CalicoPenn

I know folks that would call a Holiday Inn "roughing it". After reading all the responses, I'm not sure that we can come up with a universal defininition of camping. Even the dictionary definition of camping wouldn't pass muster with a lot of folks here since it includes things that many here would exclude. I think the difficulty is in trying to define the line one crosses to get from camping to not camping. Pack suggests a fabric covering at best - which I presume, by the use of "at best" would include sleeping out in the open under the stars/clouds, as well as quinzhees (snow shelters) and brush lean-tos and brush shelters (unless you think they're better than fabric covered lodging) as well as tents, teepees, tarps and hammocks. Pack also specifically excludes Adirondacks (a common wooden roofed shelter with one to three sides partially to fully open to the elements). Setting aside various other man made shelters we commonly "camp" in like submarines, that narrow definition would seem to leave out natural shelters like caves, caverns and overhanging ledges since there is a covering that is not made of fabric and it's not technically under the skies and in a lot of ways, camping under the shelter of a cave is superior to camping in a tent. I'm sympathetic to the argument but, as someone has already inferred, a soft-covered pop-up trailer would qualify under this definition and I'm not convinced that an Adirondack is a better shelter than a pop-up trailer. I've stayed overnights in a few Adirondack trail type shelters - I have no doubt in my mind that I was camping. I've spent some nights on top of picnic tables under open sided picnic shelters - I think I was camping then too. I've sometimes slept overnight in my car - I've got mixed feelings on whether thats better or worse than sleeping in a tent - it's certainly better in a raging thunderstorm, but far less desirable on a hot night. I've also spent quite a few nights sleeping out on the deck of various homes I lived in or was visiting - but even though I was sleeping under the stars, I wasn't camping - at least I don't think so. That brings Engineer's half-joking post in to play - no running water, no cable, no AC. Yeah, I would call that camping (unless it was at my house after a power failure, then it's not camping, it's just an incovenience). So I've been thinking about that - Do all three things need to be there for it to apply or is it a strict rule and if even one of those items are there, it does not count as camping. As one who camps at a lot of state parks, it's fairly common that the state park will have modern toilet facilities with running water - would that mean I'm not camping even if I'm in a tent? Lets say if all three are present, it's not camping. Of course, that gives folks in tents the opening (not that they need it) to haul out a television and extension cord to watch the Packer's game while sitting in front of their tents. It excludes things like Class A Motorhomes (which have running water, satellite television, and air conditioning) but allows for things like cabins if they don't have all three of these items. One of the dictionary definitions of camping involves "temporary" living quarters - based on the examples, I don't believe they mean the definition to be restricted to shelters one brings with them all the time. There seems to be wriggle room to allowing for shelters that are permanent but not used everyday. For instance, summer camp cabins which are used just a few weeks in the summer but aren't permanent shelters for someone. The question is where does one draw the line - does staying at a weekend cabin retreat count as camping? I think I'd call it "Cabining". So where does that get us? I think it gets us to here - and it will be a familiar paraphrase to many: "I don't know what camping is, exactly, but I know it when I see it". I think we need to deepen that thought, though: "If there is no argument that something is camping, then it's camping. If there is no argument that something is not camping, then it is not camping. If there is genuine differences of opinion on whether something is camping or not, call it camping until it's proven its not." (Note the word genuine - that's to weed out those playing "Devil's Advocate" claiming that staying in a condo timeshare over the weekend is "camping"). So that makes it pretty clear, right? Clear as mud, I'm sure. One last thing: "The council camp just built a new cabin last year for use in summer by staff, but available to troops in the off-season. (Please be sitting down if you're reading this) It has ELECTRIC heat, RUNNING WATER, and OUTLETS at every bunk for charging the toys. I looked a member of the camping committee square in the eye and said "Are you s*****g me??"" If the primary purpose is for the summer camp staff, then I have no problem with this kind of cabin being built at all - the summer camp staff works hard and deserves the little luxuries they get. I may have stayed in a wall tent like everyone else did when I worked on staff, but we also had our own bath house with flushable toilets and electricity run to our tents in our encampment. If you were invited as a guest to the staff tenting area (a rare invitation but it sometimes happened), you would see tents with televisions and stereos. Nowadays, we would probably have a few more outlets for things like cell phones, I-pods and I-pads. One of our neighboring councils had a cabin like this - in the fall, they shut down the power to the outlets, winterized (ie shut down) the water to the shower/toilet rooms, disconnected the appliances (stove/refrigerator) and locked out the base heaters to 55 degrees, just enough to keep the pipes from freezing. Troops could use the cabins but they only had electric lights and running water with minimal heat.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

"First, this thread is about a troop where every boy got to First Class in five months with da troop only campin' quarterly. Not just one exceptional lad." Gee, I thought the other thread was about a Troop where every boy got to First Class in five months. I thought THIS thread was about whether it was even possible for someone to get to First Class in 5 months if a Troop only camps quarterly, and I believe I have answered that question - the rest is just the way our virtual campfires always seem to go so I think its fair game to discuss either the situation from the other thread or just one exceptional lad.

Basement - great story - I think sometimes we forget how the publics expectations of us lead to negative interactions like this one. I think we assume any negative interaction we'll get is because our Scouts are being way to rambunctious (thous the groans and eyerolls when Scouts pull into rest stops) but never consider that someone will be mad if we don't give them help they expect to be able to get rom us, even if we can't oblige.

"> If they did ---- still no tax revenue." Which is why they would use eminent domain on this property rather than one that is currently paying taxes.

Reduce your FOS donation by $30 and make sure to tell the DE exactly why you're reducing it.

Please note I am only showing that is can be done - I am not saying it should be done. I'm rather opposed to the First Class First Year program - and though I understand the BSA's reasons for it (which is based on internal studies that seem to indicate than Scouts who advance quickly in the first three ranks are more likely to stay involved in the second year), it also flies against the "A Scout advances at his own pace" meme of the Boy Scouts.

As I recall, William Jennings Bryan was not from the south - I believe he was a rather prominent politician from Nebraska (I know he ran for President a few times) but he was perhaps the leading anti-Darwinist and anti-Evolutionist of the day and was asked by a fundamentalist church organization to act as their counsel in the Scopes trial - I think it would be pretty unusual today for there to be a private co-prosecutor in a State of vs. Someone case but the courts in Tennessee allowed it. I don't think anyone ever thought of him as a redneck southern lawyer - I always thought he was considered the bumbling northern fool in the case (thanks to Darrows questioning of him). Clarence Darrow, on the other hand, was from Ohio, was one of the most famous lawyers in the country (he was the defense attorney for Leopold and Loeb) and was considered to be the "country lawyer" in the case - if any one would have been thought of as the redneck, I believe it would have been Darrow. The case is probably most famous not for the finding of Scopes as guilty (hellooooo - it's Tennessee - if the case were to be tried today in front of a jury, I doubt that the result would have been any different - I think Darrow took the case knowing Scopes would be found guilty to showcase Tennessee and the other southern states as backwards cesspools of ignorance - but for William Jennings Bryan, the "Co-prosecutor" taking the stand and essentially being made to look like a fool by Darrow. As I recall, we were taught in high school that Scopes was found guilty but the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the conviction and fine on a technicality and while not ruling the law invalid, essentially signaled that the law was silly and stupid and shouldn't be enforced.

That's a good one - I hadn't thought of that - and it's our origin story - the superhero Boy Scout emerging from the fog to help someone find their way, then quietly disappearing back into the fog. Sure, it's parodied a lot (see the movie UP) but I'd say that the public expects that of us.

I'm going to go into a different direction - I see this as a simple calendar question. Can a Scout, in a unit that only goes camping quarterly (aka once every three months) earn First Class in 5 months. The calendar answer is Yes since there are only 3 activities that must be overnights (and assuming the quarter doesn't start when the Scout starts, but as the calendar starts. Here's how it can work: 1st quarter, the Troop camps out in month 3 of the quarter and the Scout starts in month 3. Second quarter, the Troop can camp out in any of the three months - doesn't matter. Scout's only been active for four months, Third quarter, the Troop camps out in month 1 of the quarter. The Scout has been in for 5 months, has camped three times, and the Troop has camped only once per quarter. To illustrate using months - the capitalized is a month being camped: 1st Quarter: January, February, MARCH 2nd Quarter: (choose one month) APRIL, MAY or JUNE) 3rd Quarter: JULY, August, September. So yes, it's possible.

In a Cub Scout thread, TampaTurtle states: "It seems to me that there are a few things that the general public expects scouts of all ages to know (even unreasonably): First Aid and Flags." I can't disagree with that and it got me thinking - what else might the general public think a Scout should know. Now I know we run the risk of trying to list all the outdoor activities and stuff that we do but try to think of it not as the things we hope the public knows we do, but rather what we think someone in the general public would look towards us to do for them. For instance - I think it far more likely that someone might say to a Scout: "Hey, you're a Scout - can you help me tie this thing to my car" and less likely to say "Hey, you're a Scout, can you go lash me up a tower?" So TampaTurtle starts us off with: Flag Ceremonies First Aid I'll add: Knot Tying Light a Fire What else do you think the Public expects?

"Yes, like the Obama voucher program that will push 2 million poor seniors from Medicare into voucher programs..." You should really do more research rather than just follow what the right wing blogs "report" blindly. This program will NOT push 2 million poor seniors from Medicare - the folk that will be in this plan will still remain in Medicare. Those 2 million seniors and disabled are folks poor enough to be eligible to be on BOTH Medicare AND Medicaid. (A quick overview - Medicare is a FEDERAL program that covers medical care for seniors and the disabled. Medicaid is a STATE run program that covers medical and continuing care for the poor, and continuing care (ie nursing homes) for poor seniors and the disabled that are on Medicare). What this plan does is allow states to buy managed care plans for those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid to cover the costs associated with MEDICAID only. Instead of using Medicaid dollars to directly pay for the services, they'll buy group insurance plans for these folks that will pay for the services if needed. (A quick overview of how a group insurance plan works - Say you have an employer of 500 people. He provides them with a group insurance plan that covers a lot of medical care. The employees pay a portion of the premiums and the employer pays a portion of the premiums. Lets say that the premiums are $500 per month per person. The insurance company will collect $3 Million from the company (and it's employees). The insurance company is betting that they won't have to pay out $3 Million in claims for your employees. It's a pretty good bet - out of the 500 people, most won't have to use the insurance in a given year. Even if the insurance company covers an annual physical, say at $100 - they've only paid $50K. Now you might not use it but the guy in the office down the hall has a heart attack - the cost is $100,000. He doesn't have to pay all of it out of his pocket because it's covered by the premiums that everyone has paid - I know, socialist, right? It is until the healthy 35 year old opposed to "socialized medicine" goes for a bike ride, has an accident and gets a broken leg, which ends up costing $20K - how quickly the tune changes when you don't have to cough up the $20K yourself. Insurance spreads the risk out over a lot of people - that's what it does). So now that we know about group health insurance plans, what the States will do under these plans is purchase the managed care plans for the folks eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. It's NOT a voucher program because they aren't going to be giving folks a voucher to go into the market to find a plan on their own - the States are buying the plan and putting you in it. Since not everyone who is eligible will need it, they are spreading the risk to everyone. And yes, on the face of it, it's conceivable that the states could spend more money on premiums than the insurance company pays out (of course, the insurance company is also taking a risk that in one year they receive 20 million and pay out 25 million but they've got a good chance that one year they'll take in 20 million and only pay out 13 million). But - the States are counting on a couple of things - better ability to budget and savings realized in not having to administer the program. Of course, now that I've explained the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, and now that I've explained exactly what these programs are doing, you're going to ignore it anyway because that's one thing that the right wing tea bagger GOP is good at - ignoring facts.

Yeah, This whole eugenics thing is interesting but lets keep in mind that it's one thing to discuss it, it's quite another to put forth policies that will lead to it, like vouchers for healthcare.

It would be the person calling the ceremony - they're the ones giving the commands. As others have mentioned, rotate through at each meeting and everyone will quickly complete this requirement. Keep in mind too that it says lead A flag ceremony - you should be having two flag ceremonies at your den meetings - an opening and a closing ceremony.

"He has never in his life run or worked in a private business, not even a lemonade stand." Apparently the law firm he worked for in Chicago - Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard - for four years as a junior attorney doing civil rights, voting rights, employment, real estate, incorporations and handling minor lawsuits 9as a junior level attorney would do) doesn't count as a private business. If you can't be bothered to check one very easily debunked "fact" about Obama, then why should anyone believe anything, "fact" or opinion, that you post about the subject? An opinion based on provable lies (and the "never in his life worked in a private business is a LIE - no more pussyfooting around about labeling lies for what they are) is about as useful as half a nail clipper is in cutting down a 300 year old burr oak. "The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more inncocent human life than Hitler and Stalin --- combined." Having read what Packsaddle has written about haploid cells, allow me to update that little meme: Assuming one ejaculation per day, with a median of 255 million haploid cells per ejaculation, totalling 9 Trillion, 3 Billion, 75 Million haploid cells per year then a single teenage boy kills off more innocent human life in one year than has ever lived on this planet throughout human history (estimated at 100-115 billion). Now multiply that by the number of teenage boys in the US - all that innocent life wasted. (Who needs Godwin's Law!)

Do you require a parent stay with their son at every den meeting? If so, why? A Den needs a Den Leader and an Assistant Den Leader, and maybe a Den Chief (though frankly, no maybe's about it). A Den Leader and Assistant should have way too much on their late dealing with the boys - they shouldn't have time to monitor and "babysit" the adults hanging in the back of the room too. Pack Meeting? Well yeah, Mom should be there - and maybe at an occasional Den Meeting (I know of some Dens that have a calendar set up for individual parents to sign up to prepare snacks for), but she shouldn't be expected to be at every meeting. The Den and Pack leaders shouldn't be viewing these meetings as "baby-sitting". Den meetings are one of the ways that "The Pack Helps the Cub Scout Grow". If Mom isn't promptly picking her Cub up after the meetings end, then it's time to haul out the "we aren't babysitters" line, but until then? If a Den Leader is viewing it as babysitting, maybe it's time for a new Den Leader, someone who may not be burned out.

"Why no standards?" Read the requirements and the guide to advancement - those are the standards. The real issue is that some of those standards can't be standardized. I know 2 different ways to tie a clove hitch - but the end result of either is a clove hitch. We can say that no matter which method I use, I can show that I've met the objective standard of tying a clove hitch. Active and Scout Spirit? Too subjective to be standardized. What I accept as active or Scout Spirit is going to be different from what you accept - and unless National develops an objective standardized checklist, they will never be standardized. The BSA could solve the whole "active" issue by replacing the word active with registered - that would be an objective standard not open to interpretation - you're either registered or you aren't. But right now, active is defined just enough to leave a lot of wiggle room for individual interpretation. Guy shared his unit's expectations for participation. It's going to be different from other units - there is no standardization. Unfortunately, I don't think Guy's unit's expectations are clear enough - I find them rather vague, with no really clear cut guidance. In fact, I could argue that the guidelines don't treat everyone equally and put unreasonable expecations on folks that are involved in after school activities. I read it as setting the expectation that if your coach expects you to give 50%, you're expected to give 50% to the Troop as well. If the band Director expects you to give 75%, you're expected to give the Troop 75% as well. The reason the BSA has included the guidance on counting outside activities is because high school students expected to give 75% or 100% to their team/activity are less able to give 75% to 100% to their Troops at the same time. Add to that, there really is no guidance for lads not in other activities - does it mean they can get by with 2% active participation? Does it mean they're required to give 100%. It's a nice statement of purpose, but it kind of falls flat, in my view, of setting out clear expectations. I almost think we could solve all of this, and make life much easier for everyone, if we went back to the original method of earning Star, Life and Eagle Scout. No PORs, no time in rank, no service projects - just earn a number of Merit Badges, including specific required ones. Up the count of Merit Badges and list specific required badges for each rank. For instance, maybe you have to earn 8 Merit Badges for Star including 4 required: First Aid, Citizenship in the Community, Camping and Swimming, 10 additional for Life, including 5 required: Citizenship in the Nation, Hiking or Cycling, Personal Fitness, Lifesaving, and Environmental Science and 12 additional for Eagle Scout 6 required: Citizenship in the World, Personal Management, Family Life, Emergency Preparedness, Wilderness Survival, and Communications.

How about: "Lunch Means Lunch - the Menu Isn't Important" Subtitle: "It's an Application, Not a 50-page Proposal" "It's the Scouts Project - Not Yours" Subtitle: "If you want a Bench and it's not in the Project Plan, YOU Build the Bench" "Six Months - What Does That Mean?" "There Is No Minimum Project Hours Required" "So You Think You Know More Than A Merit Badge Counselor?" "Eagle Scout is the Highest Rank, it's not an Award for Being the Best" "The Requirements are the Minimum AND the Maximum Requirements" "Why the Requirements Favor the Scouts and not your Ego" Subtitle: "Scouts Advance for Their Own Reasons, Not for Your Reasons" You're a Mentor, Not a Taskmaster" "Lock Masters Welcome, Gate Keepers Stay Home" "On His Honor He Will Do HIS Best, NOT Your Best" "If It's not in the Requirements, Don't Require It" "Reading and Comprehending English Made Easy" Subtitle" "How to Read the Requirements" "How to Serve on a Board of Review" Subtitle: "Do You See the Word TEST in Board of Review?" You were talking about a book for the Leasders who screw up more Eagle Scout projects and processes than Scouts do, right?

"It is also worth noting that the civil rights act of 1964 would not have passed without bi partisan support of the republicans. A higher percentage of republican members of congress voted for this legislation than did democrats" Let's look at the numbers: This is the vote totals for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. House Southern Democrats: 787 (7%93%) Southern Republicans: 010 (0%100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%15%) Senate Southern Democrats: 120 (5%95%) Southern Republicans: 01 (0%100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%16%) It was really a divide along the Mason-Dixon line than along party lines - and though the total by party affiliation may give the GOP the edge in higher percentages, that doesn't tell the whole story. The GOP gets a higher percentage because they had fewer members than the Democrats did. If you look at the raw figures, more Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. If you look at it through the lens of the Mason-Dixon Line, then you still have more Democrats than Republicans voting for the act, and the percentage of Southern Democrats that voted for the Civil Rights act is higher than the percentage of Southern Republicans (it's also interesting that the some Southern Democrats voted for the act and zero Southern Republicans voted for the act) and the percentage of Northern Democrats voting for the act is higher than the percentage of Northern Republicans. So GOP claims to be the better party on Civil Rights in the 60's can be countered by just as strong claims by the Democratic party - it all depends on how you view the numbers. Are people to quick to cry racism? Probably, yet I would also say that there is a lot of racialism going on which is being more broadly stroked as racism. We've seen racialism used in politics for a long time - Reagan's "Welfare Queen" is a perfect example. The clamor for Barack Obama's birth certificate is another. But maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the calls that these are examples of racism. Maybe that gives racists the cover they need - the ability to claim they don't mean anything racist by what they're saying. When Reagan used the term "Welfare Queen", it was common knowledge that he was implying a black woman on food stamps driving a Cadillac. No one thought of a white woman on the dole - but most everyone was jumping to Reagans defense that he wasn't a racist for using that kind of code word, simply because he, and his closest friends said he wasn't a racist. When the birthers all claim they aren't racist, we come to their defense, because, well, racist is such a charged word. But you know what? Maybe we're wrong to dismiss the labeling so quickly. Who but a racist would use a code word like "Welfare Queen"? Who but a racist would demand a black President's birth certificate while never demanding to see a white President's birth certificate. And maybe "Chicago" is becoming another of those code words for racialism. The use is obviously code to suggest that President Obama is corrupt because he comes from the corrupt City of Chicago. Funny, I had a discussion with someone in Iowa about this very thing this past weekend. He called Obama corrupt because he came from Chicago - and everyone knows that Chicago is the most corrupt city in the US - so therefore Obama must be corrupt. Good old circular logic - with nothing but non sequitors to try to prove it (making the argument even weaker). When I asked for examples of corruption, he started talking about all the shootings in Chicago - but he couldn't tell me why shootings meant Chicago was corrupt - maybe the gang bangers are paying off the cops to look the other way? Nahh - couldn't even come up with that. And he refused to be shaken from the "fact" after being told that Obama was never part of the Chicago machine, the machine actually disliked him (he beat a hand-picked machine candidate for State Senate) and that Daley never really liked him and gave Obama luke-warm support at best until it became obvious he was going to be the candidate. But may its not racialism - at least not this time - maybe that same meme would be spoken about an old white guy from Chicago running for President - but given the past history, I have to wonder. We have a Black President - race is going to be a part of it - and what the media is going to report is the negatives, the nutjobs holding pictures of Obama dressed in jungle clothing eating watermelon - and unless we speak out and condemn such things, then we're going to be bombarded with crys of racism for every little thing - and we'll deserve it for not being brave enough to call out the racialists on their garbage.

I believe there is too much emphasis on Eagle Scout being "the best of the best" which has led to the show "gatekeeper" mentality among so many folks. When someone argues that Eagles are only doing the bare minimum and that's not good enough, it tells me that the person doesn't really understand the requirements but has bought into the idea that Eagle Scout is "the best of the best". Write down all the requirements for ranks (and joining) from Scout to Eagle and that is the "bare minimum" required to earn Eagle Scout. That is also the "Full Maximum" required to earn Eagle Scout too. So much for "bare minimum", hih? Now take a look at all those requirements again, but this time, by rank. Look carefully and you'll notice that the first three ranks are about skills - outdoors skills, first aid, things like that. Then notice what Star, Life and Eagle Scout ranks are light on (to the point of non-existence) - Skills. These three ranks are about exploration (Merit Badges), service, teaching and leadership. It's interesting that we're in this forum talking about whether Eagle Scout is "best of the best" - I sometimes run into it out in public but not as often as in here, and in here, it's usually the units that have "stricter standards" (and often among folks that never earned Eagle Scout but feel it's their responsibility to hold it up on a pedestal). I love reading smaller cities newspapers when I go out traveling - you rarely see Eagle Scout projects written up in the major Chicago papers, but go to Decatur, Illinois, and you'll find write-ups - I've rarely ever come across an article that seems to suggest that earning Eagle Scout is more than it really is. The articles usally talk about how many Merit Badges a Scout has earned, what his service project was, maybe a story about camp or high adventure - but never suggesting that Eagle Scout rank is the "best of the best".

What was it that Dear Abby, or was it Ann Landers, used to say all the time? No one can walk all over you if you don't let them walk all over you? This is very much a time for the leaders of the Girl Scout unit to decide if they are going to be walked all over or not - a simple "thank you for your suggestions, we have decided to continue as we are - we love having your daughter in the unit but if it's not the unit for you and your family, we'll understand if you feel the need to move on" and then continue doing what you're doing. If she gets defensive, walk away. If she gets agressive, walk away. If she trys to pull the "my daughter sold more cookies than anyone else" routine, walk away. No one has to engage - just state your piece and leave it at that - no defending the unit, just envision Miss Manners and as soon as the defensiveness comes in, just say, Yes, well..." and walk away.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

PJ - any chance the person who wrote the new guide is British or relied heavily on British books for definition? What we call a slip here in the US is called a dock in Britain.

"You enter a room your mother is on the floor bleeding from an unknown injury. What do you do????" Is "Freak Out" an acceptable answer?

Thanks, Lisa - I will. After my second bout of cancer, nothing much fazes me anymore - that's certainly changed my viewpoints on a lot of things. Alas, the steroids I take to keep my lungs clear overwhelm the synthroid I take to replace the hormones my severely damaged thyroid no longer produces which keeps my from losing weight and lowers my stamina. My mountain hiking and 15-mile a day backpacking days are pretty much behind me now and those had figured pretty heavily in my plans. C'est la vie.

No, it comes down to the difference between people who understand that meeting the requirements mean Eagle Scout has been earned, and people who think there is some kind of magical difference.

"Troops should have substantial freedom to determine their own standards for what it means to be an Eagle Scout." There is a reason the BSA publishes the requirements, and a guide to advancement to explain what it all means to people wqho can't figure out that the requirements are the requirements, and are no more or no less than the requirements. It's so that Troops DON'T determine their own standards for Eagle Scout. It's so that an Eagle Scout in a Troop in Paramus, New Jersey has met the SAME standards as an Eagle Scout in a Troop in Bakersfield, California. Now I know Beavah is going to chime in with his usual statements about ideals and giving COs and Troops the ability to do what's best for the boys - and I don't disagree that it needs to be considered - but what Beavah consistently fails to understand is that there is no conflict between those ideals and the standards if you don't set up the conflict yourself. Follow the program and standards as they are written and you will always be on the right path - straying from the path is when you develop drama. I speak from my own experience, having had to appeal to get my Eagle Scout rank - in my case, the BOR decided that because I wasn't a practioner of a mainstream religion, I was not eligible to get Eagle Scout since apparently I couldn't do my duty to "God". Fortunately for me, the Council approved it (it didn't have to go to National) because they understood my Goddess was every bit equal to their God. No where, in any documentation, did it say that Eagle Scout was only for Judeao/Christian Scouts but this BOR made up their own standard. "By contrast, perhaps a Scout awarded Eagle by the council or national should look to the council or national for honoring that award. The troop needn't recognize the award of Eagle unless it has met the troops own standards." Eagle Scout IS a National Award - it's one of the major differences between Eagle Scout and the other ranks. Units do not award Eagle Scout rank - National does. After the EBOR, the paperwork all goes to National for review and to award the rank - theoretically (and if it's ever happened, it's very very rare) National can review the paperwork and not award the Eagle Scout rank, even after the BOR has congratulated the Scout on earning the rank. And really, you would be that petty not to congratulate a Scout on being awarded Eagle Scout through appeals just because Council or National decided that you didn't understand the rules? What kind of example is that for a Scout leader?