Gunny2862

Anne, those are good points.

I would amend that to be discerning about the troop. Most of us have enough critics. But do remember that he is your child, not scoutings child, and if you want to move him that that should absolutely be kept as an option if you are unable to get the kind of leadership you want. And you can always start a new pack if the kind you want isn't around, but if you don't want to start one don't feel bad about troop shopping. Scouting won't do a boy who won't stay in it all of the good it could have done.

The quarter staff or bo are the terms I am familiar with and are the context that I took your initial post in. I hope that you see me as being as concerned about the safety issues as you and just as quick as you to kill the activity if I saw the situation as unsafe. I don't know your boys, I think my boys can have some leeway here as long as they don't abuse it. Its not about whether or not they are bad but the degree of responsibility and awareness that they exhibit. In the end I would give consideration to your question (as a ASM, and you being another parent, or Scout or another ASM) and the fact that the question was raised would cause me to take more consideration of the issue.

I don't know your boys, ages, temperaments, past history of squabbles, etc. I have general issues with anything that is unsafe BUT, they are boys. There is going to be an establishment of a pecking order(informal) regardless of what activities we allow or take away. (Before I get slammed to many times on my safety issues - Rock climbing is not unsafe, Shooting sports are not unsafe, Swimming, Canoeing, Whitewater, and Scuba are not unsafe activities - IF the proper planning, training, and precautions are all in place.) In my case I may be the worst offender, I have a hard time not playing with the walking stick that I carry. I absolutely refuse to play fight.(Except with my son and away from the other Scouts - like at home) If I don't have a walking stick I am just as likely to pick up a short 18-24 inch stick and make a pointer/swagger stick out of it just to have something in my hands. IF there is ANY mean spiritedness in your troop, behavior problems, an exhibited failure to immediately respond to adult intervention then I would firmly be with you in your decision to stop, halt, cease and desist, put the kibosh on the stick waving, and play fighting. For that matter if I were your ASM I would support that decision because you(the SM?) were making it in what you saw as the best interest of the boys. I absolutely would not let the issue go simply because any specific family lets their children do it. Neither you nor I are their martial arts instructor - at least I'm not working with anyone but my own son right now. And I know what he's doing on campouts... But if they are good, well mannered youth who understand the concept that the play fighting can go south really quickly, and know how to stop themselves before it gets to far then I might provisionally allow it. Knowing that I would just as quickly put a ban on it as soon as it turned into an issue. And the one end of the stick on the ground rule wouldn't be far behind. And actually I would probably be very aware of any play fighting going on and be more interested in that than if someone was giving himself plenty of room and while staying aware of others coming towards him and working on actual stick fighting katas or even made up ones. The primary difference to me is that I don't have a problem with them whittling(playing with knives) as long as they are observing the totin' chip rules(esp. making sure there is enough space between them and others) and this would seem like an extension of the same thing in terms of the space you allow yourself if you are going to swing anything, stick, camp axe, knife. etc. Just my humble opinion. (This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Do you still have contact info for the Course Director(CD) for your session? I'd try my Ticket counselor again and tell him to whom I was going next if I did not hear from him. See if he has an alternate for you or if you need to contact the CD. Give him at least two work days and as long as you think is appropriate I might even let it go a week, plenty of leeway for a busy schedule on e-mail. This gives him a chance to save face(by fixing his problem), pawn you off (to another counselor that may be able to take care of you), or at least be warned that you are going over/around him( and may lead to his embarrassment). I'm thinking there may be a better suggestion than this one. Who's got it?(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Possibly the University of Scouting patch group?

I'll wear the Switchback shorts and the socks but, no one wants to see me in the other ones. It's not always style, some times body shape doesn't work with certain cuts of clothing. Massive Rucksacking built quads don't work with De la renta style shorts...even the leg zippers on the Switchbacks could be a little less constricting.

Yeah, OGE tell us about the boys successes!!

I think that's the worst argument I've ever seen you post Merlyn. Let's turn it around; If Scientists want Theologians of the Renaissance era to believe the results of the scientific method and peer review then they must "argue against the current theological consensus, you have to convince theologians". So whoever one wants to say is in power must be convinced before you can say that the challenger has PROVED their argument? If you really understand science then you must agree that there are very, very few scientific facts if any, the more we learn about quantum mechanics the less we find we really know...(proven beyond any and all doubt), and a lot of theories and "proofs" - that have stood up over time, but aren't exempt from the possibility of error, or misinterpretation. Remember that these folks, the theologians, were no stranger to peer review and had higher authorities with agendas watching over that process also. Think the National Academy of Sciences watching over scientific findings. My problem with peer review is that any group of ninnies can get together and vouch for the accuracy of the groups findings, and when challenged fall back on their accumulated aggregate credentials and attack the challenger on the basis of not knowing enough to understand what the experts are really talking about.

Very cool indeed. Unfortunately that's not how many parents see things today, no one wants to put themselves at risk to help someone change a tire on the side of the road - jump in a lake and risk getting drowned? That's just crazy. I must be getting old - reminiscing about how it used to be...

My comments in brackets[Hello;)] Brent Allen posts - June 30, 2007 BY JAMES M. TAYLOR In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. [The church says only its knowledge is infallible] We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the publics ability to discern the truth."[Those who disagree with the church are errant in publishing their heresy and confusing the masses] Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.[Our theologians need to displace the errant communications being sent out by the "seekers" of reason] If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming. [Our point will be proved by sending a condemned man on a journey off the end of the earth - if he returns we are wrong and he will face his execution, if he fails to return we are right - he has fallen off the end of the earth, he is free and the world is flat.] [Tee Hee] [No really, we need to put an end to the "show of political posturing" about everything and get back to actually dealing with issues.] [Global warming is somewhat of a concern but I fail to be convinced. I remember being convinced of the "Next World Ice Age" when I was around seven or eight and a particular Newsweek(I think it was Newsweek but that was a long time ago)that showed a graphic of how Missouri would be under the Great Polar Ice Cap before I was forty and how I was really disturbed that these great and recognized scientists(they had to know what they were saying was true! They were in a national "News" magazine right!) Scare tactics are scare tactics - drop the agenda - stop doing peer review only with those who agree with you, the weakness of peer review. Theologian's did that in the dark ages and to try to stop the renaissance(which would weaken church control) and start doing real verifiable science that even your opposition cannot help but duplicate. Then let's talk about the issues.]

Beavah said, "Can yeh even name a single adult in the program who wasn't a scout as a youth? " I wasn't one.

And in response to the comment that you are getting that "Boy Scouts is GAY" my son and the college students I am in contact with(that in their cultural view) assure me that the word GAY in this context has no homosexual contextual meaning but is a synonym for the words wrong and bad. What I find interesting, is that the words' duality of meaning could easily imply that the homosexual context is also held in error against the mores of the people using it against you(or at least the still greater societal context) ... now isn't that weird. I don't get any of the comments around here(at least not yet) and I've worn it on Campus, a few funny looks sometimes but no comments.

There a a lot of competing values and in our increasingly relativistic society, people of moral and ethical conviction are going to feel more and more of the stress you are feeling. One of the things we can do is stay involved and work with those who will join us. Hoping that some thread of leadership is instilled along with character and hopefully some degree of moral and ethical decision making.

I like a cool set of threads... when I'm just keepin' on truckin around...Here come da Judge, Here come da Judge... If you have to ask...

I hate to ask you yet another question, or in this case series of them but it seems that there are several possible issues here and I don't know/can't tell which one/one's you want to deal with. Is it that you don't want to appear before the board and still not prejudice the board(about the Scout) either way? Is it that you don't want a specific or several specific individuals to sit on a board because you see possible impropriety with them on the board? Or that they are not knowledgeable of what they should be doing on a board? Or is it that you don't fell like you can make comments to a board without having them kept confidential?

And just having gone and read the post John-in-KC referenced, usetobeafox is really not clear about what the issue he wants addressed to be. I was going to post my list of possible questions here but think they are probably more appropriately done in the other thread.

I have gotten great answers here and think it is a valuable resource. Now if someone posts a question that doesn't give enough info to make a reasonable statement, well, they are going to be asked questions...

What Its Me says is true, that the boys should be able to expel someone that they are not willing to be around. However the ability to deal civilly with people we don't particularly care for is an extremely valuable skill. I'm glad that (it looks like) CA_Scouter has been able to come to a resolution that will work for the troop. One thing that I might mention to the boys is that it is when things are in a crisis that I might want to be brought in, if only to see how they deal with it. Rather than end in a situation like this one where more than one person winds up in the (adult intervention) soup.

We all seem to easily bring the negatives in for discussion.Thanks for reminding us not only that the positives are happening but that we need to be just as aware of them! Be proud of your Scouts!

It's not my post, but it looks to me like CA_Scouter has the source of the clays as a side issue, because he knows more about their source than we do.And knows what to do about that part of it. My take on it is that the investigation should have been done there and then, no time for collaboration and for the events to get set in each participant/witnesses mind. Once someone is given a certain amount of time to revisit an issue they get the facts lost a little in their attempt to make sense of what happened and their version of the story changes as they reconcile what DID happen with what makes sense in their experience. Since that didn't happen, A lot of what remains has to do with the specifics of the past actions(revealed character) of the boys in the incident. I don't know them and without that info - - I think the knife wielder"S" needs a "no sharps" policy and either a trusted adult - not necessarily a parent for some one-on-one counseling/guidance. Does he also need a minder?And other than to put some pain on the parent I don't know if it should be the parent who is the minder. I don't know, how big and off-kilter is this kid? Is he of average or smaller size and the other boys can handle any emergency stops if he goes off again? I don't know these things. "P" needs some discussion about how to communicate about issues with his peers rather than communicating by locking people in bathrooms. The entire troop may need some guidance about when it is appropriate to bring issues to the attention of the adults rather than handling things themselves, especially if physically ganging up on each other is how they resolve things. That is how I see things from the cheap seats with the info I have. Good luck CA, I'll be looking for your update.

Kudu, based on your post, you know what I mean by pilling ; if you mean the use, then I have just been wearing mine. I've recently worn them to an Eagle CoH, at camp(same pair on multiple days), camping, working up a compass course using direct travel (and avoiding obstacle bypass at this point)(which has been requiring some brush busting) vice point and thrust, I've worn them as shorts while swimming and air dried in them while walking around. You know, just doing the things that I think "Field wear" should be able to stand up to without being destroyed. Now I am, as practicable not just walking through thorn bushes with wild abandon or anything. Would the same design in BDU material be as good, well, not for any time you got soaked unless you were wearing performance undergarments. IMHO. In a different material, sure, I think I'd like to see that; I'm just not sure what material I'd want. Over all I'm not unhappy with them but I don't think I'm going to be able to get away with not having a "Dress" pair of field trousers.(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

Crossramwedge, my son is also a Scout and I know what you mean about how you see the character and qualities of your child, I certainly think I know who my child is. The thing is that not everyone, certainly not his peers, have the level of contemplation about what character is that you and I, and the others in this forum, have about looking at character rather than just seeing if we like someone. I think this is the central issue in OA elections. That for the Scouts it actually is a popularity contest. I've certainly seen OA members that I wondered what the troop was thinking when they voted them in and when my son is eligible I will wonder what happens if he isn't. But the fact is that the more of a stink I raise, the less likely it is that he will get in on a later(annual) ballot. I think I get where you are coming form and "I feel your pain", but other than recognizing your feelings, I think that the other posters and I are trying to just give objective feedback.

One of my personal favorites - It was directed to me... "What do you mean you didn't understand what I wanted you to do? - Don't you think I knew you didn't understand?! I just wanted you to do it!!!

You allude to an incident with a child and some other scouts that happened "outside of Scouting." If that were true, then I would say that there really isn't any "outside of Scouting"; the things the boys do in their daily lives is part of the point of scouting, it's not just what they do on-duty. On the other hand if, lies and innuendo are being spread prior to an election and this can, be proven and there is no truth to the falsity being spread, then it might be appropriate to speak with the SM to see if he can/will certify that there was electioneering against the Scout and that said electioneering was malicious and ill-founded. Then perhaps you could take that to the Chief of the Fire as noted before, but as was also noted before the times when those actions are taken do not necessarily mean that any given Scout will be elected into OA, just because a prior election was voided. If anything it might prejudice the voting body against voting that person in because they didn't abide by the will of the group the first time. That said, there is also the issue of meeting qualifications and of being selected. There have been many times when I have met the qualifications to do things that I wanted to do - but, there may have been only so many available positions and if there are multiple qualified candidates only so many are able to be selected(I realize that this is not the case in OA elections). There also times where personalities just don't mesh and people aren't invited to do things because they don't "fit in" with their peers, they might work out with a different group and be an excellent choice in that group, but just might not make the grade with this particular set. In cases where there is more than one group forming you can usually see that this is the case. When we make ourselves different, even if better, than our peers we can only expect that they will see us differently (sometimes this is the basis for the moral force of leadership - sometimes it's just a marker that we think we are better than others)and sometimes they may see fit to penalize us for this (usually the latter)differentness in one way or another that *is* within their power. It isn't a matter of "qualification" it is a matter of selection - which for OA can only be done by his peers. Unfortunately peer selection isn't based on fairness, or honor or qualification - it is based on the personality of the group and that particular groups dynamics.