CalicoPenn

Now hold on there Beav, I didn't offer a "clear enough" reason - I offered up a clear example as to why water pistols might be considered simulated firearms (which was promptly subject to an attempt to obfuscate as Airsoft guns) when someone suggested they couldn't see it. And I offered up one possibility that folks may be overlooking as to why there might be this whole simulated firearms business in the G2SS in the first place. That is just a possibility, and I thought I was pretty clear that it's just a possibility - I'll let the folks decide if it's a plausible guess or not. Heck, here's another guess that can be just as plausible in some Councils. There might be some Councils who have gotten sick and tired of parents calling up to complain that their child's fancy super soaker water pistol got broken in a water gun fight or was stolen by another Cub and they want the Council to reimburse them for the cost - point to the G2SS clause on simulated firearms when Council says no water guns and now you have a rule being used to back up their decision. Now if you want to tell us why these guesses are not plausible, by all means, have at it - but don't just dismiss them as mere guesses needing no further challenge. Treat them as the "war games" suggestion is being treated (and I also disagree with that suggestion - for the reasons being given - Capture the Flag is a war game). JoeBob mentions that his Council's (or Districts) new Day Camp Director went to National Camp School this year and came back with information that Water Guns were not allowed. Perhaps folks missed it but I mentioned that this is the same information given back when I went to National Camp School for Day Camps back 30 years ago. Seems that this consistency is being overlooked. I believe Richard has told us what his answer either was or would be when he said he would point to that particular section of the G2SS. I doubt he'll further interpret it beyond that believing that most Scouters are intelligent enough to figure it out on their own, for their own circumstances. The twists and turns we go through to try to justify our points is fascinating in thes forum. Caulk guns, glue guns, flit gun, spray gun, grease gun, etc? Ya know, if your caulk gun is made to look like an M-16, then yeah, it would probably not be allowed because it's made to look like a firearm. At least under a plain English definition of "Simulated" rather than an obfuscated legal-world definition of "Simulated". Is a finger and thumb held in a way meant to suggest a gun a "simulated" firearm? Does it actually look like a gun? No, it lookes like a finger and thumb. Same with a stick. Sure, a lad with imagination might turn a stick into a bazooka, but it still looks like a stick. Now most water guns these days look like something out of the Men in Black alien weapon collection. They don't look like any firearm any of us know. Ok to use? Let's let the Councils make their own decisions (and as Richard suggests when he said some things we may not know by design - Councils may have gotten further directions from National on the interpretation for Council and District run programs (say, in the form of instruction at National Camp School) - it may be possible that Councils are told not to allow water pistols at Council events but they aren't going to tell local units the same thing - remember the discussion of monkey bridges and the height restrictions? A careful reading makes it clear that these restrictions are musts for Council/District but shoulds for Units). Anyone else notice Thomas54's update? The Cubs were allowed to use camp issued water pistols (hmmm, wonder why they couldn't use their own) and could only shoot into a bucket held by another Cub. Does anyone think this was thought up in a vacuum, all on the Day Camp Director's own or can we see the hands of a few other people involved here.

Back in my days as a Scout, the Troop with the golf carts would be spending an awful lot of time playing "find the golf carts" (or "find the golf cart batteries") on the second day of camp, purely as an inter-troop gag of course.(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Let's not be too quick to blame risk management either. Another plausible explanation as to why this rule continues to exist is that for decades (I believe about 10 of them now, if I do my math right), the BSA has had at least one, very consistent message regarding guns. That message has been "don't point guns at other people". I can see folks further up the chain stuggling to decide if allowing "simulated firearms" to be pointed at other people sends a mixed signal and deciding that they'd rather not try to explain why it's not ok to point a gun at someone but it is ok to point a water pistol that looks like a realistic .45 (such as I had when I was a lad), or a cap gun (had one that looked like a snub-nosed .38) at someone and just say that pointing any gun, real or not, simulated or not, is not allowed.

Are you asking under Roberts Rules of Order? If s/he voted in the original vote, then no. I s/he didn't vote, then yes. But then the Committee can vote to override. Are you asking under the BSA Troop Committee Handbook? Then you're pretty much on your own and can make your own rules. Practically speaking, if the CC has vetoed something the entire committee has voted for (and we won't even get into a discussion on why your voting on things in the first place), then ignore the veto and just go ahead with what you voted on doing anyway. If the committee is somewhat split, then you have some work to do to find compromise to move forward with what the majority wants. You should be trying to "govern" by consensus as much as possible. If it's related to a program item - something the Scouts want and the Committee voted for it and the Chair vetoed - then just override the veto. If it's something the Scouts want to do and the Committee voted against it, then stand by the veto. In the end, there is only one real method of voting - with your feet. If you can't come to some kind of understanding with the CC, then just walk away from the committee.

You've gone through 4 CC's in one year because of this ASM? Am I reading this right? Does he have pictures of you folks in compromising positions? Should the COR or the UC be involved? Frankly, there's nothing the UC can do at this point, and the COR should have been brought on board a long time ago. This ASM hasn't assumed these responsibilities in a vacuum. He grabbed on to them because you let him grab on to them. When he belittled and humiliated the mother of one of the Scouts, you let him do so. But it's not neccessarily too late. Hopefully, your new CC has a spine and will stand up to both this ASM and the SM for his role in enabling the ASM. Your new CC should meet with the COR, explain the issues, then make sure the COR has his/her back when the ASM is told (not asked - told) that the Troop is gratful for his services but his services are no longer required, and that he is no longer an ASM for the unit, nor will be accepted as a Registered Adult Leader in the Troop in any capacity. If it takes the COR to do so, then so be it. If anyone balks (such as the SM) show them the same door.

"I've never been able to "properly" float. I always end up with my legs in a vertical position, my arms out at the sides and my head and shoulders out of the water, tilted back." Ummm - sounds like a "proper" float to me. Back when I went through the Red Cross Water Safety Instructor's school, this was considered the ideal resting back float. Indeed, what's being described is pretty darn similar to an iceberg. About 10% of an iceberg's mass is above water, the other 90% is under water, but icebergs are still floating, aren't they? If you were struggling to keep your legs in a horizontal position, then you weren't resting. There were people who would sink a few inches under the water - but most of the time, if you could get them to arch their back just so, they would float just like Shortridge. In those rare instances when they couldn't, we would still call it a float because the person stopped sinking. Floating doesn't neccessarily mean like a cork. Something wholly suspended in water without touching the ground could still be considered floating. I think if you're using a counselor or a person signing off on rank requirements that uses a definition of floating that is so rigid that it doesn't take into account the way a body naturally behaves in the water, then it's time to find a new counselor.

Have to agree, you can't eat Tau. And what is Tau anyway? 2Pi. Seems 2Pi is perfect, expecially if you can mix them - say a Pizza Pi for dinner and an Apple Pi for dessert.

I read the paper (all 40 pages of it). I can't say I'm surprised that it was released by Harvard rather than by a peer reviewed journal. I have doubts that a peer reviewed journal would let this get past the mail room into reviewers hands in the first place. Using rainfall to substitute for studying a cohort of subjects over a period of years? May as well use the number of donuts served by Krispy Kreme on the day before Thanksgiving to determine if people are more or less likely to eat Pumpkin Pie for desert on Thanksgiving day. Hmmm - that gives me an idea. If this paper is an example of the scholarship accepted by Harvard, I should propose that Krispy Kreme study - could lead to a PhD. So I came up with my own conclusions that seem just as valid given the stats that these authors have come up with. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to attend Fourth of July Parades when it rains (since there is no change from rain to non-rain days for Democrats, that suggests that Democrats are always there, rain or shine, and Republicans are not). There is a higher chance of 4th of July rains in Democratic heavy areas than there is in Republican heavy areas. Republicans are more likely to claim that Patriotism is about being a Republican than Democrats are. Even Harvard University hopes to get a positive mention by Fox News. Thanks, eisely - I haven't chuckled this much over an "academic" paper since reading a friends Intro to Lit paper on the important themes to be found in the Ian Fleming's James Bond books.

If I meant Airsoft guns, I would have said Airsoft guns. Attempts at obfuscations aside, google water gun and police shooting and you will find examples. I'm not suggesting (and never did suggest) that water guns are dangerous, only pointing out that even some professionals mistake water pistols for real guns, with tragic purposes, so a statement suggesting that water guns can't be simulated firearms has a major flaw - the fact that some water pistols can be mistaken for a firearm (and are therefore simulated firearms). Indeed, to simulate is to copy, represent or feign the real object, and there are still water pistols being made to look like real firearms. "Political Correctness is real and is out of control having many undesirable effects. Anyone remember the story about 7 years back of the 8 year old expelled from school for using a chicken tender as a simulated gun with friends playing in school ?" Let's not confuse political correctness with zero tolerance. They just aren't the same. In this case, it's a zero tolerance policy which is insane. Had it been political correctness, the lad would have been expelled from school for having a chicken tender in the first place because it could offend vegetarians.

"I fail to see how a water gun is a "simulated firearm"." I'm wondering how the police officers who shoot people with water pistols (seems there's a couple of news articles about this happening somewhere in the US every year) would answer this? I'm wondering how bank tellers and retail clerks who have been robbed, or nearly robbed, by people who point water pistols at them would answer this? Granted, these are water pistols that aren't going to have that space-ray look that water guns commonly have nowadays, yet we still have people trained in knowing what a gun looks like shooting people who are carrying water pistols. I call that enough evidence to tell me that water pistols can be considered simulated firearms. If some Councils want to interpret that rule to say that water pistols aren't allowed, I'm ok with that. If some want to be loose about it, I'm ok with that too. Water soaked sponges and water balloons aren't new - we used them at Day Camp back in the 70's and 80's. Frankly, they're more fun and satisfying than water guns on a hot summer day anyway - you get wet faster. I'd even wonder if a Cub Scout would find using water soaked sponges and water balloons more fun than water guns anyway. They can use water guns at home - how many get to use big, whopping sponges of water at home? We had a thread about the "fun" being regulated out of Scouting. Can anyone honestly say that using water soaked sponges is less fun than using water guns? The Cub Scouts aren't going to care - as long as they get to run around, squeal like 7-10 years old girls (err boys), and get wet. At the end of the activity, the big grin on a Cub Scout's face should be enough to tell you that he had fun. Before the BSA is accused of bringing "PC" baggage to the table (and frankly, anyone who labels something as "PC" is just upset that there are consequences to doing anything they feel like doing), keep in mind the BSA has not just developed these rules and policies - the BSA has been consistent on these for decades. The BSA has never allowed weapons to be pointed at people or human looking targets (and most BSA rifle, shotgun and archery range instructors, through the ages, would have your head if you pointed a weapon anywhere but down range), has opposed laser tag and paintball as unit activities since they first came about (though they now allow them as target practice), and has suggested to day camps at least as far back as 1979 when I took National Camp School training for Day Camp that water guns should not be used at Day Camp. None of this is new within the Boy Scouts of America, and none of this is likely to change. Either we accept their wisdom on this or move on to another organization. It's time to stop bringing our own baggage in to this and act like Thomas54's Boy Scout - accept it maturely, and move on.

Time for an update. Turns out that Robert is not all that honest after all. He did indeed find that bag of money - but he didn't find it outside the Senor Tacos in Rolling Meadows, he found it outside the Walgreens in Midlothian, which is where the armored car company had picked it up (and then promptly lost it). He still had no intention of keeping it, but he hadn't told his workplace that he would be in Midlothian so when he found the money outside the Walgreens, instead of just turning it in there and risking that his bosses would find out he wasn't where he was supposed to be, he took it with him and "found" it in Rolling Meadows. Now he's been charged with filing a false police report and is being fined $500 - all because he was hoping to meet a woman in Midlothian on company time.

Hmm - looks like (eyebrow raise) short, solid vanes. If a Scout had qualified using these arrows, I would be most impressed indeed. Sounds like you might be on the right track for next time - wood or aluminum shafts with proper fletching rather than solid vanes. Heck, they might actually get somewhere with the 'red bows of death" if they had a better arrow. Just as you've purchased larger bows for the Scouts and Adult Volunteers to use, it would probably be a nice treat to buy proper arrows for them to use too.

Beavah, I like you and all but I'm gonna have to call you out on your latest post here. You do a diservice to the folks that serve on those National task forces with your statement. A quick search under BSA National Advancment Task Force brought me to a Central Region Venturing site congratulating a volunteer from the Great Sauk Trail Council who is also serving as a Regional Committee member on receiving the Silver Antelope. On the National level, she has served on the National Shooting Sports Task Force, the National Youth Development Task Force, the National Advancement Task Force and served on the 2010 National Jamboree staff. It's her local service that is most impressive: Webelos Den Leader, Cubmaster, MBC, Assistant Scoutmaster, Commitee Chair, Venturing Crew Advisor, District Training Committee, District Advancement Committee, Venturing Crew Advisor, District Eagle BOR member, Council Venturing Chair and Council Board Member. She's received the District Award of Merit, Silver Beaver and is a Vigil Honor member of the OA. This is just one of the dedicated volunteers who have served on the National Advancement Task Force that you have just blithely denigrated as folks that don't work with CO's, parents, and don't understand the policy and you think National should take away their membership because they aren't following National policy as YOU interpret it. These are the folks that National has chosen to interpret the policy so when they tell us what the definition of active is, that IS the policy of the National BSA.

JoeBob, With the new information, it sounds like the arrows are definitely part of the problem but I doubt the weight of the arrow is the key. Sounds more like an issue with the fletching if you're getting that kind of wobble at ten yards, let alone fifteen. Wonder what would happen if you used arrows that weren't as well loved (and for that matter, what would happen if you used bows that weren't as well loved - you never mention how old the bows are (is it folly to ask the last time the bow strings were changed? If your district/council is anything like mine, no one even thinks about changing bow strings). Over a period of time, even fiber glass bows will lose some oomph. I retired my handmade osage orange longbow a couple of years back because it just wasn't up to hunting anymore). (And if you come back and say the fletching is the real cheap solid plastic kind, rather than the plastic that at least pretends to be a feather, you're in for a severe eyebrow raising, ala Spock). (This message has been edited by calicopenn)

Is your Troop part of the council? If so, I imagine a couple of pointed questions to the SE asking if he thinks the parents will respond well at FOS time if they find out their kids were given expired food and asking if it would be ok to give the Council an expired check to pay for next years camp might shake up the tree a bit. Out of council? I imagine a pointed question to the SE wondering how well their marketing out of council will go when other units learn that the council gives out of date food to Scouts at their camps and bases will shake up the tree a bit. Or perhaps mentioning 60 Minutes knocking on his door with some really hard questions might shake up that tree a bit. I know that A Scout is Thrifty, but there is no excuse - none whatsoever, for this. Yes, the food might still be good, but I guarantee the publicity will be horrendous.

Does it have to spin, or can it just move and make a lot of noise? Can you have some boy Scouts rig a a couple of posts with a crossbeam at the top (pioneering lashing project) at the end of the range that you can hang something like metal pie plates on a string that the Cubs could aim at? Hit that and it should make a satisfying noise and move too.

JoeBob, Interesting. I'd have to say the official BSA site is the one to follow but before doing so, I'd check out the printed version of the 2011 requirements first before following the online version. If they match, then it's 170. If not, I'd follow the printed version. It's curious that they would up the change to 170 points for recurve bows and longbows but not up the points needed to score on the other methods (which are also lower than the alternative methods for the compound bows). Joe - what is the pattern look like when the Scouts shoot these at 15 yards - are the arrows hitting in the lower target face or are they just spread all over the place? If your finding that your pattern is hitting in the lower portion of the target, then you need to adjust your aiming upwards a bit and there should be some improvement. It's going to take longer for an arrow on a 20 pound draw bow (assuming that the Scout will actually pull to the full 20 pounds) to get to the target than it will for an arrow shot from a 30 pound draw bow. The time may seem insignificant to us, but can be significant as far as aiming is involved. And not meaning to be a noodge, but are you sure the bows being used are 60" bows and not 50" bows? I only ask because you mentioned using District equipment at a Cub Scout Day Camp and it just doesn't make sense that a Cub Scout Day Camp would be using bows that are 5 feet in length when your average Cub Scout is less than 5 foot tall. It would make much more sense for them to purchase 50 inch bows (4.16 feet in length) for Cub Scouts - and a 50-inch bow of this type generally has a maximum draw weight of about 20 pounds, which might not be enough to go 15 yards with any accuracy. And yep, the "red bow of death" comes in a 50" size too.

Well first, let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples. There are 2 options: Option 1: Using a long bow or recurved bows, the requirement is to shoot 30 arrows in five-arrow ends at an 80-centimeter five color target at 15 yards and using the 10 scoring regions make a score of 150. Option 2: Using a compound bow, the requirement is similar but the end score must be 170. If the MBC is requiring 170 points for a recurve bow or a long bow, the discrepancy should be politely pointed out as the requirement is 150 points. Now beyond that, I think I would be looking at the equipment, specifically the draw weight of the bow. You mentioned using district equipment during Cub Scout Day Camp. My first assumption is that these bows have a limited draw weight (10 to 15 pounds?) so they can be used by Cub Scouts. Chances are pretty good that the bows just aren't capable of delivering any kind of power to enable a Boy Scout to hit a target with any kind of accuracy at 15 yards. Chances are good that most adults would have a problem with a low draw weight bow suitable for Cub Scouts to hit a target with any kind of accuracy at 15 yards. The Boy Scouts may need to have bows with a greater draw weight (20+?). The bows you have may have been good for 10 yards, but just aren't enough for 15 yards. I'd start there. I'd be inclined to consider the bows at Boy Scout Camp as well - chances are they're using the same bows they've been usng for years and they probably need to be replaced.

Refining my answer a bit - all the things mentioned after the word "including" should be read as items the Scout and MBC must cover. That's your standardization. Every Scout, everywhere, should have covered those items with their MBC, no matter whether they are in Barrow, Alaska or Key West, Florida. Covering what the Merit Badge Book has in it's pages won't let you down. Can you add extra? Sure, but keep it reasonable. The items you mentioned seem reasonable to me. Hauling out the First Aid Merit Badge book and covering all of that is probably not reasonable. Looking over the lists, some seem to be included because we generally don't think of them when we think of the activity - cuts and scrapes in swimming? Happens - but who thinks you'll get cuts and scrapes while swimming? I have to agree with Beavah that the intent is likely to reinforce outdoor first aid. I'll take it a step further and suggest that the intent is to reinforce the first aid that we aren't already covering multiple times already. Scouts may only talk about certain things in the context of the First Aid Merit Badge, but if Troops are using Scouts to teach new Scouts the first aid requirements for T-2-1 all the time, then those items are much more often reviewed and practiced.

Yes - merit badges earned before a Scout earns his Eagle Scout will count towards palms, provided they were not part of the merit badges needed to earn Eagle Scout. The requirement is to earn 5 merit badges (for bronze) beyond those required for Eagle. It isn't since earning Eagle. A Scout could have earned 15 merit badges beyond those required for Eagle before he becomes Eagle, and without earning another merit badge since becoming Eagle, provided he meets all the other requirements, could earn Bronze, Gold and Silver palms.

JoeBob, I was about to take issue with your characterization of TSA employees as "union thugs" but have learned that TSA employees have gotten limited rights of collective bargaining and have just chosen their first union to represent them so it appears that the TSA employees have been "union thugs" for a bit less than a week now. I'm surprised that you didn't use the term "jack-booted union thugs". As a side, it used to be that when folks got something others didn't, we would fight to make sure everyone got it. For instance, if union members got 2 weeks of vacation and non-members got 1 week of vacation, we would fight to get non-union members 2 weeks of vacation. Now, we try to take things away from others. Today, if union members got 2 weeks of vacation and non-union members got 1 week of vacation, we would be insisting that union members give up a week of vacation. We see it all the time now with the pension wars. Instead of demanding that we get pensions too, we're demanding that government take away union workers pensions. What a sad commentary on our collective intelligence. So many people have surrendered their own interests for the interests of corporate America that it's become the socially accepted norm to do so.

I'd use the merit badge book as a guideline. If the merit badge book covers hypothermia, heat reactions, frostbite, dehydration, blisters, insect stings, tick bites, and snakebites but doesn't cover other possibilities, like sprains, burns, etc., then go with the book.

""..paranoia of people like scoutfish is that it causes an unnecessary panic among the people." Except one thing: It happens all the time. You ever read a story about a guy who runs into the airport and everybody sees the big bomb wrapped around his chest? Nope, you sure don't!"" So I had to put that "it happens all the time" to the test and see if there truly was anything to justify the conversion of an entire private industry to a government program, other than the media-induced fear and paranoia of a small percentage of our population (and I admit I'm basing the percentage on anecdotal evidence and not polling data - I have a serious problem with the polls taken on this subject since there are no polls taken to compare general survey polls of the entire population, which will include people who have never flown in their life, with those that fly perhaps one time per year (or 5), with those that fly all the time. This is one of those cases where the folks that fly all the time should have a greater say that Cousin Bill who lives in grandmas basement and has never even seen an airport, much less been in one. I looked at hijackings in the US. The greatest number of hijackings in the US occurred during the 1960's and 1970's. Makes sense since the first use of metal detectors in airports was in 1974. Metal detectors were installed, run by private contractors under contract with the airlines, and hijackings went down. I could find only 2 recorded instances of hijackings of planes taking off from US airports in the 1980's, both going to Cuba, despite there being far more passenger trips in the 80's than in the 70's and 60's. Seems that private security was working. In the 1990's, I found one instance - and it wasn't a passenger plane, it was a Fed-Ex cargo plane and was hijacked by a former disgruntled employee. The last hijacking of planes that took off from the US was in 2001 - and we all know the date. For over 20 years, private security screening contracted by the airlines was more than sufficient to keep our airspaces safe. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it still couldn't keep us safe without these ridiculously stupid rules and regulations. I just don't see the "all the time" in any of this. We never read stories about people running into airports with bombs strapped to their chests in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's either. "As a wise man once said, just because you're paranoid, doesn't meant they aren't really out to get you." To paraphrase another wise man, "Sometimes paranoia is just paranoia."

Beavah is correct - there is no such thing as a partial merit badge. Everyone else is correct too - there is such a thing as partial completion of a merit badge that can be finished with another MBC. NJCub - Partial completions have been aroound for as long as I can remember (as have blue cards). Had them in the early 70's. Once a requirement has been signed off on, the requirement is complete - if it takes a Scout 5 years to earn the merit badge, every requirement he get's signed off during those 5 years counts as partial completion of the merit badge. I agree with Beavah that a Scout should try to work with the same counselor all the way through a badge, but sometimes, it's just not possible. Summer camp is not the only place one can earn partial completion - a Scout may be working with an MBC who is suddenly hospitalized and can no longer continue to work with the Scout - or an MBC who is transfered and has to move, or an MBC who just decides s/he's done her bit and wants to move on. The BSA handles this quite perfectly - allow for partial completion of a merit badge so the Scout doesn't have to start over. A Scout moving from on MBC to another just because they want to should be rare, but we still need to give the Scout the ability to do so, if he so chooses - for whatever reason he may have. I'm not about to get in between the gut feeling a Scout has about an MBC and the ability of a Scout to find a MBC he can work with. Now I also said that Beavah is right - and I am focusing on the semantics here. Words mean things - and the order of words mean things - and they way words are put together in a sentence means things. Notice I used the term partial completions. Most of us short-cut that to man partial merit badges, but where Beavah is right (and it may be semantics) is that there is no such thing as a partial merit badge. You've either earned the entire badge or you haven't. We don't give a lad a merit badge with a 1/4 of it cut out if he's only completed 75% of the merit badge. There is no such thing as a partial merit badge. I'd call it an unfinished (so far) merit badge.

(sighhhhhhh - apparently research is a lost art) The contention that career oriented orgnizations like ROTC, 4-H and Future Farmers is associated with lower admission odds to elite private colleges comes from the book No Longer Separate Not Yet Equal released in 2010 by Thomas Espenshade, a professor of sociology at Princeton and Alexandria Walton Radford, a research associate at a Washington DC based consulting firm. In this book, the authors do NOT try to explain why this is the case - they just mention that it is the case because it's an interesting side note. Russell Neili comes to the table with a blog entry at the Manhattan Institutes web site claiming that the statement shows that there is a bias against "Red State activities" despite the fact that the boook itself notes that the research by the authors show that there appears to be an advantage in gaining admissions to to schools they studied if one comes from conservative-leaning, Republican-dominated states such as Alabama, Montana and Utah. In other words, the book makes an offheanded mention about career-oriented activities lowering admissions odds without giving a reason why, mentions that coming from conservative-leaning Rpublican-dominated states apparently is an advantage to gaining admissions to private elite schools and a culture warrior from the right makes spurious claims that are now treated as gospel by people who can't be bothered to take the time to learn what it's all about. I've taken the challenge, I've investigated Neili's methodology, and I'm declaring it to be nothing more than idle speculation with no foundation - in other words, BOGUS. (ps - I found this information by a simple Google Search: Russell Neili ROTC)(This message has been edited by calicopenn)