Jump to content

Equipment Reviews & Discussions

Discussions dealing with equipment topics (tents, lights, packs, boots, stoves, etc.)

382 topics in this forum

    • 5 replies
    • 267 views
    • 4 replies
    • 237 views
    • 2 replies
    • 318 views
    • 11 replies
    • 963 views
    • 5 replies
    • 367 views
    • 49 replies
    • 2203 views
    • 10 replies
    • 516 views
    • 18 replies
    • 1631 views
    • 0 replies
    • 320 views
    • 8 replies
    • 464 views
    • 3 replies
    • 488 views
    • 29 replies
    • 1772 views
    • 25 replies
    • 1643 views
    • 2 replies
    • 440 views
    • 1 reply
    • 581 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • You hit the nail on the head. The issue I have about this forum is that the discussion isn't sexist because in reality both youth genders learn more faster with role models of the same gender. But, members here have an agenda and that fact doesn't fit in their agenda. It's like the word racist, seems to be the go to defense these days when racism has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a word to shut down the other persons opinion. If each gender learns more from same gender leaders, then at the very least, we have to admit that we are willing to loose that advantage by mixing the adult genders, At least that is honest. Oh, I know we can go on all day speaking of the outstanding skills and role modeling examples of each gender in the scouting program, but, that wasn't my point. I'm very pragmatic and find emotionally driven discussions frustrating. I believe intelligent people should make intelligent choices based from facts. And then justify their decision with intelligent reasoning. If you value  growth of your scouts is better with mixed genders than the advantages of single gender programs because mixed gender leadership give scouts a more rounded experience, I'm good with that. That is an intellectual choice and the reasoning admits sacrificing an advantage for another. But, if you believe all units should agree with you, then I would say that is an opinion biased on bias, not reason. If you really believe in the local option, you better be ready to support a unit you disagree with. I do agree that the GSUSA reason for not including boys or even men is not honest, what ever their reason. But, at least they are strait about it and I do respect that. Folks here on the BSA forum ignore the GSUSA all together as if the BSA is the evil sexist giant and the GSUSA doesn't exist. I think that hypocrisy is worse.  Barry
    • One interesting part of being on our Philmont trip last year was watching the boys figure this out.  They had chosen the route based on activities, but after a couple of days, these teenagers really needed sleep.  And so they started talking about the activities, and what was worth getting up early for and what was a lower priority.  The other thing was reviewing their work with them. why was it taking them 2+ hours to get up, get breakfast, pack and leave?  Once they realized if they could pack up in an hour, they could sleep longer! They started dividing up tasks and really getting efficient with their time.  It was great to see.  So let the boys prioritize what activities they want to do. If the boys at summer camp want to skip the campfire and stay in camp playing cards, the SPL should go with the group's decision.   I guess I'm preaching to the choir.
    • This is consistent with what I had been told by someone on my Council's executive committee: only about 40% of claims are coming in with enough specificity as to be eligible for a claim.
    • Hah!  It would be a lot quieter around here with less battling Joking aside - I find that in these exchanges we're getting to some of the more ingrained issues that normally don't get discussed.  We're a very small microcosm of Scouting, but I see lots of great ideas being shared here.
    • Exactly. Insurance only covers up to the stated claim limit. This is why the latest filings from the tort claimants' committee (main set of lawyers for those claiming abuse) is looking for the names of all COs. They want to go after them next. And the insurance companies might want to contribute to a fund if they knew they would/could walk away with 100% certainty that no more claims will come up in the future.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...