Col. Flagg

Interesting. Have you tried using a different theme and seeing if you have the same problem? Sometimes themes have different code bases, as evidence by the theme that was/is causing a log on prompt.

Didn't they combine all the "ethnicity" knots in to one single knot recently?

Our unit requires all ASMs to take S11 and S24, as well as all online training and CPR/AED. The goal is to make sure that if the SM drops, we can keep going. This approach does send some folks packing, and good riddance. If they don't want to be trained they don't have the commitment to keeping the boys safe. Those who do step up are worth their weight in gold. That said, we have nearly 18 active ASMs. What keeps them up at night? Accusations, accidents on their watch, getting sued, parent drama.

I am an SM+MBC, taken all the training available for both BSA and Venturing. Added WRFA, Wilderness First Responder, COPE, Climbing, etc. My records read like this: National: Shows me as SM, 80% of my training, get over written a few times a year which I have to ask someone else on the Key 3 to update since I cannot update my own data. Council: Shows me as Cubmaster and ASM, has 20% of my training...all wrong. Won't let me make changes to my data. Does not show me as an MBC nor any of that associated training. One would think councils would realize their systems are worse than national and just agree to have one system.

Sorry, but I had to laugh at the thread title. Just gave me images of Ralphie pinning down Scott Farkas. Must admit, there have been a few volunteers that I've wanted to, well, you know...

I wouldn't want a bag of deserts either. But if I had the bag of desserts, you'd be able to see the cloud of smoke my heels were kicking up pretty easily as I run away.

I will say that, from my experience, the majority of the people I know (over 75 people) who have taken WB, only a handful thought it worthwhile. Sampling crosses over 10 states and a larger number of councils; all within the last 20 years. To me, that speaks more to the content than to its delivery. I can appreciate that some may find it useful, nonetheless.

Really? Have you visited a college campus? Anytime a group seeks to exclude another, they are being marginalized.

Situational ethics. If you are okay with marginalizing 1% -- whoever they are -- but not okay with marginalizing 4%, you are using your own beliefs to justify your actions. If you truly believe marginalizing ANYONE is wrong, then you would fight it -- no matter who it affects.

Well, you hear the left complaining about the 1%. Why do they want to marginalize the 1% but it's a horrid idea to marginalize just 3% more of another group? The irony in the left's arguments are too funny sometimes. Do this some time, keep a notebook by your TV table. Every time a show mentions something along the LGBT spectrum just make a hash mark. You will find many shows -- in fact, some cable networks -- work in LGBT issues in a huge percentage of their shows. My kids had to do this for a church class a few years back. Some networks scored over 30% of their programming mentioning such issues or themes. Some even more. It is no surprise that impressionable kids think they're something they're not. I thought I was Billy Idol. Turns out I wasn't. Thank God I didn't buy those leather pants.

No offense, but this is an example of the type of attitude I see with most WB proponents. Somehow, if you don't "get" WB or see its usefulness, you must have missed something. The value, if there is one, was so elusive that only those truly seeking it could find it. In my experience, this stance is an excuse for something that was poorly designed. If the least intelligent, least skilled, least educated person in the room cannot "get" what the training is about, you've missed your objective. The best training I have ever had has been clearly communicated, expertly organized so that nearly anyone could teach it, and so well documented that if you didn't attend the class you could still derive extreme value from its contents and materials. Having culled through the various WB training materials, I see no evidence of any of this.

Having seen it in MANY councils, it is more than just local.

There's no chip on my shoulder. This is an honest evaluation of a course, how it is developed and presented, from someone with the experience to spot the gaps and draw a conclusion. And looking at your response you missed one of my major criticisms of the course (above in red). It is rarely taught in the same manner with the same content and same goals.

Why are you so baffled? Ever been to a movie where you expected it to be good (Star Wars VII) and it turned out to be a complete disappointment and waste of time? My frustration is the course content and curriculum. It does not speak to what units really need. It does not discuss how to avoid the pitfalls that kill most programs. It does not address conflict resolution effectively. The course is not designed to be taught uniformly, so it is rarely taught the same way twice.

That was my thinking too. Unless the idea is that he wear the SM patch with his patch underneath which, as you correctly point out, would be false advertising. He's not SM so he wouldn't wear the SM patch, would he? Folks will know if you are a former SM by wearing your Scouter's Key.

And they are just realizing this? https://heatst.com/culture-wars/gender-expert-teens-are-trying-to-be-transgender-because-its-trendy/

Of course not. But personally I would direct that energy in to my unit and our kids. One has limited time and to offer to Scouts I know I can help and make a difference with is the best use of my time. But the curriculum of WB did not teach him all he needed to do all that. He had an idea, he pulled in the resources he needed, he planned and executed what he needed to. All that was done by his own gumption. WB just happened to be, by happenstance, the catalyst. I think we have all seen similar programs arise as a result of well-meaning Scouters doing their philanthropic best to better their world. They didn't need or use WB to pull that off. My points being: WB does not make one a good leader or teach them scoutcraft. Most tickets I see are no where near as impacting or philanthropic as you note above. Most tickets I see do not help the Scouts. The WB'ers in my area tend to put on a air of superiority and look down on others who are not "one of them". The reputation of WB in my areas is very bad, due mostly to the people who continue to run it, how they treat people and their unwillingness to see anyone who is not WB trained as a valuable member of Scouting.

The irony that GSUSA is so overly accepting of anyone OTHER THAN heterosexual males when it comes to helping with their organization, makes their whole "acceptance" philosophy rather transparent, political and discriminatory. But when that affects a group they (GSUSA) feel are "privileged" then I guess it's okay. It just happens to be how many groups throughout antiquity have justified discrimination against people they don't like. So I'd rather they be honest about it than masquerade as some sort of enlightened group...when they're really not.

Why? BSA recognizes to such position. You are either an SM or you are an ASM.

Reading GBB could do the same thing...and take less of your time. Reminder them it's "Boy Scouts" is the shortest method.

Correct. And then countless hours doing your tickets. All for what? Beads? A new necker? A name tag or patch? Oddly enough, my experience is that this game (win all you can) actually works. Most of the WB'ers I know do just that: Win all they can...and rub it in the face of others who are not WB'ers. As with most things in Scouting, WB will have its supporters and its detractors. I have yet to see it take a raw Scouter and turn them in to a selfless Scouter. Imagine if the time spent on WB was spent on making a failing unit better, helping a kid who was flailing in rank advancement, developing a true buddy system so that bullying was eliminated in units, etc. Couldn't think of a better use of one's time.

I am all for the free choice of food. However, as a Cooking MB counselor our Scouts know that Pop Tarts won't get a check box for the patrol cooking requirement for any meal. If they want that or cereal or doughnuts, more power two them; however, they won't get Requirement #5 signed off.

Unless you are gay or transgender and are peddling soft drinks and bad snacks, they you are prohibited again.

It's easier to repeat it 10-20 times in front of a mirror than memorize some silly acronym.