HICO_Eagle

"National will be getting a new module for ScoutNet in 2011 called the Membership and Training Module from an outside vendor that promises to simplify everything for everybody. This will need to be in place and working prior to implementing required training."

Does anyone else find it the least bit ironic (and aggravating) that an organization with a mission (and proven ability) to train leaders needs to go to an outside vendor to implement "required training"? How much of this stuff is a self-licking ice cream cone?

I'm glad to hear a rewrite is in the works. I hope they will improve things the same way the 12th edition Scout Handbook improved on that wretched 11th edition. Take us back to the future -- get rid of the silly "manager development" nonsense and return Wood Badge to what it was.

allangr2, I concur with dropping the troop formally to a single patrol until you get numbers back up. It's rather silly to have a SPL, ASPL, 2 PLs, 2 APLs and 2 patrol members (I've done it as a Scout but it's still silly).

I think the question of whether a troop needs a SPL is the wrong question. Do your boys need the experience of being an SPL? In my experience, the removal from a single patrol into a coordinating leadership function is new to them and something most Scouts can and do learn from. Learning to monitor and delegate (as opposed to just pass off work) is one of the hardest leadership roles to learn -- especially for the natural leaders who are naturally inclined to jump in and work the problem(s) directly.

I'll disagree with Beavah to this extent: I don't think "A Scout pays his own way" has to mean the Scout pays 100%. The point -- to me -- is that the Scout IS getting skin in the game with sweat equity if nothing else. Consequently, I don't see that the message is disjointed or that it's a bad lesson for the boys. You can instill the values in the boys of BOTH working toward their goals AND helping others.

I grew up with patrol cooking and was introduced to dining halls when I became an adult Scouter.

For what it's worth, I find the dining hall superior at summer camp. A troop can always exercise patrol cooking on its own activities but the dining hall is frequently a much more efficient means of feeding the Scouts and spreading campwide information. Troops also have the opportunity to learn how to handle larger events if you use the mess hall operation as a teaching experience.

My troop had 8 core members at one time and I think 5 (maybe 6) of us made Eagle. I think our exercise of the patrol method -- including planning and going on campouts on our own -- had more to do with that than how we got our food at summer camp.

Stosh's quote of a camp with 3 MB sessions for a mess hall operation and 5 MB sessions for patrol cooking is quite the opposite of my experience at Camps Pupukea in Hawaii, Alexander in Colorado, Bowman and Rock Enon in Virginia and a couple others. I wasn't too impressed with Bowman (or Goshen at all) but Alexander and Rock Enon had very solid programs and mess hall operations with our boys earning 4-5 MBs each.

For those of you extolling the virtues of patrol cooking at summer camp -- why is this such a novel experience for your youth? Why aren't they getting those experiences and benefits from your normal activities?

"Sure, go ahead and remove the SPL from his post. As soon as you do so, please turn around and tell the committee that you are resigning as Scoutmaster.

Why? Because you failed - miserably. As much as you think the Troop needs a new SPL, it needs a new Scoutmaster.

The SPL not wanting to talk to you, after an hour of time off by himself should be a big red flag that YOU are a big part of the problem."

I'm going to disagree with this big time. The boy made violent threats; that's a reflection of the boy, not the SM. EagerLeader seems to be trying to consider all options and get feedback before taking action -- that's the sign of a pretty good leader.

I've got a couple boys in my current troop that have anger management/emotional outburst issues. They both also have tendencies to wander or storm off. It's a situation we're concerned about and monitoring; they need the program but we cannot allow them to endanger other scouts or adults if it comes to that (their father is well aware of their problems). EagerLeader's SPL may not be quite that bad (I can't see any of the boys in our troop electing our two problem children as SPL although that could change with time) but it's clear he has a problem that isn't necessarily related to the SM's performance.

I guess I'm with Kudu on most of his thoughts and I like a lot of the ideas on curriculum here. I will happily take courses that enhance my skills and ability to help my boys. Wood Badge doesn't do a darned thing for me (and the more I hear about it, the less I like it). IOLS sounds great for anyone who didn't actually live through the program but it's redundant and useless for a lot of people. Yes, more and more people involved in Scouting at the adult level need it but it seems more and more like a lot of decisions at Council and National levels are being driven by people who weren't Scouts and don't seem to have much of a clue about Scouting.

I just about gag everytime I see the signs up, "Every Scout deserved a trained leader." No, every Scout deserves a COMPETENT leader. Training does not equal competence. Never has, never will -- but the professional educators and "leadership developers" don't understand that any more than Neville Chamberlain understood treaties don't equal peace.

Let's keep the Scout skills in Scouting.

"The WS MB probably doesn't specifically mention fish as something to stay away from because it's probably the safest thing to catch and eat in the wild, but again the calories gained for calories spent makes it a less than ideal strategy."

My first reaction is ... absolute nonsense. If your contention were true, we never would have developed hunting and fishing skills. I don't exactly see a lot of calories burned by most fishermen (fly fishermen are another breed altogether).

My second reaction is ... it of course depends on your skills. I'm not a very good fisherman so you'd probably be right in my case but there are others who can more than recoup their caloric investment in fishing (and hunting/trapping).

The main point is that WS has changed to where you are unlikely to need to worry about being lost for weeks, most of us have at least 3 days of body fat on us if necessary so the prime need is potable water but let's not throw out nonsense like this.

Boy, I wish we had done something like this when I took WS as a Scout ...

hotair36 said: "NO, it is not just a rehash of past versions of train the trainer."

I'm sorry but yes it is. I found nothing new or innovative in EDGE, just a restatement of common sense training practices under a flashy acronym. It was a full day that repeated the training I got as a Boy Scout, in college, USAF active duty, etc.

I am REALLY sick of adding all this mandatory training that doesn't really add anything new. Encourage it for those who don't have a background yes but making it mandatory ... bleah! I don't have any empirical studies to prove it but I think adding all this time wasting garbage is counterproductive and drives away people who would otherwise be willing to participate more fully or take SOME training if they didn't have to get it all.

Personally, I'd much rather be the oldest than the youngest but I won't judge someone who dares to challenge their limits as long as they are prepared to pay the consequences. On the other hand, I think her parents' judgment leaves something to be desired ...

The city may be waiting for reimbursement but it WILL be reimbursed. Consider the $19K reimbursement for services rendered that will then be used to ensure Scouts are able to do good deeds for those who AREN'T getting paid (albeit tardily).

My troop has lowered the expectation of what "Class A" meant to simply wearing a Class A shirt but we're starting to rejuvenate the past practice of "full uniform" means a full uniform (merit badge sash and OA sashes being optional accoutrements).

I don't think we'd cancel the BOR just because the Scout showed up in jeans instead of Scout pants but the board would probably say it reflected on his Scout spirit and readiness to pursue the next rank. He could have torn a seam on his Scout pants, spilled a drink or have another valid excuse.

On the other hand, this is the SPL. There's a big difference between a new Tenderfoot going for Second Class and the SPL trying to get Life. Presumably he's setting the example for the rest of the troop and you're saying he couldn't be bothered to wear the proper rank insignia or position patch? If I'd been the TCC, I'd have asked the SM why he thought the young man was demonstrating Scout spirit -- a good explanation would get a head nod and pass for the Scout, no explanation or a poor one would result in a reschedule and some discussion at committee.

It may be coincidental but I find it interesting the new clarification of what "active" means (see other thread) came out after this mess was supposed to be sorted out on mdsummer45's appeal. In any event, her son may or may not deserve the Eagle award -- I don't think any of the rest of us know enough about the case to say either way -- but there's really no reason to be calling this a hoax.

I'm with Kahuna. I don't cotton to their particular religious beliefs or how their church is run but have never had any problems with the Mormons I've known. On the whole, a very nice group of people that I'd welcome over San Francisco-style radicals any day of the week.

I think what's goin' on here is that yeh neither understand the science nor the way politics and lobbying is done.

So yeh can't make good judgments about the science, and yeh can't recognize when you're lookin' at a PR/lobbying effort by a special interest.

I actually DO understand the science and problems with the theories and data analysis as well as the way Mann, CRU, Gore et al have been misusing it for politics and lobbying efforts but feel free to continue thinking that if it makes you feel better. Having you claim I can't make good judgments about the science while you're falling for a 20 year PR and lobbying campaign by a special interest is as comical as Gore and company claiming the likes of Freeman Dyson, Jerry Pournelle, Fred Singer, etc. are "anti-science" and gives me a good healthy laugh.

Beavah, most of the papers in Science, Nature, etc. are on the effects of global warming rather than on ascertaining the magnitude or source. One of the reasons so many physicists and statisticians have issues with the AGW hypothesis lies in fact in the sourcing of the data. Many researchers have published studies assuming they could rely on the input data they were receiving from CRU and GHCN when we can now see how they were shading and altering the data. By the way, science is not judged by weighing or counting papers but by the content of those papers -- and the whole campaign undertaken by CRU and Michael Mann to distort the peer-review process should have waved you off from that false metric anyway.

You talk about a PR campaign to smear the IPCC, what I have seen over 20 years was a PR campaign to create and prop up the IPCC. We're not trying to hold the IPCC to a higher standard, we're trying to hold them to the SAME standards since the IPCC report is being held up as THE definitive reference. Surprise, surprise, much of the IPCC aren't even scientists much less climatologists. Even AGW proponents were troubled by the unethical manipulations and distortions of science behind the scenes. This is why I read and reference the so-called "lukewarmists"; you should also have warning klaxons going off when scientists who are predisposed to believe in some kind of global warming or human effect take issue with the underlying science of the theory.

vol and others have brought you to the water trough, we can't help it if you won't drink.

I would much rather have a real centennial uniform than the piece of garbage they released. Too bad I can't get into that aefsupply.com website. I was under the impression that quite a bit of BSA gear in our early years (including the uniform) had its origins in military surplus -- one of the reasons why National's current rules annoy me. Wish I could pick up a uniform like the one I wore as a brand new Scout in 1978.

No disrespect, vol, but I haven't read anyone here yet who has demonstrated a clear understanding of the science.

Yes you have, you just seem to be putting blinders on for some reason (which is rather unlike your behavior on most threads I've seen you contribute to). I also by the way posted a link to a peer-reviewed German paper at arxiv.org rebutting the so-called scientific basis behind the AGW hypothesis a couple weeks before you claimed no one had produced peer-reviewed literature. 115 pages of physics. I have referred to the writings of actual physicists, climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, etc. who have based their skepticism on SCIENCE or data analysis methods. I have also referred people here to "lukewarmists" like Roger Pielke, Jr. and Lucia Liljegren.

Don't take it from vol or Sandspur or me, take it from one of the lead authors of the IPCC AR4. Reported in the Jan 24 Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the reports chapter on Asia, said: It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Continue believing in AGW if you want to but don't say it's because the science is settled or claim that skepticism is all a product of some mythological neocon conspiracy or brainwashing. By the way, you don't have to accept GISS, CRU or GHCN measurements to believe actual measurements have shown cooling since 1998 -- the satellite measurements from the University of Alabama-Huntsville have shown it. For what it's worth, Jim Hansen is claiming 2005 was the warmest year on record after some of his now infamous homogenization of surface temperature records. It's funny what happens when you throw out the 75% of data that doesn't agree with your predetermined hypothesis ...

Let's see, I have no political party just Science. I've been living by the Outdoor Code and recycling for over 30 years and do plenty else for the environment when the science supports it so let's just shed the "mentally awake" nonsense shall we? If the science was so credible, why do you think leading physicists like Freeman Dyson are criticizing it? Why are meteorologists, astrophysicists and geophysicists among the most critical of the AGW hypothesis? You can continue the tactics of avoiding a discussion of the real science and throw out ad hominems (inaccurate ones at that) like Al Gore and Greenpeace or we can discuss the relative merits of the studies by Jones, Mann, Singer, Lindzen, Soon et al.

You might put Monckton in the same category as Merlyn but Watts, Spencer, Soon, Lindzen, Choi, Dyson, Singer, Coleman and Revelle (yeah, the same guy who planted AGW in Al Gore's head and refuted it weeks before he died of a heart attack) aren't. They all challenge AGW based on the state of the science (or lack thereof). Liljejen and Pielke, Jr. are in the lukewarm camp -- they feel there's probably an effect somewhere but are disturbed by the poor scientific practice and how it's been misused for political agendas. Curry is in the AGW camp seems to be appalled by the evidence of scientific malpractice.

Lindzen's not a god, he and Choi are revising the paper they just released a couple weeks ago based on legitimate comments but they claim the fundamental conclusions still stand. I'm not sure, haven't read their paper yet, but they followed the Scientific Principle and released all their data and supporting code -- Mann and Jones have yet to do that despite FOIA requests.

In the meantime, the sea level marks in Tasmania are still roughly where they were when Capt Cook engraved them in the cliffs over 200 years ago, Viking farms in Greenland are still buried under glacial ice, the Briffa tree-rings are still unable to be used as a proxy for the last 40 years (but are somehow to be believed for the previous 960 years with an accuracy of +/- 0.1 C?) and the GISS models can't "predict" the last 10 years of cooling even in hindsight.

Here's the problem with your contention Beavah: skepticism about the AGW theory isn't fringe, no matter what Al Gore or Michael Mann or Phil Jones would like you to believe. One of the big problems has been the manipulation of the standard scientific process but unfortunately it doesn't stop there.

Forget the typos by IPCC that were then used in the AGW scare tactics, go to the tree ring data that has been used to create the hysteria through Mann's hockeystick graph. Dendrologists have queried how Briffa and Mann got their temperature correlations since tree ring density varies with so many other factors (and not been answered). Statisticians have looked at the data used and found anomalies and cherry-picking.

Historical, geological and archaeological evidence showed the Medieval Warming Period was significantly warmer than the peak observed year of 1998 -- perhaps as much as 8 C higher. Mann rewrote history to reduce the MWP to a "regional anomaly" and lowered the variance; he eliminated the historically validated warm period prior to WWII. Hansen and the GISS have been "homogenizing" the surface temperature records so historical station data looks significantly different from what it did just 3 years ago.

Most -- if not all -- of this information was unknown to most of the scientific community 10 years ago and about 20 years ago the UK and US not only significantly boosted funding for climate research but rewrote the rules so funding was specifically directed toward scientists seeking to prove the AGW hypothesis.

Physicists and other scientists outside the AGW cashflow are among the most skeptical people I know. Skeptical -- not in denial. We want open raw data, open code -- the inability to reproduce their results is what sank Pons and Fleischman which is probably why Mann and Jones have evaded data sharing with anyone but those already firmly in the pro-AGW camp.

Just read the East Anglia e-mails and Keith Briffa's own doubts about the conclusions Mann was pushing and how Mann and Jones were minimizing or eliminating the large uncertainties. Read the objections raised by Wigley (although he kept his concerns quiet, apparently to avoid undermining the overall message). I agree with you on a lot of things in Scouting but not your blind parroting of Al "the science is settled even though I don't know the first thing about science" Gore.

DeanRx, I feel for you regarding CA but it's not Scouting or national creating that condition, it's the homosexual activist groups. There's nothing preventing them from creating their own groups -- except they don't really want to take care of the boys the way we do, they want to destroy any organization that doesn't embrace their lifestyle as normal and healthy.

HiLo, I have no doubt there are a lot of fine people that are atheists or homosexuals (or girls). I have friends that fall in all three camps. That doesn't mean they belong in Scouting but forget that because that's not what this thread is about. The question Eamonn asked was about whether it would be useful to take polls and if so, polls of whom. One thing I think that has to be asked is what you intend to do with the poll -- if the poll is leading toward a destructive or useless answer, then why take it? Polling membership (or non-members) about whether BSA should admit group X will be even worse than not polling if BSA is unlikely to actually admit group X because all it will do is make people think we were raising false hopes or lying -- which would REALLY be counterproductive.

You can poll with non-leading questions like asking boys who are quitting what they liked and disliked, why they chose to quit. You could ask boys who don't join at all what they didn't like about Scouting or what might make them join. I'm just not sure how useful those kinds of questions are because I'm not sure most people would know (or say) all the reasons. It's frequently easier to "blame" some more socially acceptable answer than tell the truth (like telling the aunt who gave you the ugly sweater that you're not wearing it because you wore it yesterday or got it dirty or some other excuse).

I too can't recall losing any scouts in 20+ years to the 3Gs. I've lost them to afterschool jobs, athletics, academics but the 3Gs haven't been an issue. I HAVE run across a few girls who wished they could join BSA because of the outdoor activities but they generally had no response when I asked why they didn't alter their own GSA programs.

At this point, I'm very suspicious of polls and how they are used/misused.

Oak Tree, I guess I just don't see it as fuzzy as you but a great deal of my training biases me toward sequential and transitive logic. First you establish a group or list of people or organizations to which you have a bond or obligation. That's the group you owe loyalty to so be loyal. Pretty simple.

Who does a Scout owe loyalty to? His family. His friends. His troop. His country. His God (or whatever deity he is reverent toward). Anyone else he has an obligation toward. Perhaps others -- and not necessarily in the order I've listed.

Same thing goes with the other points of the Law. This is basically the same way I learned it and the same way I've taught it for 20+ years. It only gets into a semantic discussion when someone starts quibbling because they want an excuse for violating the principle but don't want to be held accountable. My biggest beef with the term "aspirational goals" is that it seems to be a New Age way of saying they can violate the Law and Oath but not feel bad about it -- sort of like Clinton arguing about the meaning of "is" -- which is precisely what's wrong with contemporary society.

I voted thumbs up (no surprise since I actually initiated the request to close one of the threads). The two threads in particular were getting way out of hand IMHO.

I've only been reading these forums for the past year or so and generally they're great. There is only one individual that I've decided to just not bother reading anymore -- I wish the ignore feature worked on thread postings but I'll just ignore manually. As for the rest, I learned a long time ago to filter postings by what I've seen of past postings. As is so often in life, there are very few people I agree or disagree with 100% (including myself) and learning flows from multi-way discussion.

I put links to other sources for a reason. I don't want someone thinking I'm cherry-picking quotes or quoting out of context but that only works if they actually follow the link and do some reading themselves. Otherwise it's just talking past each other which is where I saw about half of the AGW thread going. As for the other thread ... I think it's clear some of us just aren't going to agree so rather than raise blood pressure and vitriol, I think I'm just going to avoid related threads.