FScouter

"Of course, another way to reduce dissonance is to make snide comments about those who put courtesy, kindness, and service ahead of appearance. Perhaps couched in pseudo-psychology, eh?"

Hmmm, snide comments?

I don't see anyone dismissing the Scout Oath or Scout Law in support of proper uniforming, or in lack thereof. I do see another straw man argument however.

Good argument Beavah. We have a rude intrusion by an ill-equipped OA team, setting a bad example for a well-uniformed troop, essentially undermining what the troop leadership has established. Condemn the troop's reaction to such rudeness with a hypothetical thought that the Scoutmaster is overweight? That justifies what the OA team did?

The troop should be applauded for pointing out to the OA team that their ill-prepared appearance does not live up to the standard for our organization. Had the troop been "polite" and kept quiet, the message that sends is of tacit approval for sloppy uniforming. Silence may be "polite" but shows weak integrity.

If that OA team feel so strongly about dismissing the uniform method with sloppy practices, they need to be prepared to take a little opposition from the other side.

"You UPSP types out there could learn a lesson from all of them and get rid of those proverbial sticks up your butts, and start to take a real look at what scouting truly is all about, since you really don't seem to get it."

Another way to reduce internal dissonance is to berate and minimize those that hold an opposing position.

There are interesting parallels between the perennial uniform discussion and cognitive dissonance theory. What we hear in the uniform forums is a perfect example of dissonance. Take any Joe or Judy Scouter that does not wear the uniform or wears only pieces. He has one cognition knowing that Scouting is a uniformed organization; he knows he should wear a uniform; he knows he should display a good example for others, because the uniform is a part of the organization to which he belongs. The other cognition is that he doesnt wear the uniform because he doesnt like it or for whatever reason and/or does not encourage it to be worn by Scouts or other Scouters. Thus there is dissonance.

To resolve the dissonance, he must bring both cognitions closer together, either by increasing the use of the uniform, or by dismissing the importance of the uniform. He doesnt like the uniform thus that cognition doesnt change, leaving only the other side of the equation. Many justifications are thus put forth in dismissing the importance of the uniform, and dissonance is reduced.

Others have no dissonance because they wear the uniform and encourage proper uniforming. To those folks, the justifications put forth by the others seem rather silly. To each his own.

Social psychology is fascinating.

I don't think youth protection training should be devised by the person asked to deliver it. Follow the syllabus and you should be fine. I'd also say that anyone "moving" toward YPT for Den Chiefs is ill advised.

Sneakers are to be avoided for hiking as well. BSA is going to hell in a handbasket.

What "paranoid streem of BS" are you referring to?? There is no BSA policy regulating the use of sheath knives.

Yeah, people are basically crazy. A committee chair oughtn't be "forcing" his will on the SM or assistants. Nor should the SM and his gang be piddling around with how the committee manages Scout accounts and finances. Worst of all is adults jockeying for power and forcing their will on the rest. It really is a sign of weakness when one resorts to subversive manipulation, and shows failure to work well with other human beings, and sure doesn't exemplify our Mission or Aims or any Scouting values.

Attending an event put on by the district is not supporting the district. It is the district supporting the units in the district by providing some alternative programming. If you can't go, carry on with your normal unit program.

No need to start an identical topic - just respond to the first one.

Hot Rod Race and Hot Rod Lincoln...

Dad might appreciate, if not the kids.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MS9fk1u6kA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Lt-Q1wKWc&feature=related

"Webelos book has an overview of what you need for an overnight campout..."

One thing I like about the Handbooks is that the answers to questions about requirements are always found within.

What kind of support do you want? Did you invite anyone to come to your event? Sounds like you don't like them very much.

" 'it only says everyday life, so I can skate by in scouting" is an argument that even da most disputatious teenager would be embarrassed by, eh? I can't figure how any adult in a program that aims to build personal honor and character can make it with a straight face. "

Well, nobody said that so youre only arguing with your own straw man. On the other hand it was pointed out that correctly that living the Scout Oath and Law in your daily life does not equate to teaching younger Scouts in the troop and that not doing so is not a basis for turning down a Scout for the Eagle rank.

So yes, helping others and living the Scout Oath and Law is a requirement, and helping other Scouts advance can help meet the requirement, but there are 101 ways to live the Scout Oath and Law.

Why pray tell, would one wait around for the Eagle board of review to tell the boy he didn't do enough? If he's not doing enough, tell him NOW, and work out a plan with him to turn it around NOW.

The medical form and Tour Plan are in a state of flux. When our RT people talk about some kind of change or something new, questions come up to which there is no clear answer and people look at one another like "what's he talking about? How does this affect me? What do I do?" And I roll my eyes and wish to goodness that they just would NOT tell us about changes coming down the pike until they are all worked out, questions answered, and ready to implement. Only then is there really anything to say.

Clarifying a bit, silver epaulet loops are for district and council volunteers, which includes commissioners and Roundtable commissioners.

Merlyn, don't respond to that please..

Ask them if they charge the choir rent for use of the choir robes, or the Sunday School kids for use of the classroom Sunday morning.

I don't think anyone has a problem with questions. Just leave out the name-calling and threats and all is well.

It's too bad BSA doesn't have any program for patriotism, history, or citizenship and we have to rely on a third party company and the medals they provide.

Whether a topic gets "shut down" is really dependent on the forum membership. You all seem to like the topic, judging by the number of posts in such a short time. Quit talking about it and that will end the discussion. Don't expect we moderators are going to put a quick end to what you all want to talk about.

What new rule?

Sometimes I wonder if these districts or advancement poohbahs and "Eagle mentors" ever read the Eagle Project Workbook - you know, the one the boy relys upon to learn the requirements for his Eagle project. There might be more consisntency if folks would just read the requirements.

The last sentence from the original essay by Forest Witcraft:

"A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove. But the world may be different, because I was important in the life of a boy."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/resources/webex/power.html

Off topic perhaps:

"So for four hours I had 20 scouts, trying to help sand and design and cut. Yep violated youth protection because of parents seeking baby sitting and irresponsible leaders."

20 kids and one adult is not a violation of YP unless you're on a trip or outing.

"I had one parent 2 hours late picking up their scout, so I had the boy for 6 hours."

2 hours or 6 hours, 1 on 1 is not permitted.