Scouter99

Oh, gag me! They made Cyber Chip part of advancement? It's a joke! Can you imagine how many stupid online safety presentations we're all going to have to sit through over and over?

Thanks for linking this because it also contains the new Troop Leader Guidebook (replaces Scoutmaster Handbook) which was announced 2 years ago, never arrived on shelves, and not a peep since.

The option to accept online apps is enabled or disabled from the unit pin settings in myscouting. Your unit key 3 have default access and can add other users.

Online applications have been live on BeAScout.org for almost two years.

The 13th point of the Scout Law is already "Excepting Eagles, OA bigwigs, and sons of Scoutmasters"

Of course what one considers a swear word depends on regional differences. The company my father worked for opened a new office, we moved from one southern state to another, and other employees from northern states were brought in to open the new office. Families made friends, and I was shocked to hear the northern families' (including moms and kids) casual use of the D-word and S-word (I feel stupid phrasing it that way but I'm assuming the mods prefer it). My mom explained that people talk differently in different parts of the country. As a kid, maybe 3rd or 4th grade, I was sat in my best friend's kitchen and was telling them how northerner's have dirty mouths. His mother wanted to teach me a lesson about running my mouth, so she mentioned that they had family in some northern state. I was embarrassed to death, but my friend didn't get it and piped up, "yeah, and they cuss all the time!" Did they talk like that because they were foul-mouthed, amoral people unfit to lead a Scout unit? No, they spoke like that because where they're from it's not a problem. They certainly understand that it's colorful language and maybe not language you should use in a uniform, but they didn't even understand it to be a word they should use in front of kids or even not to allow their own kids (under 10 yrs) to use. Like crap for me. ---------------------------- You would probably find the kids who deemed "fart" a swear as silly as I find people who think crap is a swear word. Is crap a word people ought to use in polite company? No, and it's not really a word I walk around saying at scouts. Is it a swear word? Grow up And there's the cultural difference. ---------------------------- Not sure if trolling... Everyone knows what darn means, and we're not talking about needlework.

We ran into this when several new scouts transferred to our troop from the troop down the road soon after crossing over into that troop (I guess the experience was different than the advertisement). They came on their own, but a few years prior, a couple scouts had transferred from them to us, so all of a sudden they were at Roundtable and day camp talking about our huge conspiracy to steal "their" Webelos. Troops don't own or have special rights to a pack that shares their unit number. They're better positioned to recruit, but letting packs know who you are and where you are has nothing to do with the morals of Scouting.

What's a swear to you? Yesterday a Scout from another troop was lamenting that he forgot to say "no onions" on his burger, so I joked he was going to fart all night, he said "we don't talk like that in our troop." I told him I also say "crap" with a wink, to which his pal said "wow, money in the swear jar." He was 15 with his buddies, I'm pretty sure he was being a smartmouth, but God knows nowadays. Do I speak crassly all the time? No, it's not courteous. Words have meanings and connotations, I pick the right one for the effect I'm going for. Now, if you're talking actual swear words that everyone beyond 5th grade recognizes as a swear word, that's something you need to have a powwow with your SM about, why it bothers you, and that he needs to get everyone on board. As far as family camping, it is not Scouting. There are some people here who are wishy-washy on this because they're invested in the answer, so let me be blunt: Family camping is not Scouting and families do not belong on Scouting trips. It sounds like your SM also dislikes all the parental interference, so you two simply need to sit down and strategize. Here's your reasoning: People who don't see a problem with family camping in Scouting don't understand the purpose of Scouting, so you need to explain what the point of the program is: To create young men who are physically fit, of good character, and who can do things for themselves. That is why you go camping. Not because camping is fun and Scouts is a camping club, but because camping is a fun way to reach our goals. If mommy and daddy, or baby brother and sister, are hanging around, then you can't learn to do things for yourself. The Guide to Safe Scouting addresses this issue: "If a well-meaning leader brings along a child who does not meet these age guidelines, disservice is done to the unit because of distractions often caused by younger children. A disservice is also done to the child, who is not trained to participate in such an activity and who, as a nonmember of the group, may be ignored by the older campers." People who think of Boy Scouts as a family activity do not understand what Boy Scouts is. People who think Boy Scouts is a father-son activity don't understand what Boy Scouts is. They're confusing Boy Scouts with Indian Guides. Again, bonding time is a nice side effect, but it is not the mission of Scouting and never was. Camping is one of the 8 Methods of Scouting: "Boy Scouting is designed to take place outdoors. It is in the outdoor setting that Scouts share responsibilities and learn to live with one another. It is here that the skills and activities practiced at troop meetings come alive with purpose. Being close to nature helps Boy Scouts gain an appreciation for God's handiwork and humankind's place in it. The outdoors is the laboratory for Boy Scouts to learn ecology and practice conservation of nature's resources." So, you need to explain to these parents that camping is done a certain way (by boys with as little adult interference or planning as possible) for a certain reason: To grow your leadership skills and develop self-reliance. You can also do various things to make life more difficult for meddlesome parents, like requiring anyone over 18 who wants to camp with the troop to take Youth Protection Training. Are there times when it is unavoidable to bring a sibling, or use parents? Of course, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Let us know how it turns out.

And with that point, it is important to point out that a boy in Scouting when this man was (1970s) was 35-70 times more likely to be abused by a family member or other caregiver (teacher, doctor, etc.), as pointed out by an FBI consultant/policymaker on child abuse in the Warren Report: "The existence of the I.V. files confirms that there are some men who access youthâ€serving organizations in order to establish sexual contact with youth, often of a particular desired age. However, when compared to methodologically sound prevalence rates of sexual abuse of children during the 1970s (NISâ€I), registration numbers from the BSA suggest that children were safer in their Scouting activities and less likely to experience inappropriate sexual behavior when involved in these activities than in the family and during other community activities supervised by formal caregivers of the child. The prevalence estimates for Scouting were 1.4 to 2.1 of youth per 100,000 as compared to 70 per 100,000 identified by the NISâ€I study. This difference in estimated prevalence is of such magnitude as to inverse the question of risk and to argue instead that the BSA served a significant protective function in their programming for youth."

"...McDonough said the abuse, which happened from when he was 12 to 16..." "...charge of indecent liberties with another teenage boy..." One more gay guy, and many more to come. No wife. http://www.robertsfamilyfh.com/obituary/124755/Leland-Opalinski// The lawyer is one who has made a career suing BSA, I'm sure he digs up plenty, and (vice versa) I'm sure when someone decides to sue their Googling leads them to him. The man made it clear that he's over this—"McDonough said that he no longer gives much thought to Opalinski."— so, sure, what's his motivation if he doesn't even think about it anymore? He says he's "angry at BSA." BSA cannot stop predators if they don't know they're predators. In 1968, there was no national database, and there was no state database. Offenders were given slaps on the wrist by the justice system that this guy would have been depending on back then. The issue came to light, BSA removed the guy, and barred him from membership by placing him in the ONLY national database in existence at that time: its own, which it developed of its own volition in the 1920s precisely because it cares about boys and stopping predators. "Why didn't BSA search for more victims?" BSA is not an investigative body. That's the police's job in 1960 and in 2015.

Rick is just as close minded and prejudiced as anyone, he just thinks it's the right kind of prejudice, as all prejudiced people do.

So long, GSUSA.

As the handout for camp staff here says "Boys are testers, if you retreat when tested, they will advance." New York pushed, Gates stepped aside, more councils will follow. National doesn't forbid this, Gates has made it clear.

I'm in the schools in the middle-middle to upper-middle class suburbs of a mostly conservative state that is moving towards a swing state. This kind of idiocy is here. We were all recently given a speech by the administration who told us to start considering that the disciplinary problems we had with many students were not really disciplinary problems, they were cultural problems. Sure, if your opinion is that the ability to refrain from throwing objects around a classroom, refrain from profanity in a classroom, refrain from fighting in school is simply not endemic to certain "cultures" (the liberal soft word for "races"), then, yeah, I can see how you would conclude that minority students don't have disciplinary problems, rather they're the victims of white racism, which expects them to act white (well-behaved) or be punished. I find that racist and patronizing. It is the assertion that minorities are unable to control themselves the way white people can, so we should condescend to their cultural (racial) inferiorities and expect them to be violent and profane. What these actually are are poverty problems (and you could call different income strata different culturally). And, yes, minority students even in my relatively-affluent district are disproportionately poor. The poor white kids where I used to work had many of these same problems, and the teachers wrote far too many office referrals for my taste. Those po' whites weren't victims of elitist oppression, they were at school and expected to act like it, and when they didn't they were disciplined. The poor minorities in my mostly white school aren't victims of white privilege or racism, they're being held to the same standard that the white kids, rich and poor, are held to, and when they fail to live up to them they are disciplined. Ignoring their disciplinary problems to satisfy PC hoo-ha doesn't help them learn and it doesn't help them be employable in the real world.

The Chronicle of Higher Education had a good article about this from the perspective of people working in a field (academia) that is very hostile to Scouting's ideals and culture a few years ago when this current media storm began. http://chronicle.com/article/Once-an-Eagle-Always-an/134136

You guys have to post a video!

As a Scout, I always dreamed one day I would send in my $5 and get the plans for this hovercraft, but, alas, it never happened. I was an old soul, and knew I was never going to have a vacuum motor laying around. Did any of you ever build this, or know a Scout who did? (wasn't sure which forum to put this in, maybe working with kids?)

My unit's SM is bigger than any of them. I often wonder why BSA even offers uniforms in anything over XL.

Sure, there's 2 lessons in taking one on the chin there. One for the SM's son, who the other boys grow to despise when daddy takes this attitude, and good for SM dads and their inept sons to learn that nepotism isn't achievement. And second for the boys of the troop, who take one on the chin when they bear the results of parentage used to pick leadership rather than ability. We've had 4 SM son SPLs in the past ~6 years, 3 appointed without elections, magically. One turned into a little tyrant whose idea of leadership was squalling while playing portable putt-putt. The other two were barely able to tie their own shoes, much less a timber hitch or run a troop. The fourth was a good pick, but dad couldn't back off long enough to let him lead. The first three grew to be hated variously for their bad attitude, poor treatment of the people around them, their weakness, their ineptitude, their scapegoating, and of course for the injustice/unfairness of their place in power despite their lack of qualifications, and all 3 got to a point of facing mutinies of "no" at a certain point--where the boys just stop doing anything they ask whether it was good or bad. Two got sour and nasty, one got whiny and would escape to cry in frustration. The fourth was simply robbed of the chance to grow, and dad's unnecessary meddling caused whisperings of a setup that wouldn't have arisen if he'd let his son lead. All four caused years of adult-led program that are retarding us still. But, hey, junior got the patch, and daddy engineered an important lesson in how the world works, right? How to teach the boys how to take all that on the chin? Indulge their kvetching, encourage them to run for leadership next time around (assuming papa Lenin don't cancel elections again) and fix the prince's trainwrecks, and create parallel opportunities for hiking outside the troop program by opening PLs' eyes to possibilities—that is, taking ownership where they can and when they can, and working around the things they can't change, and reminding them the crud can't last forever.

It's not. Merit badges are not troop program and troop meetings should not be merit badge school. If that's been your son's experience for the past couple months, find another troop with youth and adult leadership that know what they're doing.

Yep!

Can you reconcile or clarify these two statements, which seem to contradict each other: Which badges do you counsel that a Scout can get signed off without being able to recall or demonstrate the material?

I fail to see how discussing ways to improve users' experience amounts to ungratefulness. Or am I reading passive-aggressiveness into your post that isn't there? Let me know within an hour and I will edit my response. See, there's one non-typo reason to not limit editing, already The other day, LeCastor wanted me to edit a certain word out of a post; I was happy to, but it was impossible. Two. Of the forums I visit, this is actually the only forum out of a dozen or so where editing is cut off. It's simply strange, thus my input on the matter.

That's a real shame, though I imagine I would have made the best out of things and got on the stump for the whole troop to know how so-and-so got his First Aid MB