Hunt

If BSA doesn't tell us the purpose of the rule, it makes it impossible to extrapolate it to situations that don't really fit. If it's about safety, then squirtguns are probably OK, while waterballoons filled with dye are not OK. If it's about "pointing guns," then squirt guns are not OK, and water balloons filled with dye are OK. I think the most reasonable assumption would be that the reason is safety, since it is contained in the GTSS, and not in some other policy document. (The real truth is probably that at some time in the past, the rule simply said you shouldn't point a "firearm" at anyone, and when somebody had the bright idea to add paintball and laser tag, they just added it on rather than rewriting it as they should have done.)

"I've never been completely clear whether this was solely a safety issue (in which case, water guns and even dart guns might be ok) or a philosophical issue of no pointing anything resembling a weapon at someone else (in which case, even water guns would be verboten)." This isn't made clear in the GTSS, or anywhere else I am aware of, which makes it difficult to determine if anyone is "twisting" the GTSS or not. I find it difficult to see how target shooting with real guns could be ethical and target shooting with paintball guns would not be, however--and target shooting with paint ball guns has got to be safer.

To clarify, the letter of the requirement is "six months." Some have stated that ScoutNet interprets that as 182 days--which may be longer than six months, depending on the months. My point is that I don't think a scout would be penalized if his troop held his BOR six months after his last rank, but only 181 days later--although it might be a pain to get it straightened out.

Packsaddle gives us an example of a threat to revoke membership if a critical op-ed was published--is anyone aware of anything like that actually being done? It seems to me that it would be pretty bad PR for BSA to kick out somebody for disagreeing in an orderly fashion (it would violate the Scout Law).

I think the parents' concern is probably with lightning, not rain. They are used to "everybody out of the pool" or off the soccer field with the first rumblings of thunder. Assuring them that you know what precautions to take and that they will be taken is the solution, I think.

I find it difficult to believe that a scout would be denied his Eagle because his troop followed the letter of the requirements ("six months"), although I suppose it could be a hassle to get it straightened out.

We also do BORs on demand, and little preparation is needed because the committee members who are typically there know the boys very well. I can understand that it might be more difficult if the committee members are not typically present at meetings--my suggestion for that problem would be to get some more parents to be committee members. Even so, three months is a long time. Another observation--note that there is no hint that this is a factor in the troop ATC wrote about--but I am aware of troops that do only quarterly BORs and typically retest scout skills, frequently "failing" scouts who can't perform up to their standards. These scouts then must wait three months to try again. I think this a a poor way to run the advancement program, and it's not what BSA's policies envision. Such troops may have many other virtures that keep boys in them, of course.

Around here, most families have already scheduled their kids' summer camps/day camps, etc. before crossover--so it would be unlikely to get a new boy to go to camp with the troop. Is that different elsewhere?

"Has anyone any direct experience with BSA retribution against a leader expressing disagreement in a rational and courtious way?" This is a very good question--it's been brought up before and never clearly answered, as far as I know. There were posters who emphasized that BSA COULD expell a member for expressing disagreement in an orderly way, but it was hard to pin them down on whether BSA in fact does this, or whether it should do this. The cases I've heard about mostly involved more extreme actions, like suing or picketing. It seems to me that BSA would want to know whether it is out of step with its own members--how did it decide that the membership would accept female leaders? What mechanism will it use to determine when, if ever, to move to co-ed youth membership at the younger ages? (I mention this "g" because it seems to me to have less of a religious element, although making a change would have a large impact on unit-level scouting.) If people don't express their opinions, how will BSA know if there is a "groundswell" of opinion on a point like this?

I'm irked by the idea that it's an "excuse" that kids are working much harder today on schoolwork than they were 30 years ago. It's a fact. My estimate is that my 9th grader has 2 hours of homework per day more than I had at the same age. He also has more demands from other activities that we want him to do, and that are work for him--like music lessons. What does that have to do with chores? Well, I think that it's still important for him to do some chores, because he needs to understand, as others have said, that the family is a team and everyone must contribute. But I don't think that he needs chores to instill a work ethic, because he's already working hard. Of course, there are kids who aren't working all that hard, and are playing Nintendo all the time, but I suspect that what they mainly need is not more chores, but more discipline in getting them to focus on their schoolwork.

I think one element of this that should be recognized is that many kids today work much harder and longer doing schoolwork than we did. My kids (6th and 9th grades) have much more homework--and thus less leisure time--then I did. If you also consider things like music lessons and practicing to be "work," (and they certainly do), that's even more. Now, I do think kids should contribute to the routine chores of the household, but many of them are, on the whole, working harder than we ever did (or at least, harder than I ever did).

"Since it is both a toxin and a drug, you both are right!" So it's like the mint that's both a breath mint and a candy mint--only the opposite. A few serious points on this: 1. It may have been money well spent to have risk experts look at the Guide--even if they didn't find much. That just means the prior drafters did a good job. Any document with legal consequences needs periodic review, because laws may have changed. 2. I continue to believe that the wording on smoking is too vague--I find it difficult to believe that it is worded that way in order to allow people to exercise their understanding of Scouting's values--I just think it's poor drafting, and it's too bad it wasn't fixed.

Another distinction needs to be made here, between BSA's rules and regulations, and the actual law. As I posted before, unless BSA makes the claim of patch ownership at the point of sale, the fact that it makes such a claim in some other document simply has no relevance to the ownership rights of the purchaser. MAYBE a court would side with BSA if the purchaser admitted he knew about this rule at the time of purchase, but I very much doubt it. It would be easy to prove that BSA will sell most patches to people who walk in off the street. On the other hand, if it really is a BSA rule that one is not supposed to even possess rank insignia to which one is not entitled, then I suppose it would follow that a Collections MBC should not recognize such a collection. I personally would not interpret the rules to mean that (I would not consider such a collection to be "use" of the insignia). If the rule really does mean to prohibit such collections, then I don't think it's a very good rule. Of course, I would wager that not one in a thousand Scouts or Scouters has even heard of the rule, so most rank patch collecting goes on in blissful ignorance of the issue. Note: I did a little Internet research, and found that BSA has taken some steps to address this problem--for example, they objected when Destiny's Child wore altered BSA uniforms on TV, and similarly objected to other uses by musicians. They seem to have argued, however, that non-Scouts can't wear the uniform or insignia, not that BSA actually owned the patches. To my surprise, I also learned that BSA sent letters to Goodwill and Salvation Army asking them not to sell used BSA uniforms! (Supposedly the Destiny's Child uniforms came from a thrift shop, but I don't believe the patches did--they had "Trained" patches sewn on the collars.)

The distinction here is between the right to control a trademark and the right to control an object with the trademark on it. While I can't manufacture shirts with a Coca-Cola logo, if I buy such a shirt from Coca-Cola, I can sell it on eBay, trade it, wear it when I appear on a talk show on TV, burn it, whatever. The object--the shirt--belongs to me, and I can do whatever I like with it unless there was some kind of restriction in the purchase agreement. It's the same thing with the BSA patches, unless BSA wants to do a lot more to restrict and control their sales.

"The rights to BSA insignia are owned and controlled by BSA. The sale of cloth badges comes with the obligation of the purchaser to use the insignia for the intended purpose and within the regulations of BSA." At the Scout Shop I frequent, cloth badges (at least, most of them)are sold to anyone who enters and offers to pay for them, without any communication of this idea. As a result, I don't think BSA would have any legal right to argue that it retains ownership of the patches.

One suggestion: I think the uniform colors should remain the same. That way people recycling old uniforms could remain relatively uniform during the transition phase.

I agree that the prime factor is which troop your son likes best, but if he's on the fence, here are some considerations for you: Which troop meets closer to where you live? Which one will make it easier to get boys together for patrol meetings? Which one will make carpooling easier? Which troop will make it easier to coordinate with school events to avoid conflicts? Which troop is likely to have a larger percentage of active parents (i.e., will you have to go to every event yourself?) Does one troop have more gear than the other (i.e., will you have to buy a tent?) Which set of leaders do you personally like better (you could be spending a lot of time with them over the next few years)? If the grizzled SM retires, will YOU have to be/get to be the new SM?

To get really picky...I would argue that a Venturer who is attending his Eagle BOR may not currently be a Boy Scout in one sense--but in another sense he is a Scout--specifically, he's a Life Scout, or he couldn't be there. The little patch he gets if he passes the BOR says "Eagle Scout" right on it, not "Eagle Venturer." I suppose you could say he "holds Life Scout rank" but isn't a Life Scout. But, if he's only registered in a crew, I don't think he's entitled to wear a Boy Scout uniform to the BOR. My point was--and still is--that if you go to an Eagle BOR and see a candidate in jeans and a t-shirt, a clown costume, or a medieval suit of armor, that may in fact be his uniform.

When an organization provides its members with inferior or inappropriate equipment, the result is a lessening of respect for the organization. If you want to build esprit, then Scouts should justifiably believe that Scout stuff is superior to ordinary stuff. (I remember feeling that way as a kid--I especially remember thinking that my Scout knife was something special, and not just because it had the logo.) In my opinion, if CNYScouter is right about the value and imporance of the uniform--and I think he is--then BSA should do everything in its power to make sure that we have the best possible uniform.

Fscouter, I liked your last post. You gave chapter and verse on why BSA thinks the uniform method is important, and you gave some good arguments on the benefit of having uniforms. But then you say: "What in Heavens name are people thinking about when they argue AGAINST the uniform !?" Here's where I think you're really arguing against a straw man, because there really isn't anybody arguing against the idea of BSA as a uniformed organization. As I see it, there are two general arguments that have been advanced: (1) that complete uniforming is not imporant, and that it's no big deal if (for example) a unit decides to only wear the uniform shirt; and (2) that there are problems with the current uniform. I think your counterargument really goes only to the first of these. The second one is really quite different, and shouldn't be the cause of so much emotional debate.

Well, remember that the boy may be a member of a Venturing Crew, not a troop, and whatever he's wearing may be their uniform--or they may not have a uniform. I will say, though, that if a boy from a troop showed up with no uniform for an Eagle BOR, it would be a fair question to ask him why. (Note: for those who would immediately want to walk out--what are you picturing? A boy in a T-shirt and jeans, or a boy in a jacket and tie? Would you be so quick to assume the worst if he were wearing a jacket and tie?)

"Boy Scouts is a uniformed organization. The uniform is not optional. Refusing to wear it, looking for excuses to not wear it, and complaining about it calls into question one's fitness to be a member." But the uniform IS optional. BSA does not require any scout to have a uniform, and uniforming is not even one of the Quality Unit critera. There are some exceptions--such as if you want to go to Jamboree. Since the uniform is optional, if you think it's important what you must do is persuade scouts, other leaders, and parents that wearing the uniform is beneficial. Your ability to achieve that is hampered if the uniform itself is flawed. I would also suggest that replying to complaints about the uniform that the complainers are unfit to be members is not very persuasive, either. As a parallel, imagine that you are trying to motivate a troop to do more outdoor activities. Are you going to achieve that by telling them that the Outdoor Method is not optional, and that they are unfit to be members if they don't go camping more often? Do you think that will motivate them?

The added piece of information that brings this into a bit more focus for me is that the boy in question was SPL for a year and five months. It sounds like he was elected to this position only once. If PORs are open-ended and end only when the SM says it's time, I don't think somebody can complain when after a year the SM says it's time--unless he gives overly critical reasons for the change, which sounds like what happened here. Could it be that there are a number of older scouts who have had the same PORs for a long time, and have lost interest in them to some extent? If this is the case, you can understand why the SM might want them to move aside to give younger boys a chance, and it's not a bad idea for these older boys to form a Venture Patrol. I'm not saying the SM handled this well, and it seems that the problem is one that he helped create by having these open-ended PORs--but his underlying motivation may be reasonable. I should add that the situation is unlikely to be a learning experience for a SM who has been there 20 years, whether he is right or wrong. If you're really at odds with him, you really only have three choices: (1) make the best of the situation without making too many waves, (2) make waves and either get him removed or cause him to quit, or (3) find another troop.

Lisabob, I agree with you, and I think this has just been a digression (to me, an interesting one) on whether it can ever be morally justifiable to lie.

Rooster, I just didn't appreciate your comparing my son to a fox inviting hens into his "skulk." I would hope that most Boy Scouts would not behave like animals in such a situation, and I also hope most of them don't think of girls as prey. Of course, again, your experience may differ. Also: "When I wrote scream, I did not intend folks to take it literally. It was meant to convey that folks believe passionately that they have a right to demand the local option, because peoples convictions on these issues vary from troop to troop." Baloney. You were just amping up the rhetoric, as you continue to do above when you use the term "demand." Who demanded local option? Who screamed?