The very last word.

[Eamonn]

I have for a little time now, been concerned about how things are presented in the forum.

While it might be OK for me to have an opinion as to when and where to wear a uniform?

I know that I'm not an expert in a lot of the topics that do come up.

I don't the what laws are applicable where? I do know that they can differ from State to State.

I'm not an expert on insurance or medical matters.

Different Councils do at times have different rules, regulations and I sometimes wonder if the word "Policy" is being over used.

While some Forum Members do seem to have knowledge in some areas.

I don't know these people. In fact I have never met most of them!!

Very often (At least lately - Or so it seems to me!!) A lot of medical and Legal terms seem to be used in some threads. These at times do seem to give some sort of credibility to the person using them. But again I have no idea who this person is.

Her Who Must Be Obeyed has worked in the ER of our local hospital for 25 years, but when I'm not feeling well I go to see the Doctor.

I do urge everyone that when it comes to a matter of "Policy" or rules and regulations to check with the experts where you live or visit the BSA web site and then talk with the people who are involved in your area and community.

Eamonn.

[scoutldr]

Then what's the point of having this forum? Everything here is just "opinion", unless supported by a reference, which seldom happens. Even with a reference, the interpretations are all over the map. That's all this is...a forum for opinions and observations. If you want a firm policy decision or interpretation, the user is well advised to get it from the SE in his/her Council. A lot of what is asked here could be gleaned by a few minutes of research with Google. Doesn't everyone have Google? Why do they need us?

 

When I do give an opinion or engage in debate, I try to give references and/or state my qualifications. There are those here, however, when armed with absolutely NO qualiifications in the subject at hand (such as medicine or law), will argue their point just as fervently, even when proven wrong.

 

Caveat emptor. When you ask for free advice, you get what you pay for.

[OldGreyEagle]

I beleive what Scoutldr is referring to is the Pierre Salinger Syndrome, a belief if you see it on the Net, it has to be true. I try to give a reference if I know one exists. And even then, that is never the end of the discussion because sometimes you have to "know" when BSA policy may be ignored.

 

I cringe when I read a first poster write, I want to find out the BSA policy one...., or What does the BSA say about.... because if they are on the web, then the BSA most likely doesnt say what they are looking for in clear language. And if they came away with an answer, saying "hey, I know its right, I saw it on Scouter.Com" then I just get the shakes.

 

We are fun, we are a lot of things, but "The last word"?

 

Reminds me of the long time resident in Maine who was asked if he had lived in East Millinocket his whole life, his answer?

 

Not Yet

 

 

[scoutldr]

Ya want official policy, you say??? Yah can't get thaya from heah!

[Gold Winger]

Ya want official policy, you say??? Yah can't get thaya from heah!

 

LOL!

 

Unfortunately, it is hard to get official policy from BSA.

[scoutldr]

Maybe that's because there ain't any....maybe we're all just making it up as we go along! How do I know there IS a BSA "higher power"? I ain't never seen it!

[fgoodwin]

I know I've posted this before, but one of my pet peeves is when person A tells person B something, then B goes to person C (manytimes C is this Forum) and asks "A told me such-and-so; is he (or she) right?"

 

Its not our job to prove A right or wrong -- if A puts forth a position, then its up to A to prove it. I've been chided when bringing this up as not being responsive to B's question.

 

Suppose A makes a claim for something that doesn't exist, then no amount of googling by C (i.e., us) will ever find it. When do you give up looking for something that doesn't exist, but you don't know it doesn't exist?

 

That's why I always direct B to go back to A and make A prove their case.

 

Also: sometimes A claims something that has no official support, or in some cases, may be flat out wrong. There are infinite ways to do something wrong, but only one (or at most, a few) way to do it right.

 

BSA handbooks and policies tell us what we can do, but with few exceptions, rarely tell us what we cannot do -- there's an infinite number of things we cannot do, so we should stick to those things that BSA tells us we can do.

 

So when A says "BSA has no written prohibition on doing XYZ" I tell them, "you've got it backwards -- show me where BSA says you CAN do XYZ?"

 

OK, off my soapbox for now . . .

[Gold Winger]

So when A says "BSA has no written prohibition on doing XYZ" I tell them, "you've got it backwards -- show me where BSA says you CAN do XYZ?"

 

That's just silly. Usually BSA rules are written to exclude activities because the number of permitted activities is excessive.

 

No where in BSA literature does it say that the traditional game of tag is permitted, does that mean that it is prohibited? Nooooo.

 

I'm pretty sure that chess isn't mentioned either. Monopoly? Use of paracord to make clotheslines? Refried beans of campouts?

 

As a sports official, I would often be told, "that's not in the rules!" The standard assumption for any official is that the coach doesn't really know the rules becaue that's our job. There were exceptions but they were few. I'd usually respond, "That is the rule and I'll be glad to explain it after the game." Often an ejection would soon follow.

 

 

[fgoodwin]

GW: you make a good point, but my general point still stands: if someone makes a claim, its up to them to prove it. Its not up to a third party (like this forum) to prove (or disprove) it.

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm mostly fascinated by how much some folks seem to want there to be a "policy" or "right answer" to everything, eh? It's a kids' program, not a federal regulatory agency. And anyone with experience with federal regulators knows how good they are at developin' coherent policy for everything.

 

It's that quest for some sort of definitive, I-told-you-so, I-know-better-than-you "right" answer that leads to da overstating of claims. That's the same attitude that often hurts units when adults start to go at each other. It's the same attitude that makes trainers ignore da syllabus and create tales of da Liability Monster. The threads on meds were interestin' that way. Lots of good points, and no single right answer that applies everywhere. Rather than discussin' when and how certain things should be considered and helpin' folks with options and ways of thinkin' about things, there's lots of that overly definitive stuff. And, of course, da Liability Monster.

 

I'm da opposite of fgoodwin, eh? I think there's lots of ways to do good things for kids, and only a finite set of things that are wrong or poor choices. It's more like cookin'. There are some wrong things yeh can do while cookin' (burning the food), and a few dangerous things (refuelin' stoves with an open flame nearby...). Beyond that, a lot depends on your resources, ingredients, and taste, eh? Recipes help a lot, especially for novices, but there's no one right recipe for any dish (though I am partial to a couple of Ma Beavah's old recipes, eh? ). And it's OK if someone's stew isn't as good as someone else's, as long as it's enjoyable or at least filling!

 

So that's where I figure forums are helpful, eh? They allow us to share ideas and recipes... yah, sure, and occasional advice on how not to burn food. It's really interestin' to learn a new technique or find out what someone else who cares about Scoutin' and kids has tried. I might use it, or share it with someone who could use it! I'm with Eamonn, though. I don't think forums are helpful when there's a bunch of folks declarin' their opinion on what BSA policy or state law is. Nobody here is authorized to speak on behalf of da BSA in this medium, and anybody with legal experience knows better than to offer real advice in such a venue. So what shows up is mostly about as valuable as a fresh cow pie.

 

But sharin' recipes with fellow scouters from across da country? That's a treasure. I wish we could do more of it, without bein' interrupted by da rest.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

I love refried beans but they don't love me! Sounds like a good unit by-law, huh?

[Gold Winger]

" Its not up to a third party (like this forum) to prove (or disprove) it."

 

Mebbe not but it is fun and without it most of us would have to go outside to cut the grass.

[AvidSM]

Beans, beans, there good for your heart ...

[fgoodwin]

Beavah, I understand what you're saying, and I don't completely disagree. I'm obviously not making my point very well, which also leads to extending threads beyond their useful life.

 

I know the G2SS has a few "thou-shalt-nots" in it. But there's a reason the list of "thou-shat-nots" isn't exhaustive and doesn't claim to be.

 

Like I said, you can never list every situation that is not approved, and even if you tried, the first time someone comes up with a new idea that isn't on the list (but otherwise s/b disapproved), they'll say "hey BSA doesn't disallow it, so it must be OK!"

 

Like I said before, that's the wrong way to read the policy, but there will always be those who look at things that way.

[CalicoPenn]

I'm pretty sure it's Zzyzx - because I don't buy Zzzz as a word, but I'm willing to be enlightened.

 

Calico