Adrianvs

"Keeping Up Appearances" and "Are You Being Served?"

Dave and Bob, You are correct; I was not implying that either of you were the kind of person that I was referring to. Bob noted that one of the worst problems in scouting was the "tyrannical scoutmaster." He also referred to those who use "my" as an expression of ownership. I conceded that both groups do exist and offered that there were also automaton "officials" beyond the unit level and those who refer to "the troop" who are just as damaging to the program. I didn't take the "tyrannical scoutmaster" personally (I'm an ASM) and I am glad that both of you correctly saw that the "officials" reference wasn't directed to anyone on this forum. I am not one of those who look at all individuals (professional and volunteer) who work at district and above levels as corrupt, inept, or useless. ***For the record, I have NO REASON to believe that non-unit volunteers and professionals are any more or less committed, effective, or honest than unit scouters.*** I know that some (many?) scouters share do have this feeling. I do not. I also suspect that some (many?) non-unit scouters look down upon unit scouters largely as "amateurs." I merely conceded Bob's point about the dangerousness of "tyrannical scoutmasters" and noted that there are other means and positions of doing the same thing. There are a lot of professional-haters out there. I think that is stupid and way too common. But let's not look at every critique of some Scoutmaster methods as constructive criticism and every critique of some non-unit scouter methods as ignorant attacks on the group as a whole. Both groups have failings and both can benefit from constructive examination. From what I can tell, Dave is a committed and effective Associate? Council Executive. I also believe that Bob is an effective District Training Chairman (is that right?) and that he was an effective unit Scoutmaster. I also think that FOG (very different in some ways from Bob and very similar in others) is an effective scoutmaster. Any attacks on ideas presented should be interpreted in this light. Happy New Year to you and YOURS, all!!!

Bob, "Nothing I offered fits this description in any way." Have you heard of the Self-As-Target Bias? You should look into it. "I do not know what your experience has been working with multiple units, or over what period of time, but we obviously differ in our background and experiences." That is fine, of course. There may not be a "my troop" for you. Just don't think that you are beyond the "the egomaniacal mind set" when you adopt more distant and/or precise terms. The "tyrannical Scoutmaster [or district chairman of {fill in the blank}] is just as likely to refer to "the program" or "the troop" or "the district" as "my troop" or "my district" or "my program." "One of the biggest problems in troop scouting is the tyrannical Scoutmaster. The one who controls it all and refuses any method other than his own, even to the point of rejecting the scout methods unless they happen to agree with his own. They doggedly follow this behavior even to the death of the unit, which was caused by their own behavior." Very true. A problem just as large is the "official" of any level who sees units as cogs and tools which may be used to achieve some numeric goal and to which he is unattached. Out of touch with the real program itself, they fall back on simple quotas and turn into nothing more than pipelines. Tyrants and automatons.. Blech...

I agree with the sentiment to which Bob refers. I have seen the mentality to which he refers and it is harmful. In my experience, however, it wasn't demonstrated by a use of the words MY and MINE. It was usually someone referring to "the troop" who exhibited the mentality in question. "The program" is another favorite of those whom I have seen playing the master. As Bob said, the mentality is the true target, not the words that may be used to express it in some cases. In the English language, the word MY denotes association. Ownership depends upon the item in question. The slave refers to "my master" and the master refers to "my slave." The child refers to "my parent" and the parent refers to "my child." My God and my toaster are two very different things which are associated to me. The nature of this association is entirely dependent upon the nature of the item itself. My friends would agree, . Like DSteele, I think that removing the MY from our language divorces us from the close association that we should feel to our troops, camps, fellows, and organization. It is an artificial separation and reminds me of the fake professionalism of those who are trying to control through expertise. Perhaps in my case, the "owners" have always used distant terms akin to "the troop that I serve" rather than associative ones like "my troop." There is no "my gas station" or "my post office." There may be for some of you. There is a "my camp" and a "my troop." It would be truely disturbing to hear someone refer to "my troop" in a possessive sense. Fortunately, I have never seen such a case. If it does happen, however, let's not bastardize the language and divorce ourselves from the natural bonds of fellowship by adopting an obtuse phraseology. If you don't "belong" to a troop, then don't refer to "my troop." But, there is nothing wrong with those that do.

Avez un bon voyage au foret, le Voyageur.

"The District does not "describe" a unit as being a "Quality Unit". National designates a unit as being quality based on the attainment of a set of measurable achievements." What kinds of achievements are these. It isn't simply having x% more people registered than last year, is it? You mentioned multiple elements, so I assume that there are more. What are the others? Yes, "Quality Unit" is a description. It may be based on national guidelines and it may be based on features that have little to do with quality itself, but it is a description.

And here I thought that Baden-Powell cognized his outdoor skill directly.. Seriously, "Scouting for Boys" is filled with references to individuals and the types of individuals that BP learned various skills from. He made no claim to have invented scouting or other outdoor skills. What he did was transform those skills into a database and program for youth. BP never pretended that the skills or methods were his own. In fact, he goes through great lengths to illustrate the value that scouting has had to individuals throughout history. Speaking of deification, I hope that no one believes that Frederick Burnham invented scouting, either.

What are the requirements for Quality Unit/District/Council, etc? I assume that there is more to it than simply numbers registered. It would be absurd to assign the term "quality" to a unit based entirely upon one number. Just as a health examination requires more than one numeric value such as height or weight, a quality examination should relate more to program quality. Not to be cynical, but the only thing that has a correlation of 1 with numbers registered is the amount of money brought in. I don't think that any district should describe a unit as being a "Quality Unit" without being familiar with the program. Is this the case? Please tell me that there is more to "Quality" than more members (real or imagined) than last year..

Hiking, camping, and the like are included, of course. Outside of such things, these are some of my interests: History Mythology Politics Baroque music Scandinavian metal Philosophy Religion Literature Biology DC Comics

Scouting Thorns: -Decrepit troop program aptly described as "overgrown Cub Scout pack" (no offense Cubbers). -Living geographically outside of council and away from troop. -Chapter suffers minimal involvement. -Troubles between program director and camp director at camp. -Poor lodge ceremony program. -New camp director with yet another in 2004. -First year without being OA ceremonialist. Scouting Roses: -Three ASM's completing Wood Badge training. -Patrol method more in use. -New scoutmaster understands the roles of adult vs. youth leaders. -Energized pack program after Webelos camp. -Good camp staff cameraderie. -Great camp program delivered. -Bridges built with "northerners" from the "other camp" in council. -Best ecology program yet (during my tenure). -Likely to be selected as program director for next year. -Troops planning improvement weekends for camp. (The land was sold by the council several years ago, so receives no maintenance or funding.) -Served in mentoring role for staffers at camp. -Joined Scouter network forum, heehee.. Personal Thorns: -Developed allergy over the course of year. -Unfocused career path and difficult discernment. Personal Roses: -Graduating in May. -Benefiting from a strong faith and growing appreciation of my religion. -Good health for myself and my family. -Caught up with high school friends/teachers.

I got three Boy Scout related novels from 1911 authored by Lieut. Howard Payson. I love books, old books, and scouting related stuff (practical and cultural), so it was a perfect gift. I also got a gift certificate to Barnes and Noble which I will use to buy a couple of field guides that I have been eyeing for a while. I didn't receive any gear per se, but I tend to make due with what I have. (I may purchase an expedition hat in the near future, however.) What's REI, hops?

"Ok, so my reading is not all that it should be but the Father Brown books by Chesterton I have read along with some of the stuff that he wrote about the Catholic Church,have to admit that the mysteries were more fun." Eamonn, you speak as if the Father Brown mysteries and his writings on the Catholic Church were mutually exclusive categories.. Seriously though, if you enjoyed the Father Brown mysteries, you would also like "The Club of Queer Trades." I think it was Chesterton's first take on the mystery genre. "The nature of this society, such as we afterwards discovered it to be, is soon and simply told. It is an eccentric and Bohemian Club, of which the absolute condition of membership lies in this, that the candidate must have invented the method by which he earns his living. It must be an entirely new trade. The exact definition of this requirement is given in the two principal rules. First, it must not be a mere application or variation of an existing trade. Thus, for instance, the Club would not admit an insurance agent simply because instead of insuring men's furniture against being burnt in a fire, he insured, let us say, their trousers against being torn by a mad dog. The principle (as Sir Bradcock Burnaby-Bradcock, in the extraordinarily eloquent and soaring speech to the club on the occasion of the question being raised in the Stormby Smith affair, said wittily and keenly) is the same. Secondly, the trade must be a genuine commercial source of income, the support of its inventor. Thus the Club would not receive a man simply because he chose to pass his days collecting broken sardine tins, unless he could drive a roaring trade in them. Professor Chick made that quite clear. And when one remembers what Professor Chick's own new trade was, one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry."

"'All ethics are situational.' Sounds like the PC version." Not quite.. What I meant is that ethics is what is used to tell us what is right or wrong IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION. Ethics is situational, but not in the sense that you are referring to. Yes, murder is always wrong, but ethics tells us what SITUATIONS constitute murder and what situations don't. It may seem obvious, but some individuals (PETA, NARAL, etc.) have become confused on this issue. Looking at it another way, ethics is the study of proper human action. Humans, due to our nature, can only act within given situations. dsteele, I agree that Machiavelli is much more interesting than any of the Germans mentioned in the thread. It's a toss up with the Russian Dostoevsky and I am afraid that he loses hands-down with the English Chesterton.

Reprehensible! That's the word!!! Not as reprehensible as killing his child by acid bath or dismemberment, but reprehensible nonetheless. Oops, I'm off of Scouting topics; let's get back to ninteen forties racial politics.

SPL, I have seen no reason to believe that you are other than you say. Some adults don't like to believe that there are committed SPLs who care about the quality of their program and must often do big things relatively alone. Keep up the good work and continue to use the resources (like this forum) necessary to get the job done. ozemu, Please do not incinerate yourself. Not only would we miss your presence here and have to discuss the headline in the Issues section, but it would stink to high heaven. "A boy scout apparently set himself on fire yesterday. Democratic presidential candidates comment on this bizarre happening after Oprah."

"You are employing situational ethics." All ethics are situational. In the cases where you may think that you are speaking absolutely, you are really just using assumed and common situational premises. Example: The "you" or "I" in the question is a human person. "Suppose that you are self-aware." is as situational as "Suppose that you are a banker."

Irony! That's the word!!

...Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and, what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thust they think it intellectual to talk about things being "high." It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. "Tommy was a good boy" is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. "Tommy lived the higher life" is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule. This, incidently, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not bold at all. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, "beyond good and evil," because he had not the courage to say, "more good than good and evil," or, "more evil than good and evil." Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, "the purer man," or "the happier man," or "the sadder man," for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says "the upper man," or "over man," a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being "higher," do not know either. -G.K. Chesterton Orthodoxy

Wouldn't Nietzsches Ubermann be BEYOND the Scout Oath and Law? Also, isn't saying that "Crime and Punishment" made you a believer in the Ubermensch principle like saying that "Oedipus Rex" made you a believer in the hubris method of leadership? I haven't read "Crime and Punishment" but I thought that the point of the novel was demonstrating that the man who puts himself above the law is doomed from the start. Perhaps I am mistaken..

I admit that I am not good at acronyms, but I cannot come up with any suitable meanings of TFB. I am equally curious as to what FOG meant by it and what Bob thinks that it means.. Do tell, do tell..

The previous post may be used to demonstrate the nature of hypocrisy. NJ indicates that he is living in a committed and monogamous relationship. He has taken responsibility for the children he has fathered. He (and rightly so) presents this as a virtuous lifestyle. Now if (and this is hypothetical), he were to consider monogamous relationships and taking responsibility for one's children (as opposed to abandoning them or having them terminated) as mere social conventions and not necessarily virtuous choices, then he would be engaging in hypocrisy. In such a situation (again, this is hypothetical), his outward message and lifestyle are in agreement yet he would still be engaged in hypocrisy. Again, I have no reason to believe that NJ holds these things as optional or mere conventions. It is just to illustrate that hypocrites are those who appear as they are not. This usually takes the form of those who appear virtuous, but are really just using their conventions to appear so to others. To use a religious example , this is what the Pharisees whom Christ called hypocrites were guilty of. They behaved exactly as a virtuous person should, but were merely acting. Hypocrisy is a difficult charge to make; Christians believe that Christ was able to do so because of his ability to see the inner disposition of those he accused. In Thurmond's case, it is debatable as to whether his form of racism excluded using and abusing blacks in that manner. I doubt it. If he were a hypocrite regarding his racism, then that means he was pretending. I doubt that too. Perhaps a case could be made that he was a hypocrite segregationist. As it stands, I doubt that his segregationism would have excluded maids, concubines, and the like. I think there are better words to describe Mr. Thurmond. Most of them can't be printed here.

Bob, Where were the profanities? I can't believe I missed them.

"So you advocate allowing people to misspell whatever they want to allow the language to continue to evolve? I really don't think that the spelling drove the evolution of the language since most people didn't write back then." I don't advocate misspelling. Do I advocate ALLOWING people to misspell? I suppose so; but you are free to prevent them if you wish. Spelling did drive the evolution of the written language. There are many possible written forms of a given phonetic word. The written forms changed over time because of (largely monastic) misspellings. The spoken and written languages changed in tandem, though rifts often developed as can be seen in your homophones. Proper language is important, but one can become quite rude in correcting another. Mispronunciations are as common as spelling errors, yet we consider them to be so much more subjective. Why is that? Start correcting people's verbal speech and see the reaction that you get. hehe..

It is perfectly consistent with a racist mindset to take advantage of a black maid and then ignore her. It is very common for "...ist" individuals to sexually exploit groups that they do not respect and would not accept as peers. If Thurmond were a "pretend racist" then he would be a hypocrite. If he really were a racist (the most likely case in my opinion), then doing what he did doesn't make him a hypocrite. Lifestyle-preaching inconsistency can be a sign of hypocricy, but it isn't a necessary condition for it. In Thurmond's case, it doesn't seem that it's inconsistent at all. If he had kept the woman as a mistress for years and romanced her while running on a racist platform, then he would have been a hypocrite. I haven't followed the story closely, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Rooster- I found your religious examples appropriate. FOG- I found your dating example appropriate. NJ- I had a bet with myself that you would object to any religious reference or disagreement by stating that you had forseen such things... just kidding. It should be noted that Thurmond may have been a hypocrite in regards to other things, like his profession of faith or moral virtues. As a racist, however, he seems rather consistent.

S'il n'taient pas pour des erreurs d'orthographe (et une conqute normande), vous seriez parlant et crivant vieil anglais. Faites- confiancemoi, il n'est pas une jolie chose.