FScouter

Gee Beavah, wasn't it you just a few minutes ago that told us that marshmallow guns are banned?? How do we get you re-educated or removed?

Our reputation is hurt far more by those that erect a straw man with a BSA hat on, and proceed to rip him apart straw by straw. It's a hateful thing to do. Cannot understand why folks get a charge out of doing that.

PC? Sheesh, get real folks. BSA does not "ban" squirt guns. If that was the intention then G2SS would add squirt guns to "...paintball guns, laser guns or similar devices". A squirt gun or a marshmallow gun isn't anything at all "similar" to a paintball gun or laser gun. It's rather annoying to hear the cacophony of protest arise when BSA does not include squirt guns in the the rule. If folks would just use the brains God gave them... Or must BSA add a list of all the gun-like toys that don't count?

"I am also guessing that the mods didn't see this as spam or an ad because they didn't close or delete it. " There is no rule against spam or unpaid advertisements. It's a discussion topic, and with 30 reponses apparently an interesting topic. The forum membership demostrates their interest by discussing topics.

Folks complain about rules and regulations and how long and onerous the rules and G2SS are and yet when an attempt is made to be clear and consise, otherwise smart Scouters raise all kinds of questions about it. BSA covers it in one line and that is all that is needed: "cannon and large-bore artillery". Other topics are covered by another "rule": although it is not specifically stated in the G2SS or elsewhere, the best rule or advice is very simple: "don't be stupid".

Here we go again.

The 2011 planning guide doesn't say anything about tents being required, nor that sleeping under a dining fly is not permitted. http://philmontscoutranch.org/filestore/Philmont/pdf/2011CouncilUnitPlanningGuide.pdf

"... your rush to accuse the trekkers ..." Hmmm, As I recall it is others that are accusing Philmont and the evil "national" of poisoning innocent young boys that paid good money, etc. My rush is to point out other possibilities. And may I point out that "wagons" are never circled unless the arrows are flying.

"If I may add one note from a layman: While expired food is usually okay, if stored at improper temps and conditions, it can go south pretty quick." And, the same thing can be true of food where the "expiration" date is months or longer in the future. And just noting that the original post is about a trek from Gorham Scout Camp (wherever that is) and NOT Philmont Scout Ranch. And there is zero evidence presented that anyone other than Gorham is responsible for "expired" food. At least have the courtesy to trash the right folks and the right camp. Of course when in doubt, blam

"...exemplary adherence to the company line, for always rushing to the defense of every official BSA policy and action..." What policy are you referring to might I ask??? BSA has nothing to do with my comments. I challenge emotionally driven statements and conclusions presented with no evidence.

"But, that poster's writing communicated genuine emotional distress... was bit peeved that someone would threaten the poster over such an issue.... Now, maybe the poster overreacted or maybe they were just having us on (people do). ... it seems a shame that they're dealing with a system in which people treat other people like that - "disciplinary action" for buying a merit badge?" Really now, really? There is no "system" for people to impose disciplinary action for buying a merit badge! "Genuine emotional distress" does not equate to reality. Such drama!! Here's an idea - get real

What's not acceptable if anything is poor management of food stores, stock rotation, usage projections, order quantities. Suspect kid Scouts and volunteers are involved here. The food is fine. The printed date means best qualtity before . Not DANGER, turns to poison after . Sheesh, try eating dinner fixed by a typical Scout patrol sometime. And you know of course that if it was "discovered" that a camp was covertly disposing of "expired" food a loud cry would arise about the waste of money and resources. Different people complaining of course. BSA cannot win.

Unless the can is rusting, leaking, or bulging, it is perfectly safe, if not at the peak of flavor. Tell the cook to wash his hands too - and eat off a clean plate, not one that has been wiped off on the seat of your pants and stuffed into your pack. I lament that the national trend seems to be to expect perfection from everyone, and to blame all mishaps on someone else,

This is making our Troop look foolish and they damage the reputation of others with their wild comments. I am seriously considering stopping my volunteer work within the troop because of this..." Oh, fer cryin' out loud!! Reputations are ruined because of things you do. Did you commit as you say the "crime of the century"? If not, then no damage. False statements by someone, particularly if a common occurance by that person as you say, mean nothing. The louder you squeal, the more guilty you sound.

On my recent backpack I took some leftover Philmont food that "expired" in 2006. Yummy! Absolutely perfect. I'd say if people are getting sick, remind them to wash their hands after pooping.

In the world of the Scout-haters, government-haters, rule-haters, nothing is fun unless there is an objection to it. "Fun" is lamenting and crying about how "they" took all the fun out of everything.

Good luck with your endeavor. Only comment is that wheel has already been invented and works well.

The problem with third party websites is the info is so often out of date. They copy the info from BSA but then rarely update it. The most current info can be found on the BSA web site: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/resources/CSLeaderRecAwards.aspx http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34169-54.pdf

I've always found it curious how a Scout can be "active" enough to earn merit badges, do service work, carry out a position of responsibility, and fulfill all the other requirements for a rank advancement, but be declared "not active" by some pompous adult that wants more. THAT is why the national council finally said NO, you can't make up a bunch or arbitrary and capricious "active" rules.

I've seen Scouters wearing pink pedal pushers and claim it was OK. One can always say: "The DE said it was OK." "The CO has authority over pants." "Our 'troop' uniform is ..." "Real pants are too expensive, walmart pants are the same." Whatever. 15 extra points to the kid that does it right.

This "squabble" is ludicrous beyond belief. You argue about BSA policy and question why folks don't agree with your opinion and sign off on the plan. All you had to do was point to the BSA policy where it says it is OK to put a bunch of kids on a plane and fly them halfway across the country with only 1 adult. Of course you can't do that and so resort to arguing that the policy "two-deep leadership is required on all trips and outings" doesn't apply in your case. Really lame in my opinion. Too bad that out of a troop of 70 boys you couldn't find another adult. That approach may have been

There was a time when the only official covers for uniform wear were the cap or the campaign hat. The current uniform inspection sheet says only: "Headgear. All troop members must wear the headgear chosen by vote of the troop/team." Interestingly, pants are now addressed in a way not seen before - no change, but more specific: "Pants/Shorts. Official pants or official uniform pants or shorts; no cuffs. (Units have no option to change.)"

Some of you folks would do well to take some boys camping.

"Again, our mission as scouters, our only reason for existence, is service. Cheerful, friendly, loyal service." Our mission is to help boys make ethical choices in their lives, and I don't think demonstrating silly paperwork ploys to skirt the intent of rules and policies is very ethical.

I agree about not listening to the drivel. Just figure out what is the drivel and what is not. The notion of registered equates to active is made up by the Scout-haters and free thinkers that want to do their own thing without any "rule" or such getting in the way. The point BSA makes is that adult leaders have a responsibility to the boys and the unit to keep members active, and that it is not right or fair to let them languish in no-mans-land and then beat them up for not being "active" in the manner they'd like to see. Get them active to your satisfaction or have the gut