johndaigler

Congratulations, Encourager! With your permission, I'd like to come at this from the other direction . . . I'm planning to introduce my Cubs to the religious awards program. This would include several [if not one for each Cub!! ] different religious organizations. In addition to suggesting my Cubs go to their religious orgs. for info on their specific religious awards, is there an appropriate "Scout" connection I should look to help them make? BW, you suggested the Council for Encourager. Is that where I should look as well? Other than the obvious respect necessary for the varying faiths of my Cub families, is their any pitfalls I'm likely to unknowingly jump into?? Any words of planning or caution? Encourager, would a Catholic REC be a useful guest for my Cubs, even if several (many) are not Catholic? Can you speak to generics of other programs? Would my Catholic families struggle if the speaker I bring in is Buddhist or Jewish? I'm going to take this slowly, but I'd rather spend time researching and planning, than spend it with individual Cubs/Awards. I know these are not Scout awards, per se, and the individual religious orgs. are truly their "home base". Can I trust that there are consistencies amongst the programs, or do I need to focus on and be familiar with each program's uniqueness?? My personal beliefs would have me searching for similarities, but I'm afraid that might unintentionally be discomforting to others. jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

DoubleEagle, I can't tell you why, but it occasionally happens to me, as well. The annoying thing is that if it happens once, then it seems to happen to the same message several times. Some people have suggested it has more to do with your own security software than anything else, but . . .Try asking this question in the "Techie" or "Administrative" forums (Though, I doubt, those are their official names!) Also, I learned to copy every post before I submit it, then if necessary I use the edit icon to go back and paste a good copy over some partially printed post. Good Luck jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Definitely Cricket Girl deserves some recognition!!! And definitely, the swimmer who doesn't make the requirement doesn't "earn" the achievement. That makes sense. The latter has (and should have) a standard that Scouts need to meet, but the former??? Why would anyone give an "Intro to Cricket" camp and not be GRATEFUL to every single child and family that participated??? (and probably paid to do so)??? What would be your point, other than to encourage participation??????? jd

Welcome Eri!!! Strawberry Switchblade??? Tres chic!!!!! jd

Ed, don't get caught up in the vocabulary. I used "Hazing" because it's a common enough word around here with a negative enough connotation. . . I thought my explanation earlier was fairly clear. You DO get my point about treating each other fairly, don't you?? Look, you disagree with someone's words, argue with better words. Telling them to "Go Away" isn't exactly stellar debate technique!! You don't win, you don't convince them you're right -- All you do is show them you've run out

Ed - I didn't realize there were Membership Requirements for this Forum. When someone joins a conversation here, they volunteer to belong to the group. When another poster makes them feel like they're not part of the group (and shouldn't be), it seems that "Hazing" is a fairly apt description. When we make each other feel judged and "judged wanting" and use that moment to try to make ourselves feel better and a stronger (more righteous) member of the "group", then "Hazing" seems to fit. I'm not talking about disagreeing. I'm not even talking about getting angry and writing things we ought to later regret. I'm talking about saying, "This is my club and you are NOT wanted." If not "Hazing" what would yuu call it?? And, in truth, I'm indifferent to what you want to call it. If you don't like my choice of words, that's fine. My point is I don't think we should do it. We certainly wouldn't tolerate it if peer Scouts treated each other that way. jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Shawno, I think ScoutNut has some good ideas, especially about the: sharing responsibility; simplifying meeting times, scheduling, and communication; and FUN. Aren't all your boys together in the same school? Even if only one or two of them show for a meeting, if it's SO FUN and interesting, they'll talk about it clear to the next meeting. The other boys will listen and be there - especially if you can make it easy for the parents to remember and get there. Did you say you meet on weekends?? Consider that this might not be to your best advantage if, in all of our crazy lives, that's the only "Family Time" we get. I know Cubs takes up tons of my time, but with rare exceptions, I try not to let it impact weekends -- that's the only time both my wife and I can be together with our sons. We even resist letting the boys have activities on weekends, though that's a bit tougher. It amazes me when I work with people who don't check email daily. I think of it like getting the mail or responding to the blinking light on the answering machine. But, there are still a lot of folks who just don't do use it that way. Be patient, between adding something else to the huge list of things your parents deal with and scheduling issues, I've found the tiger year to be truly difficult for some families, even those really interestd in participating. Keep smiling and working at it. It will get better, I can ALMOST promise you!!! jd

Eamonn, I wish I would have seen the 60 Minutes story you describe - sounds a little frightening. Actually, it sounds like some overgeneralizing of our 2004 lifestyles, but that's just a first guess. Sometimes, the media helps us over-analyze who we are and what we do . . . I don't disagree at all with your thoughts about Achievemnent. Though, particularly for Cubs, I think participation is worthy of acknowledgement, IN ADDITION, to Achievement. It gets very grey for Cubs, because of the "As long as the Cub did his best . . ." approach to assessing success. I appreciate the "activity participation segment" patches for the brag vest. But, for meeting Achievement standards, I prefer to have the Cub demonstrate success by actually "meeting" the standard set by the handbook. Of course, we support the boys well, and assure success even for those rare instances when boys struggle with a specific achievement. Would you also like to see a more "Achievement demonstrated" attitude toward Adult Training? jd

Welcome, Candidapax!!!!!! I have a question or two that you might be able to help me with - check out the thread I'll start later today about Religious Awards. jd

evmori - My post was cut off (and I didn't realize it until just now), so there's no complete explanation, But NO, I wasn't really kidding - just trying to make a point. The forum is an open campfire to discuss Scouting. Why would it be acceptable to tell someone they don't belong? jd

Welcome, Shawno!!!!! jd

Demann, I understand some of your frustration with Merlynn. I don't agree with all of it, but I understand. Don't, however, tell him to go away. This here campfire has room for lot's of folks to pull up a log. Agree or disagree, that's all good. But, everybody ought to get a say. If the ideals and efforts of BSA can't stand up to Merlynn, or any other criticism that Scouters or non-Scouters think up, then there's a problem that needs to be looked at. Tellin someone they don't belong here is "Hazing2

Great post, OGE!! And, thank you for the show of trust in all of us who read these posts. Luckily you weren't injured like EagleSM, but that loss of trust in the older Scouts is often as great a loss. A lot of boys would fade from that point on and slowly disappear. Thanks for sticking around! What a shame that the older boys missed out on OGE as an Eaglet! jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Nice Catch, Uncleguinea.

Welcome, Tom Parker!!!!!! And, Best of Luck!!!!!!! jd

All good points, guys, but shouldn't someone around here be piping up about how money doesn't impact quality scouting??? We're hearing the same stuff about transporting Scouts - and it's just Cub day outings. Everything is a bit more complicated - not undoable, just complicated. Imagine the impact on Units and Scouters already starving for cash . . . jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Hey, Skyhook, WELCOME!!!!!!! One person's skyhook is another person's Tailhook!! All in good fun . . . hazing isn't accepted. Even if you thought of it as a good-natured prank, there's no way to be sure every Scout would. The exact same story could make someone feel enbarassed and belittled and certainly separate from the team. There are a lot of good ways to teach new Scouts about camp. But, feel free to keep talking, I'm looking for somebody to take my place in the great one's doghouse!!!!!!! jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Mallway, welcome!!!! Good luck getting through this chaos. Who is this unnamed man??? What's his title?? Role?? Scouting is supposed to be very open and transparent, so this lack of information is very troubling. I think Eagle and TwoCub are right when they suggest you get more info and tread carefully and slowly. Even if it takes an extra week or so to get the boys involved, I would suggest that it might be better to get all the adult stuff straightened out first. If you can be more specific with details, the guys here will be able to be more helpful. Ask questions. In particular find out the name and role of this mystery man, and the other adults with Pack responsibilities so that you can clear up all this "stuff" and start working together to offer program to the boys. We all hope it works out well for you and your boys!!! jd

Great post, Twit, er, I mean, EagleDad, Perhaps, what makes the difference between teaching lessons and hazing(I really don't like that word - it sounds like college and frat boys - in this case, by hazing I mean the adults taking their own behavior so far that it becomes questionable or downright inappropriate) is a matter of distance down the failure road you allow boys to travel. If Eamonn's SM didn't have a well-thought-out last resort solution, then perhaps "Twit" is appropriate. You spoke (

Good example, Eamonn. I agree that wouldn't be hazing at all - just seeing and using a "teachable moment". I also agree that we see most failures coming -- unfortunately, those failures usually belong to others. It would be nice to see our own coming that clearly! I guess I was imagining in a harsher direction. Sctldr (and I know this is not at all what you were saying, sctldr. I just took it another step or 6.)made me think with "Nowadays more importance is placed on self-esteem than on learning to be prepared for and how to handle life's hard knocks." I was imaging some curmudeonly SM teaching a hard knocks real world lesson to some Scout. I think I could take it far enough down that imaginary road that the SM's behavior becomes inappropriate, but it really wouldn't serve any purpose in this thread. jd

Fotoscout - you're gonna have to try harder!!!! BW - MY post was filled with QUESTION MARKS. All I did was set the stage for the great Scouting minds of our times to find a teachable moment and spread a little understanding. Perhaps, instead of inappropriate criticism, you could answer a question or two . . . and, I truly appreciate the HELPFULNESS, FRIENDLINESS, COURTESY, and KINDNESS with which you point out the errors of my poor efforts. Again perhaps, instead of judging my words as "hollow phrases" and "all sizzle and no steak", it would be more instructional to me and other lost souls if you actually responded to those questions. . . I don't recall insulting you. I was talking with an ol' pro once, you know, the kind of guy who has forgotten more about Scouting than BP ever knew. He told me how in his troop it was TERRIBLY IMPORTANT to praise publicly, but reprimand privately. Perhaps, he was worth listening to . . . Then again, perhaps those were just "hollow phrases" . . . jd (This message has been edited by johndaigler)

I don't think allowing a Scout to fail is hazing. Of course, we ought to do what we can to be sure the Scout is set up to succeed, but that's a no-brainer - and, of course, the Cub standard is such that failure isn't an option. I guess sometimes we give Cubs an Incomplete, but their best effort is never considered sub-standard. I wonder if it's hazing (or any other negative term) if you see the failure coming, can prevent it you want to, and let it happen, in order to "teach the Scout a lesson"???? sctldr, you had me chuckling with, "their version of success doesn't count...mine does. Too much self-esteem is not a desirable quality." . . . Not very PC!!!! Very clear, very true, and very commonly misunderstood!!!! Just, . . . not very PC!!!!! well played! jd

Failure is as ubiquitous as Quarter Pounders with Cheese!! There's no escape!!!! It's true we need to actively teach about Failure and dealing with it, overcoming it and using it as a Learning opportunity. It's amazing that we all have to live with it - from a very young age and ao little time is spent on Teaching and Learning about it. It's similar to the amount of time we spend teaching kids how to behave when they're in "the spotlight" and so little time on their behavior when they're in "the audience" -- yet we're all much more likely to be in the audience than in the spotlight! jd "Only those willing to go too far will learn how far they can go." I think this is a Truth -- and if it is, we sure better prepare kids for all those "wonderful" results of going "too far"!!

WELCOME, thenry!!!!!!!!! jd

Eamonn, I'm not disagreeing. But, you seem to be assuming that the behavior of Unit Leadership cannot be affected by District. . . ."made any difference? I very much doubt it." . . .That's understandable and often enough true, I'm sure. I was just looking for hope and potential sources of improved thinking. Whether, the Unit has training, understands the training and methods, uses the training and methods, or needs more training, seems to be a moot point in this instance. Something's broken; who's around to help fix it? The Unit doesn't seem to be able to find the answers. Is there anywhere they can go for help OR is there anyone outside the Unit who is involved enough to see the issue and offer some alternative choices. I didn't think I had gone so far out on the limb, suggesting that District might fill that role. BW - "I did not do the studies, the BSA did, and you do not have the evidence to disprove them do you?" . . . Bob, you made the comment, it would be your role to validate it. I questioned how you could make it and asked for supporting evidence. Something I'm sure you've seen in other threads. The absence of contradiction is not proof of your comment. At the end of your post you use "effctiveness of program" as evidence for the policy. Certainly, using the ends to justify the means is hardly something we teach our Scouts, is it? Your age certainly is not a validation of your wisdom and truth. Please don't tell me BSA is nearly a 100 years old as if that's validation of its policies and actions. I truly appreciated most of the rest of your post since it invalidates your initial comment anyway. If you're now going to tell me that physical environment, leadership capabilities, quantity of friends, group members' roles, and desired outcomes of the group's interaction all play an integral part in the choice of Den size, then I'm sure you can now see why I was troubled by your inital post which invalidated Leadership and all else except kids' "wiring" in the rationale for proper Den size. Let me remind you of your comment: "Den size has nothing to do with the adults ability to manage it and everything to do about how kids are wired to be able to function as a social group. " Lastly, "As you advance through training you would do well to keep an open mind to the methods that the BSA have been developed over nearly 100 years of research and practice. " You have never seen anything but OPEN eyes and an OPEN MIND from my words. I have learned tons here and in training, BUT I am a professionally trained Learner with decades of experience helping others to become the same. My filters are simple. If you want to help me LEARN something, then: you need to respect me -- which includes respecting the Learning I already have, and the world in which I will probably use your information you need to validate your information -- there're a great number of people out there (proclaimed and self-proclaimed experts) spouting their Truths. As a "Learner", I am an aggressive evaluator of information and information givers you need to show the value of your information in the real world, else it's difficult for me to USE your information. Philosophy and idealogy are fine for conversation. Application (at least potential) is necessary for your information to be valuable enough for me to bother wtih. I have never argued against BSA policy. Those that I actually disagree with, I've kept silent on because they're fights that can't be won and they pale in the significance of the BSA that I admire. I'll always be here to disagree with blanket statements that leave no room for other understandings and others' Truths. I'm here to learn and help others learn -- questioning the status quo is a valuable tool in that process. "Open minds" work for everyone. jd