I Me Mine, I Me Mine......And A Baked Spud.

[ManyIrons]

"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper-cup, they slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe"

 

Let me join NJ in recommending the new Beatles CD. After years of hearing the "Spectorized" versions, some of the songs definitely sound "naked" (or would that be ex-spectorized"?). One of my favorites is "Across the Universe" as you can see from the opening line of this post. I've always loved the imagery created by the lyrics and they seemed appropriate in this thread.

 

Words do mean things folks, but in this case let it go. Characterize your affiliation with a unit anyway you like -- it's not whether you talk the talk, it's whether you walk the walk.

 

Peace

[Fat Old Guy]

Our man in Guam said, " 'My' designates membership in."

 

Ah, there's the rub. There are those who say that we aren't members of the troop, only the boys are.

[evmori]

My card says "This certifies that Edward Mori Scoutmaster is a member of the Boy Scouts of America Troop 0001 ......"

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

Ed, do you wear the leading zeros on your shoulder? :-)

[frank10]

Hmmm, let me try this out.

The wife I serve....

May feel that way somedays, but I'll get wacked up side the head and spend a night in the guest bed if I ever say it.

[evmori]

I usually keep them in my pocket.

[Fat Old Guy]

" but I'll get wacked up side the head and spend a night in the guest bed if I ever say it. "

 

Worse may happen if your wife ever figures out that by saying "my wife" you mean that you own her. [duck and run]

 

 

[NWScouter]

All I can say about that old post was that you BW, implied that everyone who used 'my' or 'mine' was completly wrong in their realationship to the units and were not good Scouters.

[Adrianvs]

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...

[Bob White]

That's quite an accusation NWScouter. I welcome any actual evidence to support that claim. Please provide a link to the post where I said any such thing.

[Bob White]

"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."

 

Care to share a specific example?

[dsteele]

Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but all too often, statements like this one, made by Adrianvs:

 

"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."

 

Are referring to guys like me.

 

99% of us do care and care very much. The other 1% tends not to last long.

 

DS

[Bob White]

I don't think he is referring to you Dave. I am not sure if he knows who he is referring to. We have seen statements similar to his in this thread and others.

 

The vast majority of them are simply repeats of of gripes shared over coffee by scouters who have a limited understanding, if any at all, of the responsibilities of scouters outside of unit leadership.

 

The thought that those who administrate scouting for a geographic area have no idea of how the program works is absurd. Many are current unit volunteers, or have many years in unit leadership, or both.

 

Keep in mind that although the majority of "program" responsibilities rest with unit volunteers, it is the work of national, regional, council and district volunteers and professional that provide the program support to haelp the leaders succeed.

 

It is the same hideous dragon of "them" and "us" raising its head. Some refuse to accept that it is all just "US". All working to make a quality scouting program available to every eligible youth in the geographic area we serve.

 

Are there poor quality professionals? Certainly, but there are more good than bad. Are there poor quality volunteers? Sure there are, they exist at evry level. Few who fail to deliver the program last for the long run.

 

I would be curious to know what Adrianvs' actual adult scouting background is that he has developed such misconceptions of scouting beyond the unit.

 

Bob

 

 

[Twocubdad]

mlk jnrstarthsn

 

nijkb uhaehgh5y

 

uhbjiqg rg 5qe

 

ugyhnwtyqtynqtyq

 

jbhu 67mwrhjnwu

 

fvg hjbsrtumsrum

 

gvfytmub vjhygftu

 

 

 

(That's me banging my head against the keyboard. That feels better that rehashing this thread. Although I must say the Beatles diversion held promise for awhile.)

 

 

 

[dsteele]

Postscript to my most recent addendum to this thread:

 

Adrianvs -- I in no way assumed you were speaking about me personally. I was merely pointing out that the people who don't know council level professionals are quick to assume that we're just meeting numerical goals and are detached from the program and do not care about their unit.

 

Tout Le Monde:

 

We do care. We have numerical achievements we have to meet, but every one of those numbers is important to the overall health of Scouting.

 

I do admit that I could care less what the patch looks like for the camporee, (fill in the event) or even whether we have one. The event needs to advance the ideals of Scouting, have sufficient attendance, not lose money, and be meaningful to the youth who participate.

 

Scouting needs to grow in membership, provide a good program, provide good service to the volunteers running units, and have its financial needs met to provide for the previously mentioned.

 

Eamonn's spud is a prime example. What started with sharing a potato led to a wonderfully symbiotic relationship between a woman and the Boy Scouts of America.

 

I'm okay with the use of "my." I say "my position" referring to Assistant Scout Executive because I feel comfortable doing so. I don't feel comfortable saying "my council" because I'm just moving through and because I'm the #2 guy. I'm cool with the Scout Executive or Council President, Board Members or Officers saying "my council" and indeed encourage the ownership implied.

 

But also because I don't get hung up on semantics.

 

Eamonn provided a woman with a potato. So who's potato was she eating while he recruited her? Was she eating "his" potato? Was she eating "her" potato because he had given it to her?

 

Does it really matter? The goal was to recruit her.

 

Any way you look at it three things happened:

 

1) potato all gone

2) person recruited

3) boys benefitted

 

That's the bottom line.

 

Eamonn: Any district chairman that can recruit is the right district chairman. Get emotional, it's okay. Get frustrated, it's okay. Recruit and build the base and that's how we grow.

 

DS