Jump to content

Equipment Reviews & Discussions

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

370 topics in this forum

    • 20 replies
    • 1037 views
    • 0 replies
    • 385 views
    • 3 replies
    • 296 views
    • 1 reply
    • 433 views
    • 7 replies
    • 2118 views
    • 10 replies
    • 715 views
  1. New Solo Tent

    • 18 replies
    • 574 views
    • 38 replies
    • 1615 views
    • 6 replies
    • 436 views
    • 13 replies
    • 371 views
  2. backpacker gear guide

    • 20 replies
    • 774 views
  3. Rope (and poles)

    • 3 replies
    • 348 views
    • 5 replies
    • 392 views
  4. Tents, what type?

    • 11 replies
    • 403 views
  5. Troop Tents or Personal Tents

    • 26 replies
    • 1710 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Tweezers from my Swiss army knife works for me, that and staying on the trail. 
    • Remove this sentence "Except as otherwise prohibited by applicable law, I consent to and authorize the Company to share this information with Company’s current or prospective clients, customers, others with a need to know, and/or their agents for business reasons (e.g., to place me in certain positions, work sites, etc.). " Legally, the BSA can perform only the specific personal background checks related to YP which I consent. If I do not consent , no check is done and I am no longer a member. But if I do consent, my information (CRA, etc.) is only to be shared with me.  If others want that information, they can submit a request to me stating who they are and reason. All Council and my unit need to know is National's membership decision: approved or not. I understand the BSA may revoke or approve  my  membership based on the information in those background checks. Either way, the BSA needs to understand I want to fact check that information (same as AZ and MN folk),  after all I paid for this screening with my registration fee.  
    • Why would removing that clause give anyone time to review the background check?  The BSA isn't under any obligation to reveal what they find as far as I am aware.  They would be more likely to just say "no" and move on.  Once I had a volunteer rejected by national with no answer.  Everyone around him was shocked but he didn't really seem as surprised as I thought.  A couple years later I found out what probably showed up and I wasn't surprised national responded as they did.   Background checks are there to identify people we think are good but have something hidden in their past.  These background checks are part of our YPT process.  Why would we be less serious about them than other things.   I don't really trust anyone more than I have to.  However, I see no reason for them to start doing credit checks.  I don't know what is behind the dodgeball thing. My understanding is that that clause is there for compliance with FCRA. 
    • From my old handbook, the famous ISP edition, 1972, coat tick with grease or oil.  After it lets go, wash with soap and water.  I recall a lit match or cigarette held close was also recommended back in the day.   These days I find good success with the tweezers from my Swiss army knife and forego the grease/oil/gasoline/ammonia/match/cigarette.  Soap and water is still adhered to.
    • They are not common but my point is that they are not unanticipated. BSA spent money lobbying to prevent changes to state laws that would open up the statute of limitations, so they were obviously well aware this could happen. 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×