OGE, it has occurred to me . . .

[yaworski]

that your son should be kicked out of Scouting. Why?

 

Well, you recounted the story in which your son threatened other scouts with a sack of urine. Where I live, threatening another person with bodily fluids is considered assault. By this action, your son has exhibited hostile tendencies and has probably learned those at home because he is abused.

 

There are a couple possible courses of action.

 

Report this event to the police and youth protection authorities. Send your son to counseling for his hostile actions. Send you to counseling to make sure that you are not abusing your son.

 

OR we could chalk this up to "Boys being boys" and tell him to not wave his pee bag at anyone anymore.

 

What's your call? ;-)

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I think in Junior Leader Training (he attended and has been on staff for two years and this year he was asked to be a Venture on Woodbadge staff, the same one I am taking, am I proud, yes)he learned 11 points of leadership.

 

1. Understanding the needs and characteristics of the

group

2. Knowing and using the resources of the group

3. Communicating

4. Planning

5. Controlling Group performance

6. Evaluating

7. Setting the Example

8. Sharing Leadership

9. Counseling

10. Representing the group

11. Effective Teaching

 

as a recap, While on the PLC training week end he and the older scouts were in a cabin room trying to sleep while in another room younger scouts were not settling down. After repeated requests for the younger scouts to quiet down, my son went over to the other room, raised his urinary drainage bag to eye level and said "you guys be quiet, this is loaded and I am not afraid to use it" or something close to that.

 

Lets see,

 

He knew the next day had a full schedule of training and skills development, so he knew that all need a good nights sleep, he demonstrated knowing and understanding the characteristics of the group.

 

He and the other older scouts told the younger one to settle down by many requests and beseeches, therefore demonstrating Communication.

 

He and the other older scouts got together to formulate a plan to get the younger ones quiet. Therefore they demonstrated Planning.

 

The older group of scouts decided to have my son go over with his bag, thus they demonstrated Sharing Leadership.

 

When my son went over to talk to the younger scouts he was definitiely Representing the group of the older scouts.

 

When he held his bag up, he wasnt threatening anybody, merely employing the knowing and untilizing the resources of the group, this resource was used to control group performace by counseling the younger scouts.

 

He was setting an example that it was time to settle down and get to sleep, which is the definition of Effective Teaching.

 

So, rather than throw him out, he and his compatriots should be celebrated for using their training. Although I did tell him he was lucky the bag didnt burst else we/he would have had a huge cleaning bill.

 

And dont worry, I have been and am still going to counseling, my shrink and I feel I havent yet technically "abused" him yet although I have been harsh without cause, he gets to talk to his urologist without me in the roon, so he could report abuse if he wanted. And on your suggestion, I'll probably thrash him after dinner just in case he thinks he got away with something

 

[lasteagle83]

Let's see, "You guys be quiet, this is loaded and I'm not afraid to use it"....

 

Reads to me as follows:

 

1. An instruction to refrain from noisemaking, as an important announcement is forthcoming.

2. The announcement itself, which simply advises that the device is operating properly, and collecting fluids as designed.

3. An acknowledgement that he is, indeed, competent in the use of this medically necessary device.(This message has been edited by lasteagle83)

[yaworski]

Sorry OGE, but you're applying a double standard here. Just as when someone says, "I have a gun and I'm not afraid to use it." or they hold up a liquor store with a cap gun, waving a bag of urine and proclaiming "I know how to use it" carries with it an implied threat.

 

Face it, your son committed a criminal act, just like you claimed that other boy did. The difference is that one boy is your son and the other isn't.

 

BTW, I never suggested that you thrash your son although in the given circumstances, it might be a good idea.

[Bob White]

Relax yaworski there was was no harm intended and certainly none done. It was like if you walked into a room and said "I have character and I'm not afraid to use it." of course the only difference is that the boy actually possessed a bag of urine.

 

Bob White

[OldGreyEagle]

Yaworski,

 

if you actually think I care what you think, you are so far over the top there is no pulling you back. Your posts are so full of crude and vulgar references and uncaring attitudes I shudder to think what type of example you set for scouts. I understand you have a right to post whatever you wish, I have a right to respond to it in any manner I wish. You may continue posting your distorted views, and I may actually respond to them, but in no way ever think I see you as a serious caring scouter who has anything of value to offer anyone here who asks a serious question.

 

This post is for other readers so that when they read my reponses to your non-sense, they know up front I am not serious when responding to you. Your bullying posts do nothing to enhance this forum and have no redeeming value.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[yaworski]

Tsk, tsk, Bob. You stooped to taking a shot at me. Pretty easy to do when you hide behind an pseudonym. I wonder if you'll get smacked by your buddy, the "publisher".

 

As for harm intended or done, there was less harm done by the boy who teased the other boy. For all you know, one of the boys who was threatened by the bag of urine was traumatized by the event and has wet his bed ever since. Worse yet, one of them may think that threatening to spray urine on other scouts is appropriate behaviour and, lacking a bag of it, will do something even more unacceptable.

 

OGE, the problem is that you know that I'm right. You think that the one event is cute because it involved your son, whom you know to be a "good kid." You think that the other event is horrible because because of events in your own life.

 

Get over it, neither event was that terrible.

(This message has been edited by yaworski)

[ScoutParent]

I have to agree that the incident involving OGE's son was taken in the spirit it was meant while the incident with the boy on the camp out was taken as a felony issue. Both insinuated physical harm to the other boy if taken literally. While many were eager to rid the boy scouts of "a predatory, sexual offender who posed a threat to others" no one thought anything of what OGE's son said. Now I ask you how could we on this board be so sure of the tone used by the other boy (the humper) or his intentions as to call for the revocation of his membership and smile and joke on the other incident? I also ask you why we should apply the rules literally only when we choose to?

 

I for one am tired of the incessant attacks to yaworski's character all the while cloaking yourselves in some cape of moral standing on a mountain top. Yaworski is entitled to his opinions and he is entitled to express his opinions on this board. I challenge each of you to reread his posts and tell me how any intelligent person can come to the conclusion that yaworski lacks character. I don't always agree with his choice of words but he makes many good points and the fact that they are not in agreement with everyone else should not be used as a basis to attack him. I think the problem is that you lack the ability to discern when he is serious and when he is being cynical to make his point...or maybe it's just that he disagrees with your opinions.

[evmori]

I gotta agree that these are two different situations. OGE's son was using a method to get something done and the other Scout was trying to get a rise out of another Scout. But one could argue that both methods are inappropriate. I don't think they are but the arguement could be made.

 

I like the way OGE's son handled the situation.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

There are obvious differences, but I think the point is valid. I don't think folks are arguing that OGE's son was intentionally trying to intimidate anyone. Also, I don't think yaworksi or anyone else would argue that the "humper" (for a lack of a better reference) was trying to make friends. However, in both incidents, a boy made a proposition (or threat) that he did not intend to carry through. Everyone is pretty confident that OGE's son would not have carried out his threat had the boys continued to make noise, and I am no different. However, I'm just as confidant that the "humper" would have freaked out had the other boy turned around and accepted his offer. In short, while I'm convinced the "humper" is guilty of bullying, I'm not convinced that he is guilty of sexual harassment. At least no more than I am convinced that OGE's boy is guilty of a verbal assault. Both of these threats were bogus - one was purely for humor in order to accomplish a needed goal, while the other was humorless and meant to intimidate. Of course the end results are different, but the logic should apply to both circumstances.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[drhannon]

I'm curious would OGE still find this situation humorus if in the process of getting the younger scouts quiet the drainage bag broke and spilled its contents on the scouts.

 

Or one of the younger scouts told his parents that an older scout threaten him with a bag full of urine beacuse he wouldn't be quiet and go to sleep.

 

I know that if it was my son I would not be looking at it as effective teaching. I would be rather upset that he resorted to something like that, would have told him he used poor judgement to accomplish the intended goal.

[Bob White]

If OGE will allow me drannon, I would like to answer your question. No, I don't think OGE would like that, but that's not what happened is it? I mean you could build a "what if" premise into any scenario and make it come out badly. But you can't judge the event on the imaginary "what if".

 

In comparison to the scout that made the sexually improper comments and physical contact to another scout while refusing to return the scouts property, OGE's son did not threaten any one specifically with any action. He said he knew how to use his collection bag.

 

"I have a bag of manure for my garden and I know how to use it!" Does anyone feel particularly threatened?

 

Unlike the other case, OGE's son did not sexually touch or bully anyone and unlike the previous case it was his own property not someone else's.

 

If anything his son showed a very healthy mental attitude of being able to poke fun at his own medical condition. I'd be willing to bet that every boy in the room laughed, and that he laughed with him.

 

This was humor, OK it was urine humor and if a leader chose to counsel him about it fine that is the leaders call. But this is in no way comparable to the previous encouter with the "humper" and unlike that situation, OGE's son did not violate the Youth Protection or Guide to Safe Scouting policies.

 

Some of the posters who have responded otherwise in this string have been known to post in previous exchanges that scouters need to use common sense. Now would be a good time to try that.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[OldGreyEagle]

If you read the original story, you will note I told him that he was lucky the bag didnt break or else he/we would have had a large cleaning bill. So had it broken, yes, he would have been held responsible.

 

I didnt write that I had told him not to do that again due to all the reasons listed, but if you remember the name of the thread was Humourous stories, I didnt think to add that part.

 

I guess I need my sense of humor adjusted. When I read Yawoski's initial post, I knew what he was doing and wrote my response tongue in cheek. If you notice, I say I am in counseling and that I havent "technically' abused my son yet. I thought that was a give away I wasnt serious. Then when Yaworski posted what I took to be a serious reply, I snapped.

 

One of my favorite books of all time is "Steppenwolf" by Herrman Hesse. In the book there is a dream sequence where the books hero is put on trial for the crime of "taking himself to seriously". I find myself guilty of the charge and sentence my self to at least 10 days away from this forum. If/when I come back I will strive to be scout like in all posts.

[yaworski]

The meaning of "I know how to use it" is contexual but is usually meant as a threat. "I have a computer and I know how to use it," when said to a politician means that you're going to jump on bulletin boards and slam him.

 

No one in that room thought that he was announcing that he knew how to operate his pee bag. The intent, humourous or not, was threatening.

 

I don't know where you got your G2SS but mine doesn't say that waving a bag of urine and making threats is acceptable.

 

 

 

[Venturer2002]

Old Grey Eagle:

 

Methinks that you might need to study some vocabulary. Your statement that your son wasn't threatening anyone is entirely incorrect; here is Merriam Webster's definition:

 

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

2 : one that threatens

3 : an indication of something impending

 

Also based on the Guide to Safe Scouting, his conduct was entirely wrong:

 

"If confronted by threats of violence or other forms of bullying from other youth members, Scouts should seek help from their unit leaders or parents."

 

This clearly was a "violent" act, and also a form of bullying.

 

Nowhere does it say in the SPL handbook that bodily fluids, or the threat to use them, are a leadership technique. Instead, the Guide to Safe Scouting condemns such acts, and turns them over to the discretion of the Unit leadership.

 

If I didn't know any better, or didn't know how to use my resources, I would look at such an example as acceptable. Clearly the Guide to Safe Scouting states otherwise.

 

Those who say "he wasn't gonna use it" should go on the road, performing at carnivals, for clearly such people must be psychics. Nowhere in the given situation were we informed of a contingency plan should the threat not yield the intended result.

 

Do any of us know if he would have? Of course we don't.

 

The good Doctor could probably elaborate as to the health risks associated with this particular threat, let alone the unpleasantness.

 

BobWhite mentioned that theft of property was unacceptable, should this bag of urine burst on his victims, he could have ruined clothing or damaged equipment.

 

His feckless (not reckless) behavior clearly put others at risk, and should not be tolerated, as doing so would go against the program set forth by the American Scout Movement, the Boy Scouts of America.