Scouters as communist weapons dealers

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Bob, Ed, the forum has this nifty convenient tool, its called a Private Message, I suggest you use it to continue to point out each other's failings.

[evmori]

I find it fascinating that you find abiding by the law as unusual. Sad more than fascinating I guess.

 

My last comment on this - What you find fascinating is you own interpretation of what I posted. And it is incorrect.

 

Eamonn,

To me guidelines are just that - guidelines not rules. Suggestions no "You must do this". madkins007 post says it better.

 

OGE,

I would use th PM feature with Bob, but it would end up here anyways.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[johndaigler]

Hand-knotted Persian rugs are some of the most beautiful in the world. The craftsmanship, attention to detail and work ethic required to create one of these artistic masterpieces requires whole families to work together following the plans and rules for months (if not years).

 

Into every carpet a specific family member is given the responsibility of purposefully creating an error - it's often referred to as "The Persian Flaw". The flaw does nothing to injure the majesty of the art, and only enhances the rugs value. This tradition stems from the rugmakers' Faith. They believe that the pursuit of perfection is a sinful arrogance and an insult to their Creator - the only Perfection in the Universe.

 

 

Maybe in future threads we can focus on all the good things we do and teach ourselves how to be even better at the Scouting Game. If we start with a focus upon the bits we do wrongly, how can we possibly be modeling behaviors that we want to teach others? If we're only 98% Good Scouters, should we welcome the verbal lash of others - or should we celebrate our "humanness" and welcome others to celebrate all the Good we do?

 

If you want to teach me something about the 2% I don't get, or I don't do, or I don't believe, I think you'll be more successful if you model behaviors that I respect and offer me learning and usable value. Start the conversation with a verbal wrist slap and I'm not likely to give you much credence -- so, you MIGHT be right, but you're not succeeding in helping me be better, and in the end, that harms the Program rather than improves it.

 

jd

[johndaigler]

Redfeather - Your thread title "Baby Sitters of America" was quite clever. Word play and such exotic literary tools as metaphor and irony can often go underappreciated. Words have powers beyond their dictionary definitions. Thank you for modeling a bit of thinking and communicating skill beyond the bare bones of verbal information sharing.

 

Parent Involvement is a tricky problem for many of us - use that same cleverness to get your Parents intrigued about all the good stuff your boys accomplish and experience.

 

Good Luck.

 

jd

[Bob White]

As I am sure Red Feather will admit, Theu use of BSA as an acronym for Baby Sitters of America has been around for at least 40 years.

[Bob White]

As I am sure Red Feather will admit, The use of BSA as an acronym for Baby Sitters of America has been around for at least 40 years.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[johndaigler]

BW, sorry this apparently slipped by you.

 

I applauded redfeather's USE of the phrase - not his invention of it. I was modeling behavior that I'd like to see more often -- modeling positive words and actions rather than the nitpicking, negative, judgemental, insulting, and in the end, detrimental and less than effective "i" dotting and "t" crossing that I too often read hereabouts.

 

I'm kinda surprised that you didn't recognize this and felt the need to correct a comment that was positive, personal and accurate. You often suggest that our behaviors are witnessed by the boys and that we should model the behavior that we expect from them.

 

That's a bit disappointing -- I guess I'LL have to try harder - or be more clear in my praise. Perhaps I should PM redfeather to clarify my comments.

 

jd

[Bob White]

I meant no harm. I regret that your first post did not carry the meaning you expressed in your second one or I would not have resoponded. It sounded as if you had never seen the use of the initials that way.

 

 

[FScouter]

"Baby sitters of america" is clever?

[packsaddle]

Fscouter, I think not.

There seems to be an inordinate interest in socks and, Kahuna, I sure hope you changed them once in a while.

I really try to wear my uniform correctly. And yet, there is a nagging thought in mind at all times - if the uniform Nazis put me under the 'microscope', they'd probably find something wrong. I understand the need for everyone to wear the uniform correctly and I understand the reasons for that need.

This, to me, is a less important infraction than things that involve safety. I may say something about a boy's uniform or lack thereof at a meeting. But if he's handling an axe in an unsafe manner, for example, that will stop immediately and the issue will be addressed before he handles the axe again.

In addition, I've seen leaders take scouts out on boats without life jackets, or on outings without two-deep leadership, and list goes on.

Yes, I cringe when I see units wearing camo as their uniform and I might mention something to the DE (who doesn't seem to care anyway). But if I see that the life jackets are missing from the boat, I say something immediately to the leaders. And mention that there are also real laws if good sense doesn't work for them.

But uniforms? If they are worn incorrectly in front of the pros and the pros say nothing, I'll just keep watching for those life jackets.

[Eamonn]

packsaddle

I agree with you whole heartedly about the Life Jackets.

However the $64,000 question is. Do you believe that a leader who is willing to knowingly break a small rule (correct uniforming) is just as lightly to be the twit that allows the Scouts not to wear the Life Jackets?

Eamonn.

(See Bob White for the $64,000)

[FScouter]

Are the 2-deep nazis, the axe nazis, and the boat nazis more holy than the uniform nazis? We don't need no stinkin' nazis.

 

We need leaders that follow the program. What is the purpose in ranking the relative importance of program elements, unless our intent is to ingore elements deemed low on the scale?

[evmori]

Eamonn,

Since uniforming is more of a guideline, I would say no to your question.

 

I'll take that $64,000 in $20's Bob.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Torveaux]

Bob, et al,

 

You need to be more honest with yourself. You have admitted on another thread that you in fact do not 'go commando' and shoeless while wearing the Scout uniform despite the fact that the 'guidelines' specifically state that you may not wear the uniform "with civilian clothing" Cub Scout Leader Book (pg 12-11). You have made the decision to violate the letter of the rules because to do otherwise would be absurd. Berating others for minor infractions does nothing to help the program and only serves to undermine your credibility on other more important issues.

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

[packsaddle]

Eamonn, I understand the spirit of your question. The short answer is 'no'.

I think that I can put the answer in slightly different terms though. The leader who is cavalier with the life jackets may be, in my mind, more likely to ignore the uniform guidelines. I could be wrong, they may think the uniform is far more important than the safety and health of the scouts.

However, this doesn't mean that the leader who winks at the wrong socks is necessarily going to ignore the G2SS. He may simply give the G2SS rules a higher priority than the fine points of the uniform guidelines.

Given that boys and troops are imperfect entities, constantly striving for some ideal but making mistakes, I am willing to work on appearances but I am insistent on doing that work safely.