Gunny2862

Don't think this restriction exists. I also don't think it should. Sure we have to avoid "bad" situations and ensure that our intentions and actions aren't misunderstood but hopefully the amount of time we are spending with the youth and their parents earn us a little bit of trust. Along with two deep leadership principles and thus not ever being alone with a Scout who isn't our own child.

Mr. Boyce, There are literally hundreds of internet filters available for use if one chooses to do so. Some are even updated daily - if, one using the better of these types did run across a page that snuck through the filter they can even add it to the "evaluate me" file the filter screeners look at to see if it, in fact, should have been caught by their program. There are even accountability programs should you choose to want to have to explain to a few select friends/accountability partners exactly why you were on a questionable website or on it for so long anyway. Amazingly enough a website known as xxxchurch.com offers both types of programs. Unlike broadcast television one has to click on a link top go to the website that may offend one - although even for the TV I still have the change channel and on/off buttons. I don't think restricting the information available on the net is a good idea - what happens when someone else decides the information you want to see (think any group you may be in that has any opposition) shouldn't be on the net. The use of filters on the subscribers machine seems a much better solution to this issue to me. edit - I have got to pay attention before i hit the button(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

The correct (for you) answers to these will vary depending on how your Troop runs. The answers should run closer to the script if all parties understand the program as BSA lays it out. Are you a "run the whole show" kind of leader? Have you asked for help from an organization you've worked for? Or, Do you try to handle all situations you have to deal with yourself? In what other positions you've held were you responsible for the character development of others? How would you handle a youth who was putting other Scouts or himself in danger? You may need to provide a hypothetical here that you and the interviewing panel have previously discussed. Are you prone to frustration when seeing people(adults or youths, ask both questions at different times) not act as you think they ought to? How do you deal with that frustration, if any? Do you value teamwork with other adults? Do you think organizational guidelines exist for a reason or are they just unnecessary burdens on leaders?

It depends on the sites, if searching on a site, methodology - some always give most popular, some highest number of recent hits, some "random" depending on what that content provider has chosen as his return system.

YES, it's the same situation as www. whitehouse.gov vs. www. whitehouse.com , don't go to the second one especially while at work. Metatagging is a very useful but occasionally hard to screen utility of the internet - one way to get around it is to narrow your search a little by adding additional search terms. In the example below "swimsuit, swim, fitness, store" will eliminate a large number but probably not all of the "other" sites. If I want to buy a swimsuit for the wife to support her fitness swimming then I have to be very careful what sites I choose to visit after searching "swimsuit" - as it is also applied to many many "other" kinds of sites rather than just places one can purchase swimsuits. edit to disable links...(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Is this an existing Troop? I'd ask the current Scoutmaster for his input on questions first. Then any past Scoutmasters who have worked in your Troop. As to interview questions - "Is the Committee fully staffed and/or trained?" Will it be? spelling edit - sorry(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

While I understand your frustration let me attempt to reframe the situation. It's your first day on a military rifle range and the person assigned to "read you on" to the range gives you a long, exhaustive list of don'ts. That list is for your safety, it tends to be the minimums required to keep you and everyone else on the range safe. Most people walk away from that lecture with the feeling you have now. But as a professional(given your stated service) who has has several, (many?) years in that context you surely realize that there is a lot of freedom on a range to do the numerous things that CAN be done (in that context) that others would say were ridiculously dangerous, (i.e. movement under fire, changing lanes or supporting fires on adjacent lanes for just a few examples). But those first basic rules no longer seem as ridiculous strictures, do they? IMHO, you may be getting some overly protective context from your trainers - which is good that they want the boys to be safe - but I don't think that many of us on this forum (or in Scouting as a whole) would have an issue with anyone consoling an injured Scout(given the rest of YPT is in place) or with sternly addressing a wayward Scout who had momentarily forgotten some portion of the Scout Law.

YEA! It looks like I had it right for once. Thanks for sharing the memo!

So, having observed a situation locally... Whom one supports aside. Would you wear a uniform having been invited to sit on the dais behind the politician giving his speech? Or would that also be over the line? IMHO, I wouldn't do it, but IF I did choose to do it I would at least wear an actual complete uniform. And wouldn't be holding a sign or a campaign button on it. However, I also don't really think it's appropriate to attend the event in uniform unless, perhaps, invited to do a preliminary flag ceremony(which I might do for either candidate/party) and then retire from the public setting, change clothes, or leave as the main event started. Or is this over the line also?

Wow, I am a dinosaur, I hadn't even though of Googling the screen name. Liperazs, you have got to be kidding us. You think you deserve the Eagle rank when the very fist thing one sees on your MySpace front page is a marijuana leaf, before one even gets to any content inside? And the pot promo video also on youtube? The fact that it was put on under your account tells me all I need to know about where you have been, the question is where are you going? Excellent examples from someone who wishes to join the top 1-2% of Scouts. Yes, there's some time to reform but from the cheap seats it looks like you have a big set of changes to make.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Yes I do hear the alarm going off, actually one is errantly sounding in the hallway of the office right now, but I'm going to treat this as an actual question. I agree with the do not tell us more... from the legal standpoint. If this is a real situation then you have to know that you know your unit leaders and Eagle Board of Review members better then we do..., and so you should know how they will react. The people who will sit on your board will supposedly give you a fair shake..., Presumably your unit or someone from it knows about your situation and will most likely spread the info around the unit. Will it be adjudicated in the legal system, before the EBoR - I'm betting not. If not, then you will not be dealing from the position of someone who is has a verdict of guilty or innocent but from the position of someone who is currently innocent but charged. BUT, neither BSA nor the EBoR has to take your legal status into consideration, your Character which is most often seen through your Reputation is what they base a portion of their decision on, and legally guilty or innocent you must see that while under charges your reputaion has been tarnished. My question to you is are you someone whom everyone will believe the worst of, or have you taken the Scout Oath and Law to heart and your daily life and no one will believe that it's credible that you did it? If the first then you really stand very little chance, without regard to whether you are guilty or not because the board members will see it as confirmation of what they already may think, that it is entirely probably that you did do it. And it only takes one down vote. If the latter, then you may still expect some hard questioning and you had better be able to answer truthfully that you didn't do it. If you didn't do it then it should be able to be judged by the panel that you are a good Scout in a bad situation. If you did do it and you have been up to that point a good Scout then you probably should be able to understand why they most likely won't award the Eagle to you. But you are still in a situation where it only takes one down vote. Now another question that hasn't really been dealt with and only you know, isn't the legal but the moral question of whether or not you did it. If you did do the crime then shouldn't you just cancel the BoR and not put the BSA and the EBoR members in the position of possibly awarding you with an honor you don't deserve? Isn't that what an Eagle candidate who understood the program would do?

With regards to the food it was a simple issue of "This is what we're having, there isn't anything else." He eats what he likes and skips what he doesn't but will try anything on his own. To include catching and preparing crawdads out of local streams - that's a stretch for me. As to life and Scouting, every calendar year or at the end of a given activities season he is able to renew or decline as he chooses but once a season starts we require him to finish out that activity. So far, has only tried to beat the system once - figured out we meant it and he now carefully picks his activities but tends to stay with them over long hauls now. Pretty good for a fourteen year old.

Merlyn, again, you do present your cases well but you had to throw in debunking religious myths when ID may have nothing to do with religion - as I clearly pointed out in my first post on this topic. It's that kind of attitude that caused me to post in the first place. GaHillbilly, I do like Behe's work. Merlyn, It is still interesting to me that when peer review only is authoritative when it's made up of those who are in the mainstream of Science are listened to. It would seem that peer review would have to be able to show that the truth of an argument should stand regardless of the philosophical ideology of the reviewer.

Honestly Merlyn, I possess a fairly shallow knowledge of this piece of the knowledge pie. I also wouldn't know where to begin to test this idea of ID within the realm of Science. But I think my problem lies in the people who choose to defend Evolution as though it is FACT. And in doing so close themselves off to the possibility that alternate explanations exist - and then characterize others as unthinking redneck hillbillies who simply believe everything they are told and don't engage their neurons for any worthwhile purpose. However it seems to me that Science would be better served by disproving ID rather than discrediting it. But that puts us back in the position of finding testable hypothesis doesn't it? Even evolution tends to test past evidence and try to find outcomes where the data fits the hypothesis under study. So, possibly someone closer to the point of study could come up with past evidences that might lead to testable hypothesis for ID?

Merlyn, I concur with your assessment that the scientific community and even the Vatican decry the categorization of ID as a scientific theory. Although the Vatican has a stake in the game because if they pin their beliefs on the outcome of the debate and ID loses then they lose some credibility in their argument for a deity. But if Science is REALLY about testing claims then why the "dogmatic" approach to protecting a theory like evolution? Why not test the evidence and let the theories compete?

I also think it's interesting that those who claim to be science oriented thinkers would be the same people who are closed to alternate explanations. Evolution is a theory, it may be the theory that some scientists think fits the current data set the best but it isn't a proven fact that is unchallengeable. In truth some aspects of evolutionary theory has to be approached on a belief or faith basis of what has occurred during the gaps in the data set. To be afraid of "Intelligent Design" as an alternate theory shows ones lack of belief in Science itself. The stronger theory will win out in the end. Now before I get the Jesus Freak label(although I are one(bad grammar intentional) - I still attempt to engage the limited thought capacity I possess); Do people understand that Intelligent Design in no way posits a Deity - It does leave the door open to one or to a race of beings that are so advanced beyond us that we can only understand them as gods or goddesses. My personal interpretation would be that God did the work but there is no engraved work labeling his ownership of his handiwork for those who choose to believe differently. And so I remain open to listen to the theories of those who choose to believe differently. Do I do my studies in those classes I take which rely on evolutionary theory, of course, - am I required to believe their premises, no, simply to show that I have grasped them and am able to restate them within the context of the class. Why should a competing, and at this time equally valid view, be treated differently by those who are non-theist or for all practical purposes hold "Science" and all of it's current "sacred cows" as their own worldview/religion. Let the two theories compete.

Sorry about your loss SctDad, While one can debate on hiding or having the trailer in plain view, in our case one trying to take it or break in would have to be in plain view from either side of the building with residences close enough to hear breakage of locks or door mechanisms, on a fairly large open parking lot where the police often stop to do their paperwork on a slow evening. We also have our trailer titled and utilize hitch and tongue locks. Hadn't thought about a boot lock for the wheels though, hmmm, John, do you have make and model information on what you use? Think about where you put the trailer if you do leave it at someones house, in our case it is observed by more people more often than it would be at any of our families homes.

YES. Except the examples of the rules given are codifications of ethics as seen by a society rather than ethics deriving from those rules.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

I don't know a bout a lost Scouting art but with the advent of badge magic etc., there seems to be a lack of will to take the time to sew stuff on in the world as a whole. I sew on all of my own stuff and am having the boy do certain patches as he earns them. I also do repairs, modifications to my equipment unless the material is too heavy which then goes to my local Shoe repair guy who does very good work for a modest fee. The wife also does excellent detail work but one is definitely on her schedule "Oh, you needed it sometime this or next or the next month?" It's not hard(other than just getting them to do it), it is just a matter of teaching the Scouts how to do it and giving them opportunities to practice(just like everything else).

First, to the original question: At our Council offices the former youth is recognized as being in an incompatible registration status on an exception report which generally gets noticed by the registrar who them forwards an appropriate notice letter to the Scoutmaster(although I think it should go to the CC) asking whether the former youth is going to apply as an adult or not. Second, for twocubdad, would you try to defer an adult who registered from coming on campouts? Do you have resources (non-program delivery oriented but camping parents) who could manage this distracting adult OR does the former Scout in question just do his own thing and not bother the Scouts? As long as he pays his way and doesn't get in the way of the program for the youth then it might be worthwhile having him along simply as an additional adult resource. Now if he is still pretending to be a Scout and distracting from program delivery to the boys(or as you gave an example habitually delaying the Troops timelines) then it's time to let the CC have him because managing adults is supposed to be his area while you continue on working with the Scouts. IMVHO(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

ev, I'm sorry, but I don't think you do get my meaning in this case. I wasn't proposing situational ethics but that sans a universal basis for the underlying morality that each person then applies their own moral basis and thus their own ethical theory to each situation whereas the central theme of ethics, as I have been instructed, relies on the ability for all(regardless of group affiliation) to be able to agree on what would be the ethical choice. This implies a universality of understanding of what the ethics are based on and why we don't just say "the moral choice" rather than "the ethical choice". The lack of a universal basis renders the term ethics useless unless you are only applying it to a specific group which agrees on the basis. For instance, and only as a possible example you, certain others or even possibly myself might posit that ethics that aren't biblically based are meaningless, others as you well know who will certainly choose to disagree with that idea. So unless their ethical basis mirrors the biblical basis for ethics then you and the other person will be talking about divergent ideas of ethics because your basis for ethics are different.

ev, there's the rub - unless everyone buys in to the same moral basis or the moral basis are, in practice if not theory, equivalent then there's no universalizability of ethics and one is back to describing what they mean about their ethics in any given situation.

While I think ursus snorous roarus and Eagledad are right on, there is no way that I would go alone to their home in this situation. This is one of those meetings that needs to occur with the Committee in the next room at the normal meeting place or in a public place. The fact that the dad knew about it and didn't have him remove it tells me all I really need to know about being in a room alone with him and his family. Especially considering his reaction when you called to inquire about the situation.

Another great post Hermes. And John, and another reminder that as yet no one in the world wants to go toe-to-toe with American forces when the leash is off those awesome dogs of war. In both Iraq and Afghanistan it's the third day that hasn't been resourced an area that traditionally has been given to statesmen and nation builders while the "occupation" forces stood around ensuring that they didn't have to re-fight days one and two. It's not a military failure if it can even be called that, its a completely different end(of a war) where we are trying to rebuild a society that was under a different and prior form of occupation instead of trying to get them to rebuild on their own successes as a people.

jblake47, Yes, you appear to have it. From where I sit the Field = Dress uniform = Class A is what our Council wants us in unless we are doing a nasty work project or hiking. The Activity = Fun = Class B uniform is what we would wear the rest of the time to include hard work, backpacking, even swimming. I don't think they're going to see it as I can still categorically state that I have not yet seen a single patrol, much less troop, in the "complete" uniform. Around here we seem to be doing good if all of the Scouts in any given troop have the same shirt on, even at dinner at the dining hall.