Watch Chief Scout Executive Robert Mazucca Speak Live!

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

 

Personally, I wouldn't offer either option to a typical group of boys.

 

 

And that's a major ande chronic weakness of Kudu's line of argument, which I've now seen repeated many times.

 

It's the error of false alternatives.

 

Perhaps if you have an experienced cowboy or animal trainer available to talk about runaway horses, it might be a good topic for a talk. But for the typical person who has no experience dealing with runaway horses, encouraging them to talk about something they know nothing about is just blowing smoke.

 

You need a Scoutmaster and other program people with enough experience to discuss the program intelligently, and illustrate it out of their own experience. That's the kind of thing that will command the respect of boys, or anyone.

 

 

Baden Powell's idea of "Scouting" came from his military experience and the military experience of elite infantry scouts of the day. Infantry methods and skills have evolved since 1910, but Kudu's ideas of scoutcraft have not.

 

He is stuck in the past with the idea that scoutcraft must remain eternally fixed on such concept as stopping a charging horse.

 

The military has adapted to changing times. Kudu has not.

 

And that's the weakness of his argument.

 

Now, it may be that in adapting the Scouting program to modern times a poor job has been done of that in some things. I'm perfectly willing to hear criticism of mistakes someone thinks may have been made.

 

But the idea that Scouting must or should remain mired in the Scoutcraft of 1910 or 1916 or whatever is absurd.

[Kudu]

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

And that's a major ande chronic weakness of Kudu's line of argument, which I've now seen repeated many times. It's the error of false alternatives.

 

False alternatives?

 

Ask your SPL to put it to a vote:

 

"What do you want to do tonight: Learn how to help with a runaway horse, or learn how to use EDGE theory to teach a square knot?"

 

If runaway horses are "old-fashioned" and EDGE is "modern," then clearly by Wood Badge Logic, Boy Scouts will vote for EDGE!

 

Test it yourself.

 

What do you have to lose?

 

When Wood Badge switched from Scoutcraft (runaway horses) to formulas (EDGE), two million boys JOINED the BSA!

 

Oh, wait.

 

Two million Boy Scouts LEFT the BSA.

 

I guess they found a "false alternative!"

 

The runaway horse requirement is often used to express the common Wood Badge contempt for timeless Scoutcraft, and the Tenderfoot EDGE requirement is a perfect example of why most boys hate Scouting.

 

Remember, EDGE theory replaced Patrol Leaders in the Patrol Method presentation of SM Specific Training. So you can't find a more perfect example than EDGE of exactly what is wrong with modern Scouting.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Perhaps if you have an experienced cowboy or animal trainer available to talk about runaway horses, it might be a good topic for a talk. But for the typical person who has no experience dealing with runaway horses, encouraging them to talk about something they know nothing about is just blowing smoke.

 

OK, so you never discuss rattlesnake bites without an experienced cowboy on staff?

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

You need a Scoutmaster and other program people with enough experience to discuss the program intelligently, and illustrate it out of their own experience. That's the kind of thing that will command the respect of boys, or anyone.

 

"Illustrate it out of their own experience," huh?

 

For those who are perplexed by SeattlePioneer's anger, it is because I have "enough experience to discuss" recruiting Hispanic Scouts by treating them the same as white boys:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/recruiting.htm

 

Anybody (including District Membership Chair SeattlePioneer) who uses my presentation can register 28% of a mixed-race six-grade audience by selling old-fashioned Scoutcraft.

 

That is 28% IN ADDITION to your local Council's best efforts at Crossover.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Baden Powell's idea of "Scouting" came from his military experience and the military experience of elite infantry scouts of the day.

 

Baden-Powell's program was welcomed because the Siege of Mafeking (which coincided with the publication of his Aids to Scouting) was such rare good headline news in a war (in which B-P observed) that the "pale and doughy" indoor English boys had their modern parlour butts handed to them by the "chestnut-hued" Dutch farm boys (boer means "farmer").

 

Boy Scouting was not (as Leadership Development advocates insist) an attempt to teach the cutting edge technology of the day. No, it was designed to get boys away from the conveniences of "modern" life and into the primitive woods on a regular basis.

 

As such, the requirements of 1911 work just as well now as they did a hundred years ago. First aid methods (CPR, for instance) seem to change every year, so it is not a contradiction to apply modern procedures to the actual 1916 requirements themselves.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Infantry methods and skills have evolved since 1910, but Kudu's ideas of scoutcraft have not.

 

Oh, you mean if the BSA was serious about "combating obesity," we would reinstate Patrol Hikes and the 14 mile First Class Journey? Not allow cupcakes to collect Eagle badges without ever walking into the woods with packs on their backs?

 

Is that what you mean by "Kudu's ideas of Scoutcraft"?

 

OK then, guilty as charged.

 

By the way, I would not rule out the attraction of the Young Marines, an organization which is presumably based on the "infantry methods and skills that have evolved since 1910," but Baden-Powell was very precise in defining military drill (along with homework Merit Badges) as precisely the exact opposite of Boy Scouting.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

He is stuck in the past with the idea that scoutcraft must remain eternally fixed on such concept as stopping a charging horse.

 

That is "runaway horse," not charging horse.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

The military has adapted to changing times. Kudu has not. And that's the weakness of his argument.

 

That is not my "argument," is it? It is your straw-man.

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

But the idea that Scouting must or should remain mired in the Scoutcraft of 1910 or 1916 or whatever is absurd.

 

SeattlePioneer is a troll because no matter how many reasoned replies I make to his "mired absurd" characterization of my position, he just reboots and spews again.

 

His hero the "Hispanics Hate Camping" CSE, trivializes Scoutcraft as "rubbing two sticks together" or "when is the last time you saw a runaway horse, oh last Tuesday?" because to "produce" so many Eagle Scouts, we have lowered our "Eagle" Scoutcraft standards to those of a 1916 Second Class Scout.

 

My position is that Scouting would be more popular if we offered a challenging outdoor program such as the 1916 requirements for First Class.

 

By the way, 1916 is just the standard specified in our Congressional Charter. As I have stated many times, my own preference for "Traditional Scouting" would be Baden-Powell's 1938 international program, or William Hillcourt's 1964 BSA program.

 

Such minimum standards do not rule out "modern stuff." I have introduced Wide Games based on GPS and lasers. My local backpacking program will experiment with MP3 players in April. As some of you old-timers know, I was attacked in Scouting forums for years for advocating a breathable nylon "zip-off" Boy Scout uniform in the 1990s. SeattlePioneer himself attacked me for my support of the BSA Scuba Diving Merit Badge, as if modern adventure somehow contradicts the Scoutcraft standards of 1916.

 

My Scoutcraft website serves 10,000 to 15,000 page hits a day. Many of us believe that a return to the high standards of 1916 or 1964 would increase the BSA's market-share back to its levels before the introduction of Leadership Development in 1972.

 

Anyone can prove or disprove the timeless attraction of Scoutcraft on the retail level by testing my recruiting presentation.

 

Really, what do you have to lose?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

My very first Webpage:

http://inquiry.net/uniforms/bdu.htm

 

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Twocubdad]

And when did you stop beating your wife?

 

Oh, please! You would have to be the most obtuse human on the planet to present that option to the troop. Why not present the question as, "do you want to learn more useless and arcane Scout trivia that you'll never need, or do you want to learn some leadership skills you can use to help your patrol be more sucessful?" Franky, that's a stupid proposition, too. But you can spin anything to reach a pre-determined outcome.

 

 

 

 

[sherminator505]

Okay, I watched the speech.

 

Mr. Mazzuca doesn't seem like the archenemy to Scouting that some in this forum would like to portray him as. That said, there were a couple of things that hit me as being a little odd.

 

The first was his emphasis on how Scouting influenced communities while seemingly downplaying the influence Scouting had on the individual boys. That is the root of what we do, and he really didn't seem to have a grasp of the situation in those terms.

 

The second was his emphasis on "embracing technology." While this is certainly relevant to Scouting today, it should not preclude teaching the boys about how to do without the technological doo-dads.

 

Recently we had a real-life experience with this when we had a gas shortage. Parts of the state experienced rolling blackouts while others were without natural gas for up to a week. A few questions came to mind: Did we have water? Did we have a way of cooking food if we lost our gas service? Did we have firewood for that happenstance? I was able to come up with answers to those questions because as a Scout I was put into a situation where I had to think about those exact things.

 

So it may be true that Scouts don't need to worry so much about chasing runaway horses or know how to build log cabins, just as it is true that they now know better than to ditch their tents because of the environmental damage that practice causes. But they do need to have some sense of self-reliance and some ability to think in changing conditions that the unprepared might regard as a crisis, and I think we do our Scouts a disservice if we fail to teach that.

[Kudu]

My question is the same question that Robert Mazucca posed to the audience, isn't it?

 

Do you want to learn how to help with a runaway horse, or do you want to be "Prepared For Life"?

 

He then goes on to describe "Prepared For Life" as citizenship stuff: Learning Scout Law indoors "in church basements and community halls and Scout huts [where] young people gather up with adults of good character."

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

Why not present the question as, "do you want to learn more useless and arcane Scout trivia that you'll never need, or do you want to learn some leadership skills you can use to help your patrol be more sucessful?"

 

Not the same thing, is it?

 

My question is a fair description of both the 1911 requirement and the 2011 requirement:

 

What do you want to do tonight? Would you rather learn how to stop a runaway horse, or learn how to use the EDGE method to teach the square knot?"

 

Your question only warns the Scouts of your emotional reaction to something you are not telling them ("useless and arcane Scout trivia").

 

So why not put THAT to a test? Word it this way:

 

"Do you want to learn how to help with a runaway horse, useless and arcane Scout trivia that you'll never need; or do you want to learn some leadership skills you can use to help your patrol be more successful?"

 

My guess is that (except in Troops where Webelos III dads teach "Character" by sanctioning the Scouts' opinions with Scout Spirit requirements), most red-blooded American boys will still pick the runaway horses.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

Useless and Arcane Scout Trivia:

http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Apparently he can't stop himself.

[Twocubdad]

Your bias, Kudu, is in your selection of requirements. Why not make the choice between learning to resuscitate someone by rolling them over a barrel versus by learning how to use an AED? Or do you want to memorize the 16 principle points of the compass versus how to use a GPS.

 

But your are absolutely right, with they choice you gave them, learning to stop a runaway horse sounds a whole lot sexier than learning the EDGE method. But, if you read it, the horse requirement is simply "know the methods for how to help in case of a runaway horse" I can teach that in a church basement using PowerPoint and bore the dickens out of you. And I can take a couple Scouts to a Webelos meeting with me and they will have a blast learning and using EDGE to teach the Webelos. There is a little art to this Scoutmaster thing, you know.

 

You ignored my question about the Eagle Scout who never walked in the woods with a back pack, which was really to the crux of my point.

 

You take the 1910 written program and hold it up as if all 1910 units delivered that program perfectly. But you take the modern program and shoot holes in it based on how it could be misapplied. I suppose in theory a Scout could make Eagle and never use a back pack, but is that really a problem? Does anyone know of such a Scout?

 

There are good and bad troops now just as I am sure there were good and bad troops in 1910. I've built a couple log cabins and done a fair bit of historic restorations over the years. One of the things I been taught is that when you are looking at a surviving buildings, you're likely looking at the best of the best. For a structure to survive for years and years, it was probably built with great care and craftsmanship. A cheap mill house or a pole cabin thrown up by some poor pioneer, facing the oncoming winter probably isn't around 150 years later for us to study. We draw false conclusion if we only study cabins with perfectly cut dovetail joints in white oak logs. There is a similar danger in comparing Scout programs.

 

When I compare the 1911 and 2011 requirements, I'm struck by how similar they are. Truth is, there is nothing in the early requirements a Scout, patrol or troop can't do now if they choose to. Hiking, cooking, woods tools, fire building, first aid is all still there. No, some of the stuff isn't required through first class anymore, but that doesn't mean you can still do it. You can even earn horsemanship merit badge and chase horses, if that is something every red-blooded American boy yearns to do. If two Scouts want to go on a 14 mile trek, they have the option to do so, and can meet the modern requirements of hiking, backpacking, cycling or canoeing merit badges along the way. Seems to me the requirements which were dropped, like stopping horses and signaling, have gone the way of buggy whips anyway. But no one is stopping your boys from doing that stuff if they want.

 

There are, however, a number of new things which I think are good additions. Like using the EDGE method to teach tying a square knot. Good grief, all that is required is to teach someone to tie a square knot. The real purpose of this requirement, and the ones to visit a civic leader and to participate in a short service project, is very simply to acknowledge in the early ranks the role of leadership, service and citizenship in the program. You may not think the minimal effort these requirements take is worthwhile, but I do.

 

It comes down to the program you, your Scouts, other adult leaders and parents want. If you want to focus on 1911-style adventure treks and very strict youth leadership, it is your option to do so. I very sincerely think it is in the best interest of the program that troops like that are around for boys who want that.

 

But as both a parent and leader I want more than that for my sons and the Scouts in my troop. I appreciate the more rounded program which has something to offer many more boys. I want my Scouts to learn leadership skills, even if it is just some basic managerial techniques. I want them to spend time with other adults of good character and develop lasting relationships with them (as I did as a Scout). I want the chubby, couch-potato kid to be able to participate, advance and thrive in the program, even if he can't or won't participate in all the physically demanding activities the other guys can. I want them to take seriously their oath to help other people through service and to do their duty to God and Country through good citizenship and as faithful young men.

 

But I won't fall into the "log cabin trap" and assume that just because those things aren't listed in the 1911 requirement that they werent taught in early Scout troops, or even in a modern troop which follows the early program. As I said, there were good and bad troops then and there are good and bad troops now.

 

[BadenP]

Twocub

 

I think its time you just give it a rest, lol. Apparently you think anyone with a different opinion than your own is just plain wrong or to use your own word "Obtuse".

[Twocubdad]

"It comes down to the program you, your Scouts, other adult leaders and parents want. If you want to focus on 1911-style adventure treks and very strict youth leadership, it is your option to do so. I very sincerely think it is in the best interest of the program that troops like that are around for boys who want that."

 

Yeah, BP, it's always my way or the highway.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

 

BSA Training continues to put a premium on boy leadership in Boy Scouts.

 

If Kudus criticisms were really justified, we would see Scout training that pushed troops into being parent led and controlled just as Cub Scout Packs are adult led.

 

But we don't.

 

There is room to be critical of National leadership and decisions, and frankly I'd have more fun taking pot shots at National than defending them!

 

Just as Two Cubs suggests, the differences Kudu claims are so fundamental aren't, in my opinion.

 

The range of Boy Scout troop programs is quite wide. Some are boy led, others are parent led. Some are Eagle mills. Some go on expensive high adventure camps, others stay near home. Shucks--- if a bunch of parents want to organize a troop to do soccer 'n Scouting, no one is going to get in their way.

 

We have a lot of choices on what kind of program we join or run. Those choices are a lot more significant than the rather trivial issues that Kudu raises, in my opinion.

 

I don't see Kudu complaining that he isn't PERMITTED to run a quality program, more or less the way he would like.

 

What he seems to complain about is that other troops aren't REQUIRED to adopt the program he favors.

 

I don't see that as being desireable or reasonable.

 

 

 

[skeptic]

Ahhh; "reasonable". Another word that has little meaning to the overly obdurate individuals on either side of these arguments, or discussions. Reasonable expectations are one thing; but to not have any flexibility or willingness to adjust is not "reasonable".

[Kudu]

Twocubdad writes:

 

Your bias, Kudu, is in your selection of requirements.

 

Bias is the whole point, isn't it?

 

The Chief Scout Executive chose the runaway horse requirement for the national kickoff of his "Be Prepared For Life" campaign, the newest phase of his indoor "sitting side by side with adults of character" mission. He says this will be the BSA "theme" for the next "five or six years."

 

That is his bias.

 

And you yourself said:

 

"There are, however, a number of new things which I think are good additions. Like using the EDGE method to teach tying a square knot."

 

That is your bias.

 

For people who celebrate the BSA's move from Scoutcraft Adventure (which most boys love) to formulas (which most boys hate), the runaway horse requirement is the perfect icon.

 

Like "trenching tents," it is something that presumably no adult volunteer would ever defend.

 

The CSE thought it would get a good laugh. But the laugh was on him. Literally.

 

Still he went on, "So what do we mean by being Prepared For Life: Obviously we don't have to learn how to catch a runaway horse anymore. That's not an important skill!" That is cognitive dissonance.

 

For people like me who deplore the BSA's move from adventure to formulas, EDGE theory is the perfect icon. It is stupid beyond all comprehension. Really. How could any national Wood Badge expert remove the Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol from the PATROL METHOD presentation of SM - Specific Training, and replace them with EDGE?

 

It is something that apparently no adult volunteer or professional will defend, except with personal attacks against those of us who oppose it.

 

So asking Scouts which they would rather do, learn how to help with a runaway horse, or learn how to use EDGE to teach a square knot -- can teach them a valuable lesson about the difference between Scoutcraft and formulas.

 

It is interesting to note that EDGE has even been pushed into the Scoutcraft section of the new handbook.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

Why not make the choice between learning to resuscitate someone by rolling them over a barrel versus by learning how to use an AED?

 

That is perfect Wood Badge Logic: Use the barrel PROCEDURE to prove that the 1911 "demonstrate artificial respiration" REQUIREMENT is not valid.

 

Boys would have fun with both of them, because they are physical things they can do with their hands.

 

So, to prove a point I might ask a medical history enthusiast to spend an evening teaching the Scouts how to preform a hundred years worth of resuscitation procedures, with explanations of what each procedure actually does to a human body. The surprise ending might be that the newest CPR theory recommends compressing the chest only, and skipping resuscitation completely.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

I can teach that in a church basement using PowerPoint and bore the dickens out of you.

 

My point exactly. Leadership experts can make anything boring.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

You ignored my question about the Eagle Scout who never walked in the woods with a back pack, which was really to the crux of my point.

 

In this thread? I can't find it.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

You take the 1910 written program and hold it up as if all 1910 units delivered that program perfectly.

 

You are just making stuff up.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

I suppose in theory a Scout could make Eagle and never use a back pack, but is that really a problem? Does anyone know of such a Scout?

 

Um, yeah:

 

I have written a great deal about two such adult Eagle Scouts, and how they formed the perfect bookends to my tenure as an adult volunteer in the north.

 

In cool weather my first Eagle Scoutmaster always rented Girl Scout cabins with central heating (a thermostat is necessary to make sure a cabin does not get chilly during the night), microwaves (plural--you need at least two), cable TV, and a VCR.

 

During the rest of the year he cancelled campouts if the forecast predicted that the temperature might possibly fall below 50 degrees during the night. BrentAllen and I found our first common ground over that one.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

I've built a couple log cabins and done a fair bit of historic restorations over the years.

 

I'm not following the analogy, but here is a treasure trove of old log structure plans:

 

http://inquiry.net/outdoor/shelter/index.htm

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

When I compare the 1911 and 2011 requirements, I'm struck by how similar they are.

 

OK, I have highlighted in red the omissions:

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/tf-1st_require_1911.htm

 

Some of the significant categories:

 

Observation & Deduction (including signaling): Not fair to boys with ADD.

 

Scouts Pace: Not fair to fat boys.

 

First Class Journey: Not fair to indoor boys.

 

The most significant of these is the First Class Journey because the purpose of Tenderfoot through First Class Scoutcraft is preparation for an exciting adult-free Journey.

 

Without the Journey the purpose of advancement becomes the book: Just getting the stuff signed off.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

Truth is, there is nothing in the early requirements a Scout, patrol or troop can't do now if they choose to...If two Scouts want to go on a 14 mile trek, they have the option to do so...that doesn't mean you can still do it.

 

That is the Girl Scout Defence.

 

Many girls can't wait until they are 14 so they can join BSA Venturing. Why? Because most Girl Scout Troops do not go camping. Why? Because it is not required.

 

The Girl Scout defence is "Well, we don't have any rules against it."

 

The Requirements ARE the Program. It is what adults feel obligated to learn and spend time on. If we restored the First Class Journey, or Patrol Leader Training (How to take your Patrol on a hike without adult supervision), advancement would have a real-world purpose.

 

But it would not be fair to Cub Scout leaders who want Boy Scout leaders to use Wood Badge to study indoor office theory.

 

From day one (in 1965), Leadership Development has been at war with Scoutcraft. I don't see why Wood Badge can't apply leadership theory to camping Patrols 300 feet apart. Why don't people who like "leadership" find that a fun challenge?

 

Really, why not?

 

I don't see why Wood Badge can't restore the Hillcourt Patrol Leader Training course it took away from Boy Scouts in 1972. If it was part of the program again, Wood Badgers would take pride in applying their formulas and getting it to work. Wouldn't they?

 

Really, wouldn't they?

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

Seems to me the requirements which were dropped, like stopping horses and signaling, have gone the way of buggy whips anyway.

 

The purpose of signaling is to exercise observation: A very important goal of Baden-Powell's Program. It also appeals to boys' natural curiosity about secret codes. The buggy whip "practical modern skills" mentality that is universal among leadership modernists is false because we added Deaf Sign Language and Indian Sign Language in later years. If the purpose of signaling was to be "modern," why add Indian Sign Language?

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

and the ones to visit a civic leader and to participate in a short service project, is very simply to acknowledge in the early ranks the role of leadership, service and citizenship in the program.

 

These public service requirements (in common with the POR requirements) teach Scouts to extract compensation for good deeds. If they are such a good idea, why not pay your kids to go to church?

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

But as both a parent and leader I want more than that for my sons and the Scouts in my troop.

 

All of those things were once the natural outcome of outdoor adventure, in the same way that the natural outcome of sports is teamwork. We could do the same thing to Little League by bringing the boys indoors to learn corporate "team building" exercises.

 

Why not turn sports into something that boys hate as much as Scouting?

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

I want my Scouts to learn leadership skills, even if it is just some basic managerial techniques.

 

Why take away real leadership, the position-specific Patrol Leader Training required to move a Patrol through physical space without direct adult supervision?

 

The answer is that "leadership skills" do not work in the "Real" Patrol Method, do they? So you must dumb the Boy Scout program down to the Webelos III level.

 

Twocubdad writes:

 

I want the chubby, couch-potato kid to be able to participate, advance and thrive in the program, even if he can't or won't participate in all the physically demanding activities the other guys can.

 

Exactly! Dumb Scoutcraft Adventure down to the double-chin level.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[Twocubdad]

Okay, you win.

 

Now what would you have the rest of us do? Who do I write to inform that my Scouts will no longer complete Eagle projects, serve in positions of responsibility or teach the edge method? Does that letter go to national or just council?

 

Any advice for what to do with the vast majority of boys whose parents are going to pull them out of the program? Do we just wave them goodbye? I lost four or five boys this year because their parents felt there wasn't enough structure and adult supervision in our program. And I got guff last fall when the adults set up a base camp then sent the separate patrols to camp unsupervised a mile, mile-and-a-half out. If I'm understanding you correctly, patrols should now plan and execute multiple night adventure treks on their own, and the only adult involvement will be after-the-fact reports to the PLC/Court of Honor? Yeah, out of 65 kids, I maybe have five whose parents will sign up for that (and my wife ain't one of 'em).

 

We'll have to unwind the full 100 years of history, because I believe the first revision to the 1910 requirements occurred in --- wait for it ---- 1911. But of course even that's not good enough, any number of times you've written that the YMCA corrupted B-P's program here before it ever got started, so we really have to scrap all of BSA and start fresh with only "Scouting for Boys" as our guide.

 

Kudu, ol' man, after reading your stuff for, what, five years now?, I sincerely do have an appreciation for and understanding of your view of the program. I love the history of it all. Some of your resources, like wide games, are great and we've used them in the troop. As a newbie SM, I discoverd on my own that our patrols perform much better spread out rather than on top of each other. Thanks to you, I've specified 300' and have BP's stamp of approval on the principle.

 

But I don't see the relevance of the rest. Maybe you're just trying to get guys like me to spread our patrols out and use traditional wide games now and again. I'm in! But I have to say your campaign against pretty much the entire program is off-putting. There are a whole bunch of folks out here who are working our butts off and doing some really great things using the program as given to us. Repeatedly belittling that work by telling us we're fools for taking Wood Badge or that our boys are cupcakes is probably not the best approach if you want to influence folks.

 

I'm done. Ya'll make sure the fire's out.

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[SeattlePioneer]

I wonder if Kudu uses the sneering disparaging, sarcastic language of his posts when dealing with Scouts and parents?

 

If he doesn't why does he favor us with that kind of hateful language here, over and over and over and over again?

 

 

It is unpleasent to read and merely alienates those who might have some sympathy for at least some of his issues.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[BadenP]

SP

 

After reading many of your own posts you calling Kudu sarcastic and rude is downright laughable. Look, Kudu is a strong advocate for traditional scouting as he and I and most other scouters have watched boy scouting continue to be watered down, over the last few decades at least, and replaced with what Kudu calls "double chin scouting".

 

Much of what he tells is true and some scouters take it way too personally. Look when my boys were in boy scouts we looked and found a troop that ran with a very traditional what you would call old fashioned program. The boys worked their behinds off for every advancement, no shortcuts in this troop, and the outings put every one of their scout skills to the test. I watched them mature from spoiled kids to young men. They will tell you scouting was hard work, but they loved every part of it. One problem today is that most troops do not even try to challenge their boys who instead just skate through the ranks making little effort and learning even less. So if I have a choice between Kudu's concept of scouting vs Mazzuca's coach potato method of scouting it really is no contest is it.

 

Look I may not agree with 100% of what Kudu says but he has a passion for scouting few leaders today do or even desire to understand. Mazzuca's vision of scouting is nothing more than a "highway to nowhere", and by the time the majority of scouters discover that for themselves it may be too late for the BSA to recover.