Adrianvs

"Take all of the testosterone or estrogen you want, you can't turn a woman into a man or vice versa." While I agree with Rooster for the most part on this issue, I do see many exceptions. If an 18 year old female had the testosterone levels of a male her age (some have this naturally) and the male had the average levels of a female his age (minute, but present), then the female would be much more suited for combat (physically and mentally) than the male. For a less extreme example, look at the "American Gladiator" women. They would surpass many men in a combat situation. All this, of course, is simplifying combat effectiveness to be the result of physical strength and aggression. This is not the case, of course.

Hmm, the man who said this, "Iowa, where the men are men and the sheep run scared." is concerned that another's remarks are sexist and racist. Unless I am mistaken in what you mean by, "the sheep run scared" then you have no place in taking offense at another's attack on the beloved kilt. I would type my guess, but I would likely be booted from the board for the language. Besides, attacking an artifact is not racism. Stating that men should not wear the kilt is no more sexist than stating that men should. Think about it. I like the kilt and if someone wants to attack it, fine. Maybe I'll defend it, but I won't start crying racism and sexism the moment someone calls it a skirt. That would only prove their point.

Outdoor Thinker, I believe I have found the quote to which I was referring. The passage I was thinking of was from Eileen Wade's book, "27 Years with Baden-Powell." It turs out that the quote wasn't given by BP and the word wasn't knobby (though I think it is better than knobby). Here is the surrounding quote: "Like the hat, each part of the uniform had its special significance and romance. It is difficult today to realise what a sensation was caused in 1908 by the appearance of Scouts in shorts. Small boys at that time wore "long-shorts" extending below the knee, while older boys wore breeches or long trousers. In introducing shorts the Founder had to fight a certain amount of opposition, for he was told that boys would get cold through having their knees uncovered. His reply to this took the form of a sketch showing a pair of bare knees, with noses attached, and handkerchiefs blowing the same. All kinds of epithets were hurled after Scouts, and a boy had to be tough to take these with a smile. "It doesn't matter if you are called 'Crusty knees'," wrote Roland Philipps in his Letters to a Patrol Leader, "so long as you are not crusty inside." As the Scout movement developed and shorts became common wear, even by men, the habit of wearing them spread throughout the country. Freedom of movement, so necessary in scouting, was soon found to be an asset in games and shorts proved an economy for the mothers of growing boys."

"Maybe those who write the books live in a different world." No comment on that per se , but I have more than once imagined some individual charged with reviewing and possibly changing some policy coming to a forum like this to get advice from scouters. He is then told, in no uncertain terms, what the current policy is and that the discussion is finished. Remember, the policies and methods of the organization aren't some Deposit of Faith which has been handed to humanity complete. It was built (supposedly) by people like us from their and other's experience of what works. And it has been changed many times for many reasons. The specifics of procedure do not follow from the Law. "A Scout is Helpful." Does this not indicate that he should call the members of the committee and inform them that he needs a BoR and then set the room up in advance? No wait, a scout should be helpful to his fellows. I guess this means that fellow scouts should form the BoR.. Following a known rule is a matter of obedience. But the word "obedience" gives one no indication as to what that rule should be. The point of all this is that the Law and the program are distinct and any number of very different programs can be "plugged in" to the Law, so to speak. That is what makes the Oath and Law so great. They apply to all of one's life, regardless of what he is doing. So, if you are a member of a troop, you need some more structure and rules to dictate what is to be done. The Scout Law and Oath aren't enough.

Even in his day, BP admitted that over-the-knee shorts were well.. dorky looking. Men never wore shorts and only small children wore shorts that went below the knee. Regardless, he insisted on these as part of the scout (and scouter) uniform. I wish I could find where he writes that you may be called knobby-knees or something to that effect. However, some of his reasoning is shown here: "Shorts are essential to hard work, to hiking and to camping. They are less expensive and more hygienic than breeches or trousers. They give freedom and ventilation to the legs. Another advantage is that when the ground is wet, you can go about without stockings and none of your clothes gets damp." With the exception of expense, kilts seem to fit the bill as well as or better than shorts. hehe, I concur that regulation skivies would be appropriate.

Mmm.. Sorry, but the dates of BOR's or the day that a scout must schedule one are not covered by or contained within the Scout Oath and/or Law. I believe the intent of this thread is to demonstrate that the Scout Oath and Law are not the only rules that a troop needs to function. A date of the month or day of the week cannot be cognized directly from the content of the Oath or Law. Such a rule may break or uphold the Law, but it is not a consequence of it. Hmm, If we are talking about all rules, including national methods or policy or whatever the dodge-word of the moment is, then the structure of the troop itself is not covered by the Law. Scoutmasters, committees, patrols, patrol leaders, PLC's, charter organizations and the like are not discernable from the Law alone. The rank system and even the skills taught are not covered by the Law. The outdoor focus of the Movement is not covered by the Oath or Law. Youth Protection, although in accordance with the Law, is not covered by it. In fact, it may be considered a safeguard for when the Law could be broken. All these things are good and within the context of the Law, but they are something added to it. A scout may be reverent, but that itself doesn't indicate that he must uncover his head upon entering the church and cover it upon entering the synagogue. That would be a local rule, if you will. I agree with the notion that troops can make way too many rules and burden the scouts unduly with them. There are some rules that should treat adults and youth differently, but for the most part, adults should be willing to suffer the same rules that are imposed on youth. If cell phones are banned, fine. A few adults may carry them for emergencies, but don't find yourself chatting with someone at home when you get bored. If the scouts must use troop tents to preserve campsite space and aesthetics, fine. But do you really need the twelve man tent yourself? Just a thought...

"My dog collects cell phones. He used to collect flashlights (that were constantly being shown in other people's faces at night). That stopped." Fascinating troop, Sarge. Not only does the PLC and Committee allow all members to bring pets to campouts, they have allowed them to be used in the confiscation of contraband. Do the dogs sleep in troop tents or those who bring them required to use personal tents?

I assume that a troop policy requiring the usage of troop tents would apply to adults as well. Or are the reasons not applicable?

Ed, What are some of the on-camp activities? We have offered a couple of off-camp treks the last few and they seem to be a success. OutdoorThinker, I was going to mention Scoutcraft as an area ideally suited to the merit badge model which includes scouts of all ages. I think I did mention skill-based badges. Aquatics is another. This doesn't mean that the job is easy, of course, and it is great to hear of your success this past summer. Perhaps the word 'expert' is misleading. I just mean an amount of knowledge or experience that allows us to effectively counsel a badge. Sometimes, this knowledge forms a theoretical framework with which to approach the subject matter at hand. Sometimes, it is an actual skill that can be demonstrated. My relative skills at archery and rifle shooting indicate that I could not give effective advice to an beginning archer to improve his performance, but could to a beginning rifle shooter. I am an expert in neither, but could counsel one. I suppose that is skill-based. Other badges seem to be more knowledge-based and the presentation must be different. It is certainly possible to train a band of 16 year olds to be effective teachers of meteorology or herpetology. It is just difficult at times, especially if they have been arbitrarily hired as eco-con instructors by the council. I don't really mean expert. I just mean someone with interest in and/or knowledge of the subject. The other issues still stand.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Regarding summer camp merit badge programs in another thread, I find it unfortunate that the "default" program of most camps is the merit badge program. In other words, every scout is intended to spend the entire day with a merit badge counselor with a few exceptions. There may be some optional "older scout" programs that last a fraction of the week. The problem isn't that quality merit badge programs can't serve as a camp program; the problem is that there aren't enough experts and/or effective counselors to deliver this program. If every scout is expected to enroll in any and all badges for nearly the entire week, then most staffers are expected to be "merit badge counselors." I know that area directors are (supposedly) sent to national camp school, but in most situations, they are expected to take a band of sixteen-year-olds with merit badge booklets and turn them into instructors. There is no training for this. Yes, there are a few experts out there, but they can't be expected to fill out every camp staff. Given this, it's no wonder that older scouts often find the camp program an overgrown merit badge conclave. Something like Wilderness Survival could be turned into an older scout program that encompasses the merit badge, but includes a more diverse range of skills. In most cases, it's limited to the default merit badge program that allots a certain amount of time and keeps the activities to the level of any first year camper who wanders in. At our camp, we have had some luck with having experts in various fields come and serve as merit badge counselors. Archaeology, astronomy, geology, bird study, and chemistry are some examples. Some of them have scouting history and some don't. Also, I think it may be wise in some situations to set age guidelines for certain badges. I remember trying to counsel a batches of first-year scouts in Reptile and Amphibian or Mammal study. At age 11, most kids are still in the Concrete Operational stage of mental development, and it's really difficult to convey concepts like taxonomy to them. If you have a mixed group, you are generally screwed because anything that doesn't confuse the younger scouts bores the older ones. In other words, the badges have to be "dumbed down" to the lowest denominator and everyone suffers because these badges actually require a fair amount of knowledge and understanding. The skill-based badges don't have this difficulty (to the same degree). I've spent a considerable amount of time (as a staffer) teaching to younger scouts without actually fulfilling requirements. I don't consider this a waste of time. And, yes, I realize that the age-ability correlation has many exceptions. I generally look for feedback to see what is understood. In Environmental Science, for example, the scouts can't really fulfill the requirement on acid rain if they don't understand the pH scale. Some scouts will know it, some will not but can understand if taught, and some really cannot understand the concept effectively yet. They all appear in the typical group of scouts who sign up for Envi Sci. I realize that my experience is centered in ecology, but I think that these issues relate to other areas as well. And it doesn't have to be a reformation of the merit badge program at all. Regarding the Wilderness Survival program above, I think that many older scouts would love to spend a whole week learning skills like flintnapping, friction fire, primative trapping and hunting skills, shelter-building, tanning, basketry, and edible foodstuffs location and preparation. They could really learn a lot in a weeks time, and likely wouldn't feel they had missed out on anything. I wonder what everyone else thinks on these issues.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"If you want to fight a war with your daughters, go ahead! But you'll find yourself in a fight to the death if you ever try to take my daughter." Now why on earth would 'I' need to take your daughters when you so willingly give up your sons? Just kidding.. I said that I don't support a female draft BUT, we mustn't ignore the many women who are willing and able to serve in their country's war efforts. In most cases, these are non-combat roles, but not always. We are fortunate as a nation that the horrors of war have been primarily borne by our soldiers. This is not always the case, however, and women have experienced the horrors, brutality, loss of innocence and life as strongly and effectively as men. Women ARE as a whole less suited to combat. But they have historically NOT been sheltered from or more debilitated by the horrors of mankind, martial or otherwise.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"I'd rather go to war at age 45, 55, 65, or 75 then send my 18 year-old daughter into a war. And I mean this in the nicest way, if you'd rather send your daughter, then I say shame on you and may God have mercy on your soul." I have to agree wholeheartedly with Rooster on this one. But I don't think it has much to do with gender. I, for one, would rather go to war at age 45, 55, 65, or 75 than send my hypothetical 18 year old son OR daughter into a war. The constitutions of some people are more suited to war than others. I believe, however, that the differences between the two genders is significant, but not greater than the differences within either gender. In other words, there are many females more suited to war than many males. Now, I don't think that females should be required to register, but it does seem that the modern doctrine of "gender identicality" would require it. Besides, the armed forces do screen candidates to determine their ability to fight, as superficially as a few minute physical exam could. Perhaps the armed forces would find a significant number of fighting-capable females to justify the female draft. I don't know. This, of course, doesn't even take into account the numerous non-combat support roles necessary in war. For what it's worth, if I did find myself at war, I would rather be fighting along side an 18 year old Jeanne D'Arc than a 40 year old Francesco D'Assisi.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"Adrianvs, I hope you have a nice day too :)" packsaddle, While I don't take you to be the kind of person who takes disagreements personally, I want to assure you that while I may spar somewhat hard on select issues, I don't intend any disrespect or rudeness. I tend to aim at the highest profile, so if you felt targeted, that is a GOOD thing. If this were a thread on capital punishment, we would likely be working the same side. (Assuming, of course, that your opposition to capital punishment isn't just rhetorical.) haha, JUST KIDDING..(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

With all this about stalking in paintball and leaving such skills to the military, I am reminded of Baden Powell's writing in Scouting for Boys. Just the other day, I was browsing the requirements for Stalking Merit Badge in a 50's issue handbook of mine. I remember one of the requirements was to track or stalk (don't remember wording) a human being and determine if it's a man or woman, young or old, etc. Baden Powell wrote quite a bit about stalking and tracking skills. Not being seen or heard, etc. I'm not drawing any implications about the relevance to this issue or whether the current policy is good or bad. I am just wondering what Baden Powell would have thought about this thread. I wonder if he would have embraced something like paintball if he had the choice. Again, I'm not concerned with whether his opinion would have been right or wrong. I just find it suddenly very interesting. I need to go read some Scouting for Boys again. I may post my personal reflections on the paintball issue later, but I don't want to confuse them with this (IMO) more interesting issue.

"Keep in mind that a troop is not divided into patrols. (that is one of the most common mistakes scout leaders make), patrols gather to form a troop. it is a very important distinction." I understand and agree with the I hesitate to say, philosophical meaning of the statement and what it means for a troop, but I don't think it's a factual statement. A troop simply isn't formed when a group of patrols come together from some community. In every case, a troop is formed and then divided into patrols. Furthermore, troops are often reorganized into different patrols. Perhaps the troop members want to try a different patrol system or integrate new scouts. In any case, the troop is the permanent unit to which members belong and which survives many patrols. It serves as a good profundity to remind us that youth leadership must work "from the bottom up" rather than the SPL creating a program. Perhaps the statement should say "Youth leadership should function as if patrols gather to form a troop." or something of the sort. As it stands, I cannot see the statement as factual. Maybe it's an odd type of hyperbole.. It's really too late for me to tell at this point. Oh well..(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Thanks, packsaddle. I appreciate that, but if you want to talk about dedication I'd have to tell you about the scoutmasters who came forward when I needed them this summer. But I suppose that's the topic for another thread.. I'll wait until another 'good camp stories' thread comes along. BTW, the requirement in question is 6 orders and 18 families. I was thinking that 15 orders sounded a little off. It's still a huge accomplishment for a scout of any age. Although one is unlikely to stay within 18 families if they collect a group of 50 species, I have to admit that I would sign the requirement if a scout did. At that point, the number of families is irrelevant (and it would probably take all but a few uberspecialists quite a while to verify all 50 families). If the collection seems representative, I consider it so. I have no defense other than at that point, I consider the scout more than meritorious.

Again, it comes down to semantics. By policy, I meant "official method of BSA or Scouting." From now on, I will use the word "method" for many instances I would have used "policy." The terminology is not second nature to me yet. You could consider me a youngin' as far as scouters go. Just a question.. Don't you think that youth leadership is a necessary feature of the patrol method? What I mean is, it wouldn't be the patrol method without youth leadership, would it? It would just be a subdivision of the troop a la Cub Scouts. Without youth leadership, wouldn't it be the "Den Method?" I assume the difference between a den and patrol is in the presence of youth leadership and not merely the name. I know that Den Chiefs serve as non-peer youth leaders, but the analogous position to the Den Leader is the Patrol Leader. Am I way off?

I realize, Bob, that you WERE using the first method. I humbly rescind my defense. I don't think we disagree about the patrol positions, however. I just think that I meant something different from "unofficial" than you did. I realize that it isn't the proper word but I couldn't think of one that meant "Once common and mandated, but now optional and quite uncommon." I stated that not all positions of responsibility are positions of leadership. That does not mean that the two groups are exclusive. I thought I made it clear that positions of leadership are a kind of position of responsibility.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

"I have better ...leadership skills!...a leadership position...not a minute before!" Though it was given in the context of a joke (I assume ), Dan's post reveals the confusion of responsibility vs. leadership that may have provoked much of the disagreement in the first place. Also, I don't think that Bob was using the "here's the offical policy-case closed" method here. That method is often annoying, but does have it's place. It seems that he was referring to the tradition of giving every boy in a patrol a task (responsibility) within his patrol. Cheermaster, grubmaster, and hikemaster are some of these. These aren't really leadership positions, but they are responsibilities (if small ones). There are two general methods of discourse I have seen in this forum: -One is "Official BSA policy states P." This method is refuted by asking for specific citations or debating the meaning of the words. -The second method is "P has a place in Scouting because of circumstances or traditions X, Y, and Z." I think that Bob was using the latter method (which is not his usual) but was responded to as if he were using the first. That every scout should have a position of responsibility a la Baden Powell's original descriptions is a defensible non-offical-policy position. I don't think that it should be responded to by asking for specific citations or bringing up cases like brand new scouts where it may not work. BTW, I think that a new scout could serve as cheermaster in his patrol as well as the next kid. That's what makes these unofficial positions different from the offical and/or leadership positions (SPL, PL, QM, etc.)

I think much of the initial mental resistance to the notion of all members of a troop having a position of responsibility is our mistaking the terms "responsibility" and "leadership." Now, this doesn't mean that every new scout should have a PoR, or that it is required or even always beneficial. It just means that there is nothing disordered or top-heavy about a hypthetical troop of 50 having fifty positions of responsibility. It would, of course, be rather odd if all 50 members were in positions of leadership. Again, I don't think this is a conscious process, but when we first hear "position of responsibility" our brains load the "position of leadership" schema, part of which is "small percentage of group." I realize that I'm probably talking out of the back side of my scout pants at this point, but maybe this is helpful..

I am a merit badge counselor and have worked at a camp that hasn't used blue cards for several years. Instead, the program director has introduced replacement cards of different colors corresponding to the different program areas. They're certainly "prettier" than the blue cards, but I don't think they have any practical advantage over them except possibly ease of organization. And perhaps it allows scoutmasters to see at a glance what kinds of badges his (denoting association, not ownership) scouts are marching off to in the morning. I haven't heard of any difficulties with the cards when partials are sent back to the troop. Well, apart from cards being lost by some party or another, but that's not unique to either method, of course. I assume that most merit badge counselors in our council are familiar with the "camp cards" but I don't know if they would pose a problem for a scout trying to finish a badge elsewhere. BSA policy aside, I think that a six month time limit is simply unrealistic. Some of the badges I counsel take a significant amount of time to complete, especially given that scouts are supposedly working on several badges concurrently. Six month is a nice leisurely pace to finish a badge, but scouts shouldn't be penalized for taking a break and resuming later, especially with something that is supposed to be a possible lifetime hobby. Environmental Science and Insect Study are two examples, Insect Study especially. The insect collection and mounting requirement is a substantial accomplishment. To do it within six months is a time trial. I believe the numbers are 50 species from 15 orders. The scouts must not only locate these specimens, but catch them, mount them, label them, and identify them down to the species level. It isn't really the 50 specimens, but the 15 orders that poses a problem. Once the scout hits about the first seven common orders, it's going to get difficult. Most adult collections I've seen have about six orders with half of them being Lepidopterans. Six months is just crazy, especially given seasonal concerns. A scout who starts this badge at summer camp really has only a few months until the specimens become freeze dried mouse food. By the time spring comes, he has missed the deadline.

Mea culpa. (On the Scouting relevance, of course, not the passionate squabbles. haha)

"I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on abortion, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested." Hmm... I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on slavery, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested. I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on genocide, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested. I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on seatbelts, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested. I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on representative government, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested. I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on child abuse, that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested. I'll assume that if you have a firm and unequivical stand on infanticide (nonclinical), that you yourself have asked God these questions. What did you two come with? I'm seriously interested. The list goes on and on.. If you would like to use this line of thinking, feel free to do so. But please do not limit it to one issue. When you begin with absolute faith, yes FAITH, that human abortion is a sacred act untouchable by lowly society or government, then you will go through all distortions and refusal of reason to justify it. One such tactic is the limited anarchy ploy. 'All basis for law is based on false certainty.' or 'The government has no right to regulate human behavior.' If you take this position up to justify institutional mass-murder, then do not throw it down when you leave the abortion thread. Take your maxims to their conclusions. Become a true and consistent anarchist. Grow a beard and dynamite bus stations if you feel you must. But like Gabriel Syme, I doubt the seriousness of your anarchism. I, for one, am finished with this thread and those who defend torture and homocide for profit. "The wise men know all evil things Under the twisted trees, Where the perverse in pleasure pine And men are weary of green wine And sick of crimson seas."

BTW, the Catholic Church does NOT consider contraception and abortion as morally equivalent actions. The Church rightly states that abortion is murder. The Church also rightly recognizes that the use of contraception is part of a mentality that separates sexuality from procreation. This ends up being dangerous to all involved and deadly for "accidental" children. Those who engage in such acts must be willing to accept that a human being could be formed as a result, no matter how many "precautions" they take. There are, of course, forms of "contraception" that are essentially abortificants. In these cases, the actions are considered abortion and not mere contraception. I still can't get enough of pro-abort logic. A fairly reasoned response to minimal innocent death: "I continue to be repulsed by the willingness of the state to kill an innocent person once in a while as long as it assures the state of killing all the guilty. No innocent person deserves that fate." And yet, a response to millions of innocent deaths: "My approach is simply pragmatic: the ability is there, the choice is there, you can't take either away, the persons involved in the choice should bear the responsibility."

Rooster, No need to apologize; I just wanted to make it clear that there was at least one more right-minded person on the issue. Packsaddle, I agree with you on the barbarism and errors of the death penalty BUT you fail to compare it accurately to abortion. Suppose for the sake of argument that ALL victims of the death penalty were innocent. Could we even then consider it as near a moral travisty as abortion. How many people are executed in the United States every year? I have the number of 71 in 2002. Ok, 71 innocent deaths in the course of a year. Compared to the traffic system, which takes 45,000 innocent deaths a year, the criminal justice system is relatively safe. What about abortion? Well, there are about 4,000 innocent deaths per day in the US alone. That adds up to well over a million innocent deaths per year. Even the number of late term babies who are born alive per year dwarfs those executed. These are children tossed in metal trays and set in a closet, suffocated, or beaten until they stop moving. Those inside the womb fare no better, of course. They are "executed" by acid bath, having their brains sucked out, or good old fashoned dismemberment. Let's recap: 71 "innocent" deaths by lethan injection or gas per year 1,370,000 innocent deaths by acid bath, dismemberment, skull crushing, and (for the lucky) suffocation, beating, neglect. Though it is of little consequence for some, we should remember that the vast majority of the 71 aren't innocent at all. By the worst estimates, it is closer to 5. So packsaddle, you accept the reality of abortion but are "disgusted" by acceptance of capital punishment? Pardon the ad hominem, but are you chronically ignorant of the situation or on the payroll of the abortion industry?(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)