DuctTape

When one looks at the spirit of the changes, themes emerge. One being a distinction between cooking at home, at camp and on the trail. The requirements should, imo, be interpreted to give the boys the experience in all 3 aspects. If one interpretation allows a scout to skip "trail cooking" then, imo, this violates the spirit. A camp stove while lighter than ones kitchen stove is not a trail stove. A fire can be used at camp and on trail, and shows the most skill. Some areas fires are forbidden, thus only a lightweight trail stove must be used. Imo, this is not a 2 burner coleman, those stoves are for at camp not the trail. My 2 cents.

I see the problem as a lack of marketing direction at the National level. Irving has failed to define, and implement a vision which focuses on what makes bsa unique compared to all other organizations. Without that, all marketing done at the local level is haphazard. There are a whole bunch of burger joints around, what makes ours stand out? I would argue that the failure at the national level to ensure that all franchises implement a boy-led, patrol-method program has diluted the one thing which could be used to demonstrate what makes scouting unique. The brand is losing its luster, and that responsibility falls squarely on the big boys in tx to ensure.

I disagree. If the main mission of Scouts is to help the boys learn to make moral and ethical decisions, etc... Courtesy in language, dress, and action certainly falls within that mission. One might argue the values espoused within the Scout Law should have been taught earlier, yet we do not claim these values to be akin to Scouters being virtual parents. I see my role as complementing the values taught by the parents and community. The method of adult association allows me to be an example, so the boys see other adults demonstrating these values, and "common courtesies". I see this as part of our mission, as it always has been.

I think much hullabaloo about cursing is wasted energy. To me, the issue is nit specific words, their etymology, etc.. The real issue should be helping boys learn to speak eloquently as well as helping them understand how one speaks in polite company is a representation of themselves. Their choices of language are like a verbal uniform, it shows to others who you are inside. This is especially true when others know little about you.

Agreed. As I only have the 5th edition, it is what I use.

A reprint of the 5th Edition Scoutmaster Handbook.

I tend to think that in all advancement it is imperative that a boy demonstrate completion of all requirements, no more and no less. Most often, even in this thread, comments are about the boy demonstrating he follows the oath and law. O agree, and this IS one of the requirements; show scout spirit. Far too often this requirement just gets signed off as a rubber stamp. If this requirement actually meant something in reality, then I don't think this thread would be necessary.

"It is always interesting to watch the boys figure things out for themselves."

I think most rules and laws are a result of people not doing what they should be doing for the sake of safety or for ethical reasons. The larger group, bsa or society, then attempts to both qualify and quantify the desired behavior. As Beavah cotrectly points out, these laws and rules cannot be written to account for every detail in every circumstance, so more rules and laws are created. Also as pointed out the system has other checks and balances in an attempt to be equitable. The rules were not created to be followed for the rules sake, they were created because people weren't acting in an acceptable manner.

Our troop has a single necker. I am not a fan of it for a number of reasons, but it is a minor issue to me so I will not delve into it. However if it were up to me the troop would not have one, but each patrol would have their own.

I remember at one time the world crest patch was received when a scout participated in an international scouting event.

On forums I used to moderate, we tried to encourage participants to "seek a higher level of discourse". As mods, we had a fewcatch phrases. "Seek a higher level", "It isnt just what you say, but how you say it." and "debate the post, not the poster." Often other members would help by repeating these as appropriate to maintain civility. It was by no means perfect, but it helped.

I likely posted this anecdote before in uniform threads. I apologize in advance if I have. When my father was in scouts, neither he nor the other boys had much money. They saved, earned what they could for camping gear. Most of it was made by them, including their "uniform". Each boy made an armband of fabric which had the troop # and a patrol emblem. They wore it over their regular clothing. Since all the boys in the patrol had the same armband, it was uniform.

I never completed my Eagle Project. I thought I had, the council accepted my report. It turns out, what I thought was my project wasn't. 20 years later I was in the area where my project was. I noticed that others in the community had continued the conservation project I began. My project was not the organizing, planning, and leading a group of boys for the 100 hours of work we did. I realized decades later, my project was was showing the community the value of conservation, and how to be a part of it. My project continues to this day, I hope it is never complete.

There are PMs here? I feel left out, no one has ever messaged me.

I agree with you IF it were true the person actually complained. We do not not know if this actually happened. We have a small snippet of one persons story. I am not giving a pass on the persons behavior, I do not know what their behavior was.

There is nothing to see, that is my point. The assumption being made is that the person went to someone and complained. We do not know thus as a fact. The op believes this to be what happened, and some are accepting this as fact, but due to op's own admission he has personality clashes with the other, we do not know for certain exactly what really happened. It is entirely possible the order of events are how you et al believe, it is entirely possible a completely different irder of events took place. As I said before, I am loathe to rush to judgement without any evidence. Why is that so hard for you to see?

The story does not include any description of the actual conversations between any of the parties. Nor the circumstances in which the conversations were held. To conclude that one acted in a certain type of manner with zero knowledge of the conversation or circumstances is the assumption which I find pre-mature. There are many many ways all of this could have actually transpired, some of which could be described as you believe. Other possibilities could be completely different. For all we know, the person never actually complained. It is entirely possible they were asked their opinion about the ceremony and gave it. I am not suggesting this is what happened, but it is a possibility, thus it is premature to say he went behind someones back. We know very little, almost nothing of what actually happened. You could be right, but I give people the benefit of the doubt until evidence proves otherwise.

Stosh, I agreee with you. However if a troop "needs" to have the adults on the trek, keeping them at a distance is best IMO.

Age restrictions instead of competency perpetuates adult led trips with kids in tow. A better solution, although the insurance and legal dept at hq would shudder, would be to promote patrol camping with the PL truly in charge. With adults farther and farther away the more competent a Patrol and their PL, the more advanced the excursion will become. The boys' competencies in outdoor skills provide the boundaries instead of artifucially using age. If adults have concerns about a patrol's backpacking trip for example, there is no reason 2 scouters cannot hike and camp apart from the boys at a distance close enough for an emergency, but far enough away that the boys are unaware of the adult presence.

Agreed. Enough with the indoor classroom scouting. If this is how adults are trained at the council or district level, it is no wonder why the adults do the same at the troop level.

We do not know what really happened is my point. It isn't about labeling the behavior, it is about ascertaining the actual behavior in the first place.

As you said, assuming the above points are correct. We have almost nothing to go on about how the complaint went down, the op has alluded to a personal issue with the person, so their take is already biased. Thus with almost zero evidence of what actually transpired, it is ill-advised to conclude the person behaved in a bullying manner. In order to, one must assume facts not in evidence.

I disagree with the labeling of everything as a PC movement. While I agree that a better way of handling something is a more direct approach to the person, again we don't know the whole story. There are multiple ways the the story could have transpired. The assumption that ir was someone with ill-intent acting in a cowardly manner is not evident. The op did mention who it was, and there appears to be some history regarding differences between who knows everything. That history certainly plays a role. My entire point is that most comments here have been based on people assuming the worst. In my experience, people often project their own prejudices and intents on to others in absence of the truth. Back to the pc-movemement label. I believe this is being used as a distraction to enable those who speak or act in a manner which they choose but expect others to be silent. Protesting, or disagreeing with someone else's speech or actions is the cornerstone of the the freedom which youcrspouse. Some want to have their say, and no one else; and if someone does speak against it the label of "you are just being pc" gets tossed out. If someone says or does something offensive, that is their right. It is also my right to say so and to express my beliefs just as much as it is theirs. Good people can disagree and have enlightening conversations to increase our collective understandings of each other. Labels, name calling, and refusing to engage in a respecful dialogue does not promote understanding, and in my opinion is unkind.

Stosh, I hear what you are saying and I agree to a point. In this situation, we do not know why the person expressed concern. I personally do not have a problem with the idea of the ceremony, but we were provided with few details nor do we know what the real complaint is. Many are projecting their speculation of why the person complained even to the point of calling them a bully. This is wrong. Good people can disagree on specifics and what or how things should be done. Expressing that disagreement is not bullying, nor is it intolerant unless as you point out it is based on hate, or in my opinion the enabling of malice.