Now, the article continues, "Now, the principal discovers a program that enables him to identify each person visiting the web site. He is asking students to come forwards with the names of the creators of the web site. If no one does, the principal plans to question each student that visited it." The article ultimately ends, "What should David Do?" Now, lets discuss the ethical writing seen in the article on ethics. First of all, if the site perpetrates the fact that a teacher is having an affair, and does not present it as a rumor, the site can already be taken down for slander. A simple call to the domain registrar and hosting company get this done quickly. If it is presented as a rumor, it is perfectly legal (see the tabloids by the checkout), which means the principal can do nothing, anyway. If a site has illegal content, it doesn't matter who owns it. Contacting the host and registrar will get it down. Thanks for following journalistic ethics here. Next, we have the principal crowing about his program to find out who visits the web site. There is no such program in existence. In fact, it is impossible to have a program that does this. Of course, the principal could see who tried to visit it AT SCHOOL, but no where else. To find out who visits a web site, it is impossible, without getting the logs from the website's host. And THEN after getting the logs, you have to supoena EVERY ISP whose IP number accessed the site for customer information. Of course, as there is nothing illegal about viewing a site that presents slander the supoena would not be granted, and this would fall through. And that is ignoring the fact that the only way to get the access logs from the host would be to supoena them, and you wouldn't get those, even it teh site was slander. (You don't need the logs to see who published teh site.) Thanks for keeping the writing ethical and truthful through that part of the article also. The best thing that anyone could do to help the principal was give him the domain registrar records (publicly viewable) and ask him to have (in the case of slander) those slandered to contact the cops, and let them take it from there. If there is no slander, sorry principal, but you can do nothing, even with your fictitious programs. It would be nice to see a little journalistic truthfulness and ethics in an article about ethics.

If the game was played as someone had listed above "Your troop gets 700, or two troops get 500 each" I would have easily made the decision to dock mine by 200 to Increase another troop by 500". Why? I LIKE other boy scout troops and other good organizations to get money to run a good program, especially when the money comes from a benefactor and not from me. But if it was between me and another regular working guy, I could care less If I got half of his paycheck. I had the good idea that made my boss pay me more -- not him, why should I not take advantage of my resourcefulness? I am not going to improve company efficiency by 7%, be offered a raise (due to the money they saved laying off nonneeded workers) and give it away. Finally, I don't think I mentioned this before, but I didn't like the way that the instructors tried to play the audience. They had a suggestion board at the front of the room you could leave suggestion notes or questions on. They would answer them after each activity. After the activity was over, they instructors claimed they "found" a note on the board that says that they "forgot" to open the WB training the night before with the scout oath and law, and that they we were going to do them now to adhere to policy. I knew something was up with this, as no one had left a note on the board. I found their syllabus the next day, and this is what it said to do after the game... This is just plain manipulation of us by the instructors. If they wanted us to say those, fine, tell us that. But don't make up a reason why, we aren't little kids.

I believe that having an OA chapter in a small (people wise) and large (land wise) district is not geared for success. If the district in question has only 130 youth members spread out through 10 troops over a 70x90 mile area, there is no way an OA program can be started and succeed. First of all, we are looking at only about 50 possible kids allowed to come to meetings. Next, how many will come? And drive 90-100 miles to a 2 hour meeting? It seems to me that if you spend more time in the car going somewhere than actually being where you are going, it is not good to go. Next, there are few activities you can do at a 2 hour meeting that I know of. For example, lets take Election team training. If that is all you can do in your small district based off only a couple of scouts showing up to meetings, it is worth it to just stop altogether. Election training as the only activity creates a vicious circle. The scout asks, "Why should I join OA?" you answer "To take training to get others to join." This creates a nonsensical organization, whose only function is to increase membership. Whose increased membership will increase membership ... etc etc. The only draw that a small chapter I know can generate successfully is doing election training. If thats all you can do, it is time to stop.

I've heard rumors that the next edition of Websters Dictionary released will include a usage of the word gay - "to express dislike". Meanings of words evolve, he is just using a meaning that is not widely used or accepted by everyone yet. If we locked the words at their original meanings and never let them change, everyone would think he was talking about the uniform "looking happy and joyful". While I do not go out of my way to bash gay people, and normally it is a non issue. But if they set themselves up, you have to take a shot. If the gay person in question is not wearing makeup, girls clothes, or using a pronounced lithp, I wouldn't take any shots. But if they combine any of the above I have no choice.

Take for example we have religion A and religion B A states that a person must do XXX to reach salvation, while B states the direct opposite of XXX. Which one is right? If you cannot reach a concrete no doubts conclusion, there is no point to do either. "What if you pick wrong, and are just making him madder?" - Dewey Wilkerson

I gotta just say, cheating is way more advanced than you have ever imagined. It is a multi-million dollar industry. For 200 Bucks or so, a kid can get a hidden earpiece that works as a bluetooth speaker off his cell phone, so he could constantly be fed info. With a throat mic going the other way, he can whisper something so softly that no one 3" from his mouth could hear, the throat mic picks it up perfectly, and the guy at home on his cell with the internet can get him the answer in no time. You may think that is impossible for a throat mic to do that, but they are designed so motorcycle riders can talk on CB or other radio without any backdrop noise, as it works off throat vibrations of speech. Drop a 100 there. A 300 dollar investment for a kid for four years of high school and 4 years of college is pretty good for not studying at all.

What benefit is the question... Well, the same benefit that a painted fence gives. It looks nicer and prettier, but still does the same thing as it did before. And supervising workers setting up a computer OS is alot more intensive than supervising workers painting a fence. Can they EVER paint the fence wrong? As long as they use the provided materials they can't do anything wrong, unless they are totally stupid. (Painting the Grass?) The scout first has to train his assistants how to format the HD, settings needed to enter on install, debugging install problems etc.

If the guy paid for the trailer through paypal, or a different internet transaction site, or any way with his credit card, he can just call the auction site, or at a last resort just call his credit card company to not pay the seller. As long as he used a credit card, if he can call the company before his monthly bill gets paid and tell them to cancel paying that seller, he can not pay anything. Paypal has chargebacks, and surely with police help he can get more than enough evidence to complete that. If it was by check, too bad, unless he hasn't cashed it yet. If then, just cancel the check.

Underarmor looks good on anyone that doesn't have a big belly. Maybe the UA uniform will motivate some to lose weight? I would pay above $100 to get one of these right now. And so much for the new centennial uniform, eh? It was a failure.

Yeah, OP was a troll obviously, but that doesn't discredit any of the quesitons he asks or points he makes. Also, he is not asking you to state that the BSA is a private organization. It clearly is, but that does not answer the questions. He is not asking "IS the BSA allowed to ....". The BSA clearly is. He is asking "SHOULD the BSA ....". Which is entirely different. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done. Take Power of Attorney of a dying man. The Person who holds Power of Attorney can legally change the dying man's will, and can legally make himself the sole heir. It has been done before, taken to court, and the man who changed the will won. That is legal, just as the BSA limiting who can enter, but SHOULD it be done? With that in light: I have no problem with aethiests in scouts. They pose no physical or mental danger. And 99% of kids are not trying to push agenda, they merely want to be with their friends. The 1% who wants to agenda push won't have much success if it is 1 vs the rest. He will become a comedy figure whenever he tries to agenda push. Aethiests give no other scouts reservations. However, gay scouts are another story for me. Can you imagine knowing that when you are changing, one of the other scouts also changing is paying attention to your body? That easily poses reservations tothe other scouts. Of course, with this known, I would fully expect the non-gay scouts to make life so miserable for him on camping trips and meetings that he would quit by himself.

about the no tent thing, our guys at summer camp opted to take down the tents (last week of camp) the night before we left and sleep on their cots out in the open so they wouldn't have to do it in the morning and we could leave and get home quickly.

I've never known a scout to request a single tent, but when camping with odd numbers they are a necessity. Arguments for requiring doubling up are 1. Medical Safety (asthma diabetes etc) 2. Buddy system Basically that are the only ones Now, why should we burden a scout with the medical safety of another scout? If a scout needs insulin every morning at 2 A.M., it should surely be the adult leaders who are in charge of distributing it, not the kids tentmate. The Buddy System is not used when in campsite, really. When the kids eat, do you ask "Where is your lunch buddy?" in case they get a paper cut while using their napkin. Buddy system also does not work in any games covering a large area, either. In football the CB would tell the WR to "slow down buddy, I can't keep up", thus defeating the excess skill the WR possessed. In capture the flag, how would it be possible for a kid to sneak around through the woods to get the flag with a buddy. A buddy = 2x noise and 2x space and that = 2x getting caught. A buddy is necessary when the kid is going a mile away or so. But when within the proximity of the camping area you don't use buddies. And if someone woke me up in the middle of the night and asked me to go watch em pee, I would first wonder if they were serious, second if they were high off of anything, and if they insisted I would probably punch them.

Our troop is in a rural area and we normally go camping out on property pretty close (25-30 Mins Max) from where we leave from. What really is the point for the Boys to go home from school, put on a scout uniform for 40 mins or so until we get to the campout and then take it off.

I think this fee is actually reasonable from the facts that I have heard. 3 Days out 30+ people looking Chartered Chopper A chartered helicopter will run you 500/hr just for the bird at minimum. A Cessna 172 (Really Basic Plane) will run you almost 175. If the charter company required that their pilot fly the chopper, thats another 50 an hour. If the state's own pilot could fly, he still gets paid, but not as much. And the chopper rental/pilot fee does not cover avgas either, and that runs around 3 a gallon now. A chopper burns around 15 GPH, and was up 20 hours. Thats 900 dollars fuel. The Chopper was in the air for 3 days, and I estimate that to be about 20 hours. At a total cost of at minimum 11,500 and a maximum (700 chopper, 70 pilot) of 16,300. That averages to be about 14,000 for the chopper looking for him. Then, they had 30 others looking for him as well. Say they made at minimum 10 per hour for 20 hours (minimum) they spent a minimum of 6,000. Take maximun numbers at 15 per Hour and 30 hours looking we come out to around 13,000. That averages to 9,500 for the search, excludign the chopper. Add those together, we are looking at 23,500 Total, which is almost exactly in line with the fee given to him. And for those of you who say that he should not be charged extra for the chopper being chartered, would the injured guy have NOT wanted them to charter a chopper if theirs was out? He should be lucky he was found at all, going on after being hurt. I should not have to use my tax dollars to rescue someone after they do something stupid (going on). I can understand putting out a fire that someone accidentally sets to their house, but when a hiker negligently goes on after being injured, against all better judgement, its his fault entirely.

I can certainly say our team kept our word. At the caucuses we explicitly stated that we were not going to follow a scheme in which everyone holds up the same color. I was a buffalo. And I am familiar with a Modest Proposal, if I remember what it is correctly. I think it is about the benefits of eating young kids or something? Its been a couple of year since I read it. And for whomever got mad that I posted stuff about what happens at WB, how would you have discussed this game.... "I played a game at woodbadge, um, can't tell you which one it was, and I didn't like it. I can't tell you why I didn't like it because that would reveal what happens in it. I don't even know why I made this thread because no one can tell what I am talking about, and if they can, they can't post anything constructive as they, too, cannot reveal any secrets." This whole section is for discussing WB. If I can't post what happens it it, how can I discuss it?

Wealth cannot be created out of nothing. Say the collective populus of a town has 10,000. An author writes a book. She has invested time and effort in it and made something that people want to buy. People buy the book. Now the author has 2,000 for writing it. But the populus only has 8000 left. I took my course at the end of april this year in the Sam Houston Area Council. Was just going back through some of the old stuff from it, and decided to talk about the game.

I understand what the game was supposed to accomplish, and agree it has a message, but that message is best served in a noncompetitive setting. In the game, you are organized into 4 different competing teams. Teams and competing are important here. Everyone on the TEAM cooperates together for the best for everyone. For example, only the guy whose card is agreed upon holds it up. The guy who is not supposed to hold up his card does not, showing cooperativeness, working together for a TEAM goal. A scout unit is a TEAM. It is one team only, and shouldn't have 4 sub teams running it. Everyone should work together for their unit. But their unit is one. If the game was changed, such as the 4 competing teams ALL won points only when all green, or ALL lost points when all were red, this would better serve the purpose of the game. But in reference to when we had the game, the points were $, and for example the directions were Red-Green 3-1 Red Win $100 EA, Green Lose $300 2-2 Red Win $200 EA Green Lose 200 EA 1-3 Red Win #00 Green lose 100 EA These clearly demonstrate the market thing I was talking about, where the money is capped. Everything equals out. However, the 0-4 count effectively generates $. And win all we can was not used, the guys had signs, and (pretended) to accidentally get switched so they read you all can win.

This part of the course is really a disgrace and denial of competitiveness among humans and business corporations. First off, the scenario created by the game can NEVER happen in the real world, even if everyone involved is truly motivated to achieve the desirable outcome. Why? According to the staff, a 'successful' play of the game results in everyone gaining $$$$ and profit. To look at this from an economist standpoint, this is impossible. There is a set amount of wealth available in the world. For simplistic terms, lets just say $1000 total of wealth exists. If Person A-D all start with 250 each, THERE IS NO WAY that they can increase their collective wealth, as no more exists. The amount is capped. Now, the game effectively generates wealth. If everyone cooperates, everyone may end with 500 each. This would mean there was a total of 2000 in the wealth system, that only had 1000 before the game started. This means that: a. an impossible feat occured, creating wealth from nothing or b. more money was printed, thus decreasing the value of the money by half You cannot generate wealth out of nothing Next, look at this in a business perspective. Toyota, GM, Honda, and Ford can all cooperate together and each will earn (simplified) 400 dollars each. However, Ford decides that if he doesn't cooperate, his company can earn 2000 dollars total, while causing GM Honda and Toyota to lose money. Ford repeats this a few times, and eventually he is rolling in money and the other companies are out of business, as they went broke. Ford now gets practically every dollar spent to car companies, and makes more and more and more. Tell me this isn't the dream of every executive, do do business in such an efficient way that it drives out the competition. This game is just like communistic ideal. Under communism, if it worked, everyone would have at least 5x the wealth that they now have. Everyone would have an adequate house, big tv, etc. It would be better overall for everyone. But it doesn't work. Why? Joe sees that he can go to work and not work hard at all, and still get the same benefits as all the hard workers get. Larry sees joe not working and decides that if Joe doesn't work and gets everything, why should he work? A slippery slope dissolves into collapse This game is the same way. If all the companies worked together, every company would be better off. Production plants and inventions would be shared, resulting in a better overall product. But it doesn't work. Bottom line is that companies are driven by profits, and execs only care about their company. If they can earn an extra 800 a month, at the expense of 4 other companies losing 200 a month each, they do it. Say the total amount spent on cars by consumers is 10,000 (simplified). No matter what the companies do, only this amount will be spent. The pool of available wealth is capped. If everyone cooperates, each of 4 companies makes 2500 each. But, Company B develops a new extra fuel efficient car. It can either share that technology with the other companies, and keep it equal at 2500 OR he can use it himself, and make much more money. Now the breakdown is: Total 10000 A - 1500 B - 6500 C - 1500 D - 1500 Company B tripled their wealth at the expense of the other companies. It has to be this way, as there is only so much money that exists or is spent. Company B goes on to have employees driving 50,000 dollar cars and moving into gated neighborhoods. A,C, and D go on to pay less and less and lay off employees. Their employees are lucky if they can afford the rent and other things. Company B is more successful, and all because it did not follow the principles of the game of life. The execs of company B are determined to be successfuly and smart, and the other execs are stupid and failures. Now apply the game of life to the NFL. Not everyone can win in the NFL. The game of life would have it where the teams just ran kneeldowns over and over and no one ever scored. Every game would end in a tie. Thus, there would be no losers and that would greatly help the 'self esteem' of all the players. Every team would win 1/32 share of the SB every year. How many coaches are gonna go for that? The Game of Life cannot be applied to real life. I have to say, using my real life business skills, I analyzed the instruction card and saw that the only way I could lose is if every team held up the same color. I used math and saw that as long as I held up Red, 15/16 of the time I would win ((1/4)^4) at random. I knew immediately that this was 94% chance of winning. If any business had this sort of chance, they would jump on it immediately. The game ended with our team being one of the only ones to use real life principles laughing among ourselves at the other teams that were totally SHOCKED they were losing money. I guess that shows that being naive in the business world is not a good thing. Everyone is looking to make the bottom line higher and meet the line. Now, if you don't want to read a sentence from the syllabus, don't read it below. The syllabus suggests that after the game is over, as emotions will be running high, to join everyone together again by singing a song. Does this not say manipulation? The course creators think they can just manipulate everyone's emotions at will. That is an insult to me. Think superbowl. Do they give the losers a trophy to consle them and the winners together? No. The winners won, they have something to be proud of. The losers don't, except making it to the SB, and they were rewarded for that in ther conf champ game. This game is a complete disgrace to competitive spirit and the principles that successful businesses are founded on.

People complain on this thread that the merchandise is not made in the USA Then on another thread that the pants cost too much @ 50 Each. If the production moves to the U.S. the price goes up even more. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

"On June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, concluded that taxpayers have "standing to sue" when Congress spends money in a way that violates the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. " http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4972_33.htm Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation I believe that answers the question of the thread. TYVM

NLDSCOUT has a copy of the police report, or has seen one, according to what he posted on the thread about the actual incident. Ask him for a linkie? I'm only going off of what he said the report contained. It doesn't matter if I condone it or not, the only thing that matters now is whether they will win in a court case. Looking at the facts, I say no.