DuctTape

I get postcards from them almost monthly asking me to join/update my info. I always viewed them as a "Whos Who" type directory, where you just pay them to be on a list and get certificates, etc... Other than these solicitation postcards, I know nothing about them.

A Co-ed troop can still operate with single gender patrols. For camping purposes it might be better anyway as it eliminates some of the issues stated.

...and they could get signed off for 3 ranks (tenderfoot, 2nd, and 1st) for completing a single activity.

adding to #6, except for mBs, all rank requirements must be completed "as a ____ scout".

Lately the continuum of behavior is far too often lumped together and called bullying. Not every interaction is bullying; I see parts of the continuum this way: rude-mean-bullying-harrassment-assault-battery How to deal with the situation depends on where on the continuum the situation lies. Bullying (IMO) is at the cusp of a criminal act. Bullying gone to far can be harassment which in my non-legal-training understanding is a crime in almost every state. Certainly if violence occurs, the situation has clearly crossed into the criminal. Earlier it was mentioned to call the police if indeed the behavior warrants it.

My guess is most of them are "honorary" and serve no real purpose except to "vote". The executive board is where all the decions are truly made and their recommendations are rubber stamped by the full board (those actually in attendance). I could be totally wrong here having not read the actual bylaws, nor witnessed any E-Comm or Board meetings. But my guess tracks with how other (large) Boards with an Exec-Comm operate.

Certified guides are NOT required in the Adirondacks.

A lot in the Adirondacks. Backpacking and/or canoeing. Can also do hybrids. There are 6 million acres. Some areas (extremely high use) have restrictions like no fires. Most areas fires are still allowed. All areas have group size restrictions for camping (maximum 9 people). What mileage are you looking to do each day? Also what other activities; fishing, paddling, off-trail bushwhacking, etc...

I hear you, and in general agree. Where I draw the line is when it targets other members here.

Attributing motive to others or describing them in prejudicial terms when they have differing opinions or are making decisions one doesn't agree with is wholly unfair IMO. I understand principals in the case have personal and passionate attachments to the outcomes which can lead to personal and emotional attributions of motive etc... of the other side and of others not involved. This But this is a negotiation of a legal case. As stated by Aristotle, "the law is reason, free from from passion." Of course this has the result of fueling the attribution of others by those passionate folks who are personally affected.

The reset is per event.

Source?

Years ago one of my scouts, in uniform, was at a restaurant with his father before our meeting. An elderly gentleman as he was leaving said "If you can recite the Outdoor Code, I will pay for your dinner" The scout stood up and proudly recited the OC. It has been part of the opening in the troop for generations.

Sounds awesome. I am not familiar with cubs and webelos requirements, so it is awesome to see that one. Sad that it doesn't continue as ever increasing requirements for upper ranks. One would think that a first class scout should have done this and more. I suppose it is implied as a result of serving as a PL or such, but sadly this is not necessarily true.

I agree that observing would mean not engaging in the scouts' program. The adult does not need to be by themselves though. They should be with the other adults, separate from the scouts anyway. This time is best spent in educating the observing adults in the hows and whys of scouting. Explaining to the witnesses what they are observing and how the perceived chaos is actually the patrol method in action and how it helps fulfill the aims of scouting.

Recognition and handing out a patch to adults, ok. A ceremony, no. If the time exceeds that which is provided for a scout to recieve his awards, it was too long.

Not surprisingly the article headlines with "critical race theory" to rile up its readers without even defining it, nor attempt to explain how the mB embraces it. I doubt the author or most of it readers even know what CRT really is. And for the record, while I support the principles embodied by the mB, I do not support the creation of a new additional (not forgetting to mention required) citizenship mB. IMO the existing mBs should be rewritten to include the principles and include more "doing". For example a "Do one of the following: a. attend a rally or speech in support of rights for historically marginalized citizens. or b. interview a person from a... or c. or or or" Something like that.

A copy/paste of an advertisement or solicitation even with a preface of, "Have you seen this..." or similar is generally lumped into the No Advertising category regardless of poster's intentions.

I have both of Cave's books. Being over 100 years old, they are not in the greatest of condition. I always loved how back in the day, folks like Cave would write books to "fill the gaps" and/or give more detail with information/techniques not included in the handbook. Of course these pre-dated the Fieldbook.

I think you would be a fantastic person for the group.

No disrespect. You do not speak for me.

blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/01/19/whats-the-difference-between-two-deep-leadership-and-no-one-on-one-contact/amp/

Often a secretary in the schools will be notaries too.

The difficulty here (at least one difficulty) is that this is a bankruptcy case too. While the victims deserve compensation, and while most of us would agree that numbers currently being floated are not nearly enough nor could they ever, this is a bankruptcy case. This point cannot be lost. It really really sucks that the major debtors are CSA victims and they will not recieve just compensation like most (all?) debtors in bankruptcy cases. It really really sucks that even with complete liquidation the victims will recieve significantly less than what they deserve. Perhaps the victims groups (I apologize for not understanding the TCC and other names), should settle with the BSA and then go after the insurance companies separately? WDIK.

If we can identify them, would that count for the requirement? 😜