Adrianvs

There is a misconception that in approaching this issue, one must choose between two mutually exclusive options. Option A: One must always follow all rules of whatever organization (which includes national laws) that one belongs to, no matter what. Option B: One must only follow those rules which one deems important. (Coincidently, followers of Option B routinely invoke common consensus on what rules they consider important [safety, etc.] as evidence of their opinion.) In any event, the crux of this issue can be found in neither of these positions (one or both of which may be an artifical straw man), but in a more nuanced position that avoids the extremes of either. It is my belief that if one is to knowingly and publicly (and I am not here excluding private rule breaking), break a rule of an organization to which one voluntarily belongs, one must be willing and to provide proof that the rule in question is immoral or null (by virtue of a higher rule). In either case, one must be actively working to have the rule changed and/or withdraw oneself from the organization. If one is going to break a law of the nation to which one belongs, one must provide evidence that the law in question is immoral or otherwise null. Yes, we must teach the youth to make ethical decisions and yes, these decisions must be based on a more sound ethical system than just "The rules must always be followed." However, those who are invoking these truths in defense (defence, Eamonn) of a complete disregard of inconvenient rules are not sufficiently making the case. Gandhi would explain exactly WHY he was breaking any particular law or order of the British government at any given time. The same is true with any other legitimate practitioner of civil disobedience. Are some rules more important than others? Of course. What that means in practice, however, is not simply a system that categorizes some areas as ignorable by everyone. Should the scout of poor means be penalized for not having official uniform pants and shorts? Of course not. In fact, no one is suggesting that he should be. That (penalization for failure to wear a complete and correct uniform) is not part of the scouting program. Should the scouter who routinely wears non-BSA socks be berated or made to feel that he is acting immorally? No. Should the Scouter of ample means who refuses to buy scout socks or pants simply because of some vague feeling of righteous rebellion feel that he is a just crusader (pardon my profanity) for truth and justice? Of course not; he is being an idiot. That scouter must examine why he refuses to participate in as a complete and correct uniform as possible and decide whether it is truly in conformity with higher ethical principles or simply his own laziness, lack of committment, or simple vanity. Please note that the final assessment is not directed to any particular individual and is hyperbolic in nature. It may be 'ad hominem' in the broadest sense, but it is not the logical fallacy of the same name.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Trevorum, The utterance of Bob White which you objected to as a personal attack (ad hominem) is as follows: "Choosing to ignore a rule or law that does not seek to harm anyone one simply protect property and other people simply because it doesn't suit you personally is just lazy and self centered." You stated that Bob had refered to you with the clause "lazy and self-centered." Look closer at the sentence, however, and you will see that the subject of it is "Choosing to ignore a rule or law...because it doesn't suit you personally..." The subject matter of the sentence is an action. Bob White referred to an action as lazy and self-centered. While this may not be strictly proper from a grammatical standpoint, it hardly seems like a direct ad hominem (Latin: To the Man) attack. Why is it that you identified with what Bob described as "lazy and self-centered?" Do you ignore benign rules or laws simply because they don't suit you personally?

"And that is precisely why scouts have adopted the notion of a 'Class B' to use as a field uniform. Our current 'Class A' uniform is designed for what Baden-Powell disparagingly referred to as 'Parlour Scouting'. I know of very, very few units who actually hike, camp, and squat over campfires in the official uniform. I'm sure there are some units out there who do, but they are in a minority." The problem is that the so-called activity uniform requires one to wear the exact same pair of pants. Changing from the tan field shirt to a tee shirt and from the trucker cap to the expedition hat isn't going to solve any problems with the pants. I don't think that anyone but Bob White is going to think that the properties of his pants have changed simply from having changed his shirt and hat. Just kidding.. ;-)

"But when we camp each leader there has a phone. They are used for emergencies only. 99% of the phones that kids have have games on them. They don't need to be at camp." You mean that every troop officer, from the SPL to the assistant patrol leaders, has a cellular phone? Or are you using the term "leader" to apply only to adults? No wonder the "kids" can't handle phones with games on them. No on is expecting them to be leaders..

"While I do believe that there is only one God, and in my view I really do agree with Baden Powell that it is better to do good than be good." Evil is as evil does. Virtue is learned. Faith without works is dead.

"I choose to be all these things only [when] I see the appreciation for my efforts." I didn't realize that the Scout Law had conditions for application. You are in effect saying that you are only a scouter when you expect that others will demonstrate appreciation for your actions. The true measure of a scout or scouter is what he does when he expects no recompense or even appreciation. The Scout Law is rooted in being, not a utilitarian expectation of gratitude or reward. "A Scout IS..." NOT "A Scout does...ONLY WHEN..." Anyone who subscribes to the latter is no scout or scouter. Regarding the matter of foreign nations, you are probably right that it does not matter how much we do. We will always be criticized. The question is, however, do we help our neighbors (whether individuals, families, or nations) because it is the right thing to do or because we expect something in return?

Merlyn, Would you object to a government sponsored program (however you choose to define that) which discriminates against nihilists? Any group which subscribes to any ethical code and demands that its members do the same discriminates against nihilists. Some religions are theistic, so atheism is a religious principle. Fine, I will agree to that. Some religions are purely ethical, so nihilism is a religious principle as well. So tell me why your religious principles of "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" can be sponsored by a public school, but someone else's principle of an Absolute cannot? Would YOU agree or disagree with the statement that nihilists cannot become the best kind of citizens? On what basis do you allow discrimination against nihilists? Why is it only your creed that can be sponsored?

Try the Elkhorn High Adventure Base on the Ben Delatour Scout Ranch. It is in a beautiful part of north central Colorado which is much nicer than New Mexico (in my opinion). You also don't have the crowds, cost, or regulation issues of Philmont. Treks are encouraged to plan their own routes and our crew decided to do some extensive bushwhacking, taking into account water sources and possible camping locations. The High Adventure Base offers a great deal of flexibility. Crews can spend the entire time on the trail or combine a shorter trail trip with rappelling/climbing and horseback riding days. As indicated above, the base is part of a scout reservation where younger scouts can go to summer camp while the older ones go the the high adventure base. Here is a site for the summer camp. http://www.longspeakbsa.org/camps/BDSR/ It appears that the Ranch offers two separate camps with different dining styles. Here is a site for the Base: http://www.longspeakbsa.org/camps/EHAB/

Even if there were nothing else, the word "vocsablaries" would have made the previous post worthwhile. :-)

Wojauwe, I'm intrigued by your login name. Translated as "chief" (seemingly synonymous with the older word "sakima"), "wojauwe" is the official Lenne Lenapi title for chapter chiefs. When I first saw your name, I assumed that you were a chapter chief. You mentioned in the thread, however, that your entire OA experience has been as an adult. Is "Wojauwe" part of your Vigil Honor name? I've only heard the word "sakima" used for this purpose, never "wojauwe."

hahahaha... Remember, kids, that a simple 'e' can change a common and useful element into a rather humorous polymer. Further evidence that I should not post after 11:00 PM.

Charcloth is easy to make without endangering your paws. I use pure cotton cloth (unbleached muslin) and an Altoids can. I cut the cloth into pieces that fit inside the can and fill it up. You can do quite a bit of charcloth at a time this way. I then put the charcloth over some flames or coals (a small stove works great for this), and wait until flames begin to leap out of the tiny holes in the Altoids can hinge. These are the volatiles being burned out of the cotton cloth. Once the flames have stopped (and I tap the can with something to be sure that they are all finished), I take the can off of the fire and let it cool for several minutes. One the can is cool, I open it up and there are a couple dozen sheets of charcloth sitting right inside. It is a good idea to test the batch before you put it away for storage to make sure that it's good. As far as good flint goes, it depends on your area, but you can often find pieces in common limestone or other rock beds. Just last weekend, I happened to spot a piece of flint in a bed of mixed garden rock. Keep in mind that flint is a very dense material (silicone dioxide, I believe) and it has a distinctive way of fracturing. Look for the smooth edges and when in doubt, try sparking on a good, hard piece of steel.

By definition, "the program" is "that which works in every situation." If someone submits that THE PROGRAM cannot be truly manifested in a particular situation, it will be stated that it was the fault of the practitioners, not an inherent problem with THE PROGRAM. I am reminded of the adherents of communism, who defend the failures of communist regime after regime by stating that they weren't REALLY practicing communism. The problem wasn't with dialectical materialism, they say, but with the failures of the individual practitioners. Remarkably, Bob's description of THE PROGRAM getting progessively better and better over time smacks of Hegel's dialectic of history. Questions: If THE PROGRAM is perfect at this moment (and was perfect at any given moment in history), then how do these "seceral evolutions" take place. Since THE PROGRAM is maintained and changed by human beings and these human beings must have some basis for whatever change they are making at the time, what errors have existed in the past to necessitate the changes (evolutions) that have taken place. Whoever made those changes had to have been responding to some problem at the time they were making those changes. Can you admit that the problems existed at those times? Can you admit the possibility that there are problems which demand changes at the moment? Do the problems only exist if the right people see them? Just for the record, I do not have any major objections to the current form of the scouting program espoused by the BSA. I simply find the notion of the program as always perfect, yet ever-changing as a little too mythological. Not that anyone is claiming this, of course.. It's just the impression that some give. Maybe THE PROGRAM is perfect at the moment; I just doubt that it is necessarily so by definition.

Bob, Putting aside whatever arcane feud between yourself and Ed that has surfaced itself here, I would like your input on the question of "active." With all due respect, there is not much of a conversation going between you and Ps56k. I believe that you do have some more insight into the "active" question, but you haven't given any of it yet. Do you have anything more or not? Is there more than the word "active" than what we have said? Don't tell us to "recall our training" and somehow cognize the correct answer in virtue of that recollection. We are asking because we have already done this and seek further understanding of how to apply the principle to actual situations. At least tell us HOW Ed is wrong on this point; it might give us some clue as to what a proper understanding is. You seem to say that Ed is wrong in thinking that "active" is open to interpretation. Fine, it is NOT open to interpretaion. That means that there is ONE PROPER interpretation.. WHAT IS IT??? Ron and OGE have given seemingly good advice and guides for making this decision. What is you opinion? It seems to me that they agree with Ed that "active" is open to interpretation depending on the circumstances. Yes, Ed is being a jerk or whatever. Even so, please answer the question to the best of your ability. I don't think that Ps56k is willing to play your investigative question game. Sometimes the teacher must abandon the Socratic method and just give a good lecture. I think that we can handle the information in its pure form. Can you give it out?(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

Bob, I am confused. Ps56k wants some help in determining if a specific case meets the BSA standards of "active." You refer to some BSA literature and training, but have not yet given us any specific quotes or even principles that would help us to make this judgement. I have managed to find only one more detailed description in the Boy Scout Handbook and analyzed it, but we are awaiting anything more.. Anyone can claim "I follow the program" or "I have X% retention year by year" or "I am attuned to the BSA program" or whatever, but if they explicitly refer to the answer in BSA publications, they should quote them if someone asks them to. Ps56k as well as myself would like to know what else the BSA has officially stated regarding the word "active." Either you have something more than the word itself and the passage that I have quoted from the Handbook or you do not. If you do, please tell us. If not, please say so. Ed may not be following the Scouting program and he may not have good retention rates, but his claim that the word "active" by itself with no other specific guidelines is necessarily open to interpretation is not a controversial one. You do right to invoke the "94 years of experience of the BSA," but what do those 94 years say??? I have given two possible interpretations of "active" in the Boy Scout Handbook. Are either of them correct? If not, then what would the correct interpretation be?

Packsaddle, An extended backpacking trek (a la Philmont) may be considered and ordeal by many scouts (and adults). In fact, I consider long term treks that I have taken to have been more arduous than any ordeal or service project in the OA. Suppose then, that a scout wants that arrowhead patch, but is afraid of the trek and decides not to go because of it. Is that wrong in your opinion? Candidates hear the tests before they are asked whether they wish to continue. They have to decide whether this is something that they wish to with their fellow candidates to show their willingness to service and their willingness to learn the lessons of the tests. I see nothing wrong with this. Now the question of whether this is a violation of the BSA's no hazing or initiation policy is another matter. I think that the ceremonials of the OA do include initiations. The difference, I believe, is that they have been carefully examined, submitted, and approved. They have been found not to be psychologically or emotionally damaging in any way. The only symbols worn by the candidates (not unlike the uniform itself) are symbols of being chosen for quality and set apart for a higher purpose. There are no acts of submission to any ceremonial figure. The acts of service are to one's friends. There are also acts of cameraderie with all one's fellows. These are taken in common (not unlike the Scout Oath and Law). The OA does involve initiations. Then again, so does the BSA itself. A scout is expected to recite the Oath on his own, to put on a uniform (some see this as below their dignity..), and pledge alliegance (an act beyond anything in the OA) to a flag and a Republic. Yes, the BSA does approve of initiations in the OA, but they are no more damaging or demeaning than the initiations of the Boy Scout troop itself. Perhaps the BSA should change the wording on its initiation prohibition, but it should not change its practice.

Bob has stated repeatedly that this is only his personal interpretation of the buddy system in the case of tenting. Of course he thinks it to be right; otherwise, it wouldn't be his interpretation. He has provided practical reasons for his opinion, but that is to be expected of anyone who defends his position. There are varying positions here as to exactly how strict or broad the buddy system should be applied, but no one should feel threatened by the mere rationale for one or another position.

The Boy Scout Handbook refers the reader to page 169 regarding the requirement to "Be active in your troop and patrol." The first paragraph reads: "To gain full advantage of all that Scouting has to offer, you need to be present when things are happening. Take part in meetings, in planning activities, and in the fun of adventures. If you're there, you can do your part to make your patrol and troop a success." The subsequent merely indicate the amount of active time required for each rank. The first sentence alone seems to indicate that the scout must be present in all cases that "things are happening." Since the principle is related to troop and patrol, we can narrow that to all cases in which things are happening in the troop or patrol. The first sentence alone seems to indicate that if the scout is not present when all things are happening, then he has not fulfilled the requirement. The second sentence provides more a more specific description and possibly another interpretation of "be[ing] active in [one's] troop or patrol." The sentence list three things which must be taken part in: Meetings Planning [of] Activities Fun of Adventures The question is whether the scout must take part in ALL meetings, planning of activities, and fun of adventures, or only SOME. A minimalist interpretation would take the plural form of Meetings, (Planning of) Activities, and (Fun of) Adventures, and state that as long as the scout took part in at least two meetings the planning of at least two activities and the fun of at least two adventures, he would fulfill the requirement. A maximalist interpretation (consistent with the previous interpretation of the first sentence) would take the ambigious language to indicate that the scout must take part in ALL meetings, planning of activities, and fun of adventures, since the scout must "be present when things are happening." Perhaps the other "BSA resources and through training opportunities offered by your District and Council" shed more light on this issue. In any case, I strongly suspect that the final call is a prudential one and that the scoutmaster must determine if whatever the BSA has listed as the required situation is present in any particular case. I suspect that this is the kind of help that ps56k is looking for, not a reference to more vagueries to be found in official BSA literature and official BSA lectures.

As a program director, I decided to wear the field uniform full time, rather than wear the optional field uniform during the day. In doing this, I feared that some would see it as "condescending" or somehow elitist, much like the SPL. Fortunately, it did not seem to be taken this way. In fact, some staffers and scoutmasters made a point to tell me that they liked my "uniform philosophy." The fact that simply wearing a standard uniform can be described as a "philosophy" speaks to the power of the uniform. In any case, they did not feel like I was pressuring them, even though they were more than welcome to wear the field uniform as well. Nor did they feel that I was being condescending. I feel that simply and quietly wearing the complete uniform (whether field or activity), is an effective teaching tool and one that will rarely be contradicted. This particular SPL is an example, but it is likely because he has been instructed by so many older scouts and scoutmasters who choose to routinely wear incomplete uniforms, even when they have the ability to do otherwise. No one needs to be chastized, of course, but simply persist in doing what is right quietly and purposefully.

Again, You may disagree because you feel that the existance of the physcial world is just plain obvious and that the existance of God is mere religious conjecture. That is your (dare I say religious) belief. Just be equally aware that many people (Gandhi, Plato, Descartes, and Spinoza come to mind) hold that the existance of God is an obvious fact and that the existance of the physical world is a theoretical conjecture at best. Don't pretend that YOUR religious or philosophical truths should have more weight before the law than someone elses. They shouldn't. Two religious truths: 1. There is a God 2. There is a physical world. They are BOTH accepted and rejected by religions of the world. BOTH are religious points. YOU happen to believe in number 2, but not number 1. THEREFORE, you claim that groups which teach number 2 but not number 1 should receive direct government support. Likewise, you consider groups that accept number 1 and/or disbelieve number 2 as unworthy of government support. Groups that disagree with YOU on these religious principles are singled out while those that do not are not singled out. You expect the government to show favor to YOUR religous beliefs by giving them direct support without allowing such support to be given to groups which disagree with YOU. That is what I mean by assuming that your philosophical and religious truths have more weight (merit, importance, whatever) before the law (government, whatever) than other persons'.

First of all, I understand your position and I admit that I misunderstood it at first. "Of course, you haven't given any examples of students being refused membership in science clubs." You don't seem to understand what I mean by "de facto discrimination." You are right in that science clubs do not require members to sign statements of belief in the physical world or exclude members who do not sign. I used the qualifier "de facto" because the discrimination is of a different (albeit lesser) kind. Members of the science club are expected to have a philosophical belief in the physical world (a belief not held by Buddhism, some forms of Hinduism and other idealistic faiths) in order to function in the group. Suppose that some organization's primary action was the direct worship of God (the Unmoved Mover, the Demiurge, the First Cause, etc.). It would properly said that such an organization was practicing de facto discrimination against atheists, even if the organization supposedly allowed atheists to join them on their rosters and in their endeavors. De facto discrimination (like de facto racial discrimination) need not be a written exclusionary policy. I admit that the type of discrimination demonstrated by the BSA is different from that demonstrated by the officially sponsored science clubs of public schools. I like science clubs and I like the BSA, but I am aware that they both discriminate on the basis of ideology. Yes, the BSA uses written statements and excludes those that don't agree. Yes, science clubs practice only de facto discrimination. My question is this: If the BSA kept its official positions regarding the existance and importance of God and engaged in actions which were directly dependent on this existance and importance yet allowed atheists to join them just like idealists may join the science club, would you have a problem with it? In other words: If the BSA's primary activity was the worship of God (just as a science club's primary activity is the study of the physical world), yet they allowed atheists to join them in this, would you object to government support of this organization? "That, coupled with the usual 'science is your god' idiocy leads me to conclude that you don't know much about science." Again, I do know something about science. Perhaps I should clarify my statment-- What you perceive to be science is your god. The fact that you cannot see the philosophical basis for empirical science demonstrates to me that you do not understand what science is. I have given you several descriptions of science. You only invoke the name of Science in stating that am ignorant of it, despite the fact that I am familiar with it through both study and practice. Tell me then-- what is this "science" that you speak of? Give us all a definition of this thing which we are all so ignorant of. "And your inability to understand my position regarding public schools and Boy Scouts, even though plenty of other posters like OGE and packsaddle seem to have no problem, leads me to think you can't follow logical arguments." I understand your position completely. The problem is that your definition of "religious" and therefore "religious discrimination" is fundamentally flawed. You assume that I am working with the same definitions as you. God is not the only subject of religious thought. Some religions do not believe in God and some do not believe in the physical world. Some believe in both, some believe in one or the other and some believe in neither. An atheist who wants to belong to a theist group is no different than an idealist who wants to belong to an empirical science group. I have no problem with the government sponsoring either group, as I see neither to be government sponsorship of religion. If, on the other hand, you think that the government should sponsor neither, then go ahead. Just be consistent in your application of the rule. You may disagree because you feel that the existance of the physcial world is just plain obvious and that the existance of God is mere religious conjecture. That is your (dare I say religious) belief. Just be equally aware that many people (Gandhi, Plato, Descartes, and Spinoza come to mind) hold that the existance of God is an obvious fact and that the existance of the physical world is a theoretical conjecture at best. Don't pretend that YOUR religious or philosophical truths should have more weight before the law than someone elses. They shouldn't.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

What makes you assume that I belong to a religion? "Mostly your ignorance about science." And where have I demonstrated ignorance of science? All I stated regarding science is that it is based on a philosophical assumption that the physical world exists. That is not a controversial claim. For you, science seems to be the materialist creed. Science is the systematic study of phenomena (perceivable events). It is inductive and probabilistic in nature. I happen to know a little bit about science. I have been a college level biology tutor and I teach high school level courses on botany, zoology, and animal behavior. As a student of philosophy, I have written on the developments of science in Europe as well as the development of empiricism and logical positivism in Britain and the combination of the two into our modern scientific method. You, on the other hand, seem to have nothing more than a childish, simplistic, and flawed conception of science as something monolithic, dogmatic, and ideological. You have some mythic story about candles and darkness that was given you as a child. Science is not a creed. Materialism is a creed, but it is not intrinsic to empirical science. You seem to confuse the two. For you, "ignorance of science" means "refusal to submit to Science, my god, who has favor with me and makes my opinions correct." It is you who are profoundly ignorant about science. For you, it seems to be the personal savior of your materialistic universe, rather than a systematic method of gaining knowledge of phenomena. "If by "pragmatic atheism" you mean science, then yes, of course." Have I yet referred to science as "pragmatic atheism?" I am talking about humanities courses. You seem to belive that I oppose the teaching of evolution because it doesn't "mention [my] particular god." In fact, I believe in macroevolution through genetic mutation and adaptive advantages. I have probably written more on the phenomenon than you have read. You are obsessed with the mythic notion that religous are somehow diametrically opposed to science. Grow up.

"Tell me of a public school or university that owns and operates a religious discriminatory organization (that is, if the school officials decided to end the group, the group would no longer exist), excludes potential members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and approve the leaders for the group. I don't think you can." All science clubs routinely practice de facto discrimination against those of idealistic faiths or ideologies. Do not underestimate the religious nature of belief in the physical world any more than you would for belief in the spiritual world. "Well, now you're just lying about my opinion. I'm against public schoolteachers promoting atheism OR theism. However, I suspect your 'pragmatic atheism' refers to teachers teaching science without mentioning your particular god, which isn't the same thing as teaching atheism." If I taught a semester course on Neil Armstrong and failed to mention the moon, one would rightly assume that I was teaching something objective with my omission. Likewise, if I were to teach history and consistently omit the positive contributions of a particular race or gender, there would be a justified outrage. As it stands, however, curricula consistently highlight (or create) only the negative contributions of particular faiths or ideologies in their survey of history. In these situations, the consistently describe the opposing individuals or ideologies in a positive light. If this were done for a particular race (even if it were done only through the use of illustrative examples), it would be said that the teacher was teaching pragmatic racism. This is what I mean by pragmatic atheism, and it does not bother you in the least. "Again, you're lying about my opinion. If schools have their facilities open to the public and don't charge fees, anyone can use them on an equal basis." So your only problem with the BSA's relationship to the schools is the nominal "own and operate clause?" So if the schools simply relinquished control over the units and ownership of the property, and stopped paying charter fees, then there would not be a problem? Most interesting. You would still demand that the teachers continue to teach pragmatic atheism, though.. Correct me if I am wrong.. "What religion do you belong to that presumably allows you to lie about atheists, anyway? I find it very obnoxious when people deliberately lie about what my opinion actually is. If you don't know, ASK. If you just make something up that agrees with your own prejudices instead of finding out what my opinion actually is, I will call you a liar. Got that?" What makes you assume that I belong to a religion? Is it just your habit of attacking religious because they are the least likely to attack you back? Do you bank so heavily on the tolerance and civility of religious that you are shocked and outraged when they respond in kind? Why should anyone give you inherent rights that you will not claim for yourself or anyone else? Why should I respect the "beliefs" or "opinions" of a piece of meat? Why should I assume that you have any grasp of particular truths when you won't admit that Truth exists or is something intelligible to your "mind?" Blood flushes to your cheeks as vessels constrict.. Sodium channels cause action potentials to travel along neurons and bridge synapses with neurotransmitters in what you call a "brain" or even (most presumptuously) a "mind." Why should these things concern me? All meat decays in time. Should I care about how neural nets are mapped in your particular cortex? If you insist on considering yourself nothing more than a cortical formation, then don't demand more respect than such an object deserves. Dismiss me as confrontational. Dismiss me as rude. Just realize this one thing; my atheism is stronger and more complete than yours can ever be. Our little world may be complete, my materialist friend, but it doesn't give you any rights to demand anything, least of all respect.

I served as the first-year camper program director at one of the camps I worked at this summer and picked up a few interesting patrol names: Dead Fish Flaming Tigers Barking Spiders Pyro-Squirrels Duh Boll Weevils I Don't Care Pyro Some of these were especially interesting because I designed a totem for each patrol. It was quite a challenge for some of them. I saved the designs for them in case they ever came up again. I don't think that National Supply currently stocks Pyro-Squirrel or Duh patches. We also had some of your more common names like Flaming Arrows, Cobras, Dragons, Ducks, Wolves, Indians, Badgers, and Scorpions. I am also an assistant Den Leader for a Webelos Scout den about ready to cross over. What name did they choose? The Storming Bullfrogs. I don't know if they have come up with a yell and a cheer yet..

Such an essay would likely have to be abridged for an SM, but it is a good illustration of positive morality. http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/chalk.html