FScouter

Somebody has to be the whipping boy; someone must be blamed for all the ills of Scouting. The evil "national" serves the purpose perfectly.

I can't think of even one "non-profit" that is not a business. Maybe he means a "charity" where the organization exists to provide everything free of charge to the members. But even a charity is a business - income, expenses, services.

Never let facts get in the way. Tends to muck up one's beliefs of the way things "are".

If you want "Excellence", i.e. the JTE award, keep your training up to date. If not, then continue as an existing leader and keep your old training. Nobody's membership is going to get revoked.

"P.S. - This went in the I&P section, because I didn't think it fit into the other categories." It's not about religion, homosexuals, or politics --- so back to "program".

If campfire smoke is blowing in your face, move out of the way. It's all toxic.

Seems clear enough. If the UNIT is to earn the Journey to Excellence award, the leaders of the unit must have CURRENT training. If not, nothing that says leaders can't still be leaders; leaders trained under previous standards are still considered trained; nobody need quit. If the unit wants the JTE designation, then meet the standards for that new designation and take the CURRENT training. Simple.

Not submitting receipts for event expenses and considering them a donation is a magnanimous thing to do, but it has a downside. The P&L for that event will show a minimum of expense and the next guy to run the event will be fooled into thinking it can be run on a shoestring. Worse, the district committee may set an expense budget for the next event based on the paid expenses of the prior event. It is much better to document all expenses and turn in all receipts and get reimbursement, and at the same time make a cash donation towards the event. Then the event expenses will be true,

60 minutes or even 45 minutes is too long if the content is boring. Make it interesting, fun, and relative and 90 minutes will not be long enough.

Sounds more like a fundraiser for the Red Robin.

"See them as fellow human beings too, not as "abusers". We owe all people that, but most especially we owe each other that." Listen to yourself man for crying out loud. You defend the practice of humiliting young Scouts - they ought to take it like a man. But let someone condemn the adults that perpetrate, condone, and perpetuate those practices and you jump to their defense. Try treating those boy targets as "fellow human beings" too.

"We are building men, kind, honest, courteous men, but still men in all its unpolished forms." I agree. DO that. There are good ways to build men. Singing, hazing, or whatever euphemism you want to call it doesn't build kind, honest or courteous men.

There's a whole lot of disrespect going on in this discussion. Here we have beavah and some others encouraging and defending "singing" and other treatment of boys that is clearly hurtful to them, and insisting over and over that it should't be hurtful and isn't hurtful. I find that attitude to be incredibly unfeeling, disrespectful, and selfish. Disgusting.

Tell him if he wants a date with her to just ask.

A pack secretary and one boy does not make a bilingual pack. Recruiting Spanish speaking boys and parents doesn't make a bilingual pack. You just have two groups of people that can't talk to each other.

The "higher authority" defense is invoked when the local authority doesn't want to say "NO" e.g. "I'd love for you to sell out front, but you know, the 'ol corporate office says ..."

".. the pattern of inconsistent statements by BSA continues." We hear that statement from time to time and I always wonder what the point is in making it. An invitaion to take your pick of one point or the other perhaps, or maybe ignore both and do your own thing. Perhaps. Rarely is there any citation offered to support the claim. I suspect that virtually all of the "inconsistencies" follow from the necessities of a revisions schedule, e.g. the Boy Scout Handbook being revised, and the Scoutmaster Handbook revision comes later. But no matter. One can either choose to work with the progr

"The G2SS could word the policy clearer--probably would still be misinterpreted." Ain't that the truth! It's either to vague, or too explicit and overbearing, or just plain dumb, depending on the agenda of the person making the comment. Things get "interpreted" to be what the reader wants it to be. When in doubt, too many of us just trash BSA and those folks that wrote it. "If you want no running around with simulated weapons in war type games, then say so.." And it does not "say so", except as "interpreted" by those that either want to do that, or want others to stop doing that.

I think it's a rather disrectful way to justify killing games and fake guns to say that even Quakers with their peaceful ways participate in it.

You guys just don't get it! "The policy, which Click23 posts, doesn't say jack about squirt guns. " Since it doesn't say anything about that, nor "marshmallows" either, why do y'all keep hammering on Richard and BSA about a supposed "policy" that isn't??

"First I think that this ban on water guns is a little extreme.." What "ban"? Just because one reads it on an internet forum, or because some "adult" at a Cub Scout day camp said so, (as the OP said) does not mean BSA believes that there is a "ban". Maybe YOU have banned it, or maybe someone else banned it, but BSA has not banned it. Whether there is a "ban" or not lies in the head of the beholder. Refer back to the mission of BSA - to help boys make ethical choices. You cannot do that by referring to a list of do's and don'ts published by BSA. You have to figure this out on your o

"The answer is quite clear and IMHO to borrow a phrase from the Brits all you uniform police can just "bugger off". If certain of you are so worried about full uniforms then I wonder as to the real focus and quality of your program." It is abundantly clear from your many, many posts on the topic, that you hate uniforms, and have much contempt for anyone that sees any value in them. If you choose to not wear one, fine; no one is out to "get" you. Your "point" though is quite clear.

I've often wondered why it is so important for some folks to put down those that wear a uniform and see it as a useful part of the program.

We've had one "troll" in the last year or so that I recall, and the trouble it caused was relatively minor and was dealt with. Perhaps the term is defined differently by different folks.

"While the nomme de guerre may imply you are a troll, I am going to take you seriously and give you a serious reply." A topic is a topic no matter the source.