Lisabob

I don't particularly want to be an SM. My reasons have nothing to do with my gender though. It's just that I think there are other people in the unit who are better situated to do the job. They have better outdoor skill and experience than I do and they're also good with the boys, so why would I want to prevent them? (I've also met some male SMs who don't seem to possess these traits and yeah, I think their troops would be far better served by a female SM who has the relevant skills than with a male SM who doesn't - if those are the choices.) Most of the women I've met who are involved in scouting longer term seem to share some characteristics. 1) We aren't afraid of a little dirt, enjoy being outside, and either already have or are willing to learn the necessary outdoor skills at least at a basic level; 2) We're passionate about raising good, strong young men of character; and 3) We've developed a rather thick skin to questions like this one. Lisa'bob

I'm inclined to agree that excluding people from a committee is not the way to go most of the time. Sure, I've met some folks on various unit committees who I have wondered about. Some seem to have strange motives for their involvement. A few are downright thorns in most everybody's sides. But they are rare. And I'd rather have them involved, where I know what they're saying and I can help channel their energy into something positive and helpful, rather than uninvolved and sitting in the back of the meeting room and griping. To me the problem isn't so much that there might be a lot of people on the committee, or which ones are vs. aren't essential. The difficulty is making sure people are doing their job and not trying to do another person's (or everyone else's) job too. Those folks, well they need to go to a good training session or be taken aside and have the committee/SM relationship explained to them in a friendly way. Maybe more than once. Lisa'bob

In my own experience, very few units have a very close relationship to their COs. One pack I was part of used the CO (local church) meeting room once a year or less and met at a nearby school the rest of the time. In fact I remember being very surprised to discover the church was the CO (I had thought it was the PTO), since they had nothing to do with us. Another pack I was part of, the CO was the school PTO. Even then, even though some of the PTO members had boys in the pack, we had a very distant relationship. They would attend something of ours once every couple of years despite repeated invitations. We did a couple of service projects for them - well really, for the school, and we coordinated with the school principal to do these, not the PTO (they weren't interested). My son's troop is chartered by a service club that has not attended any of the troop's events in at least 5 years, does not provide a meeting space for us (they don't have one either - they meet in their members' houses), isn't interested in being part of our committee for anything more than on-paper-only requirements, and doesn't actively support any of our fundraisers or attempts to purchase and maintain gear. They DID ask us to fund raise for them though. All of this is despite repeated attempts over the years to do all the things a unit ought to do, to build and keep a good relationship with their CO. I'm not complaining here - at least these COs are not actively opposing anything or causing problems and I'm thankful they're willing to sponsor the units. But Vince, you asked what other people's relationships w/ their COs are like, and that's how ours have been. This isn't how they're supposed to work, ideally, but it does seem pretty common to have a very hands-off CO. Lisa'bob

Eagle-Pete, I agree with 99% of your comments regarding WB. As for why some people are leery about investing $200 or so: well actually for some of us, $200 out of pocket is a budget issue. That's no small chunk of change. It isn't just a question of whether the fee is reasonable, in exchange for what you get; it's whether or not you can afford to pay it anyway. (Though, for people who have paid for other BSA trainings out of pocket and not felt they got their money's worth, this might be a legitimate question to ask - I know I've been fed up a couple of times with paying $15-$30 for basic training provided by my district that didn't go well at all, and that did enter into my pre-WB thinking about whether it would be a good use of my $225.) Also for some of us - esp. those newer to scouting - the cost of WB may really be more than the course fee. For example, when I took WB, I was finishing my first year as a registered leader in a cub scout pack. Our pack was quite casual about uniforming so I didn't own most of the uniform. I had to purchase it for WB and that also cost money. And then too some people have to take time off from work, perhaps unpaid. Don't get me wrong: I don't regret it. The course was worth every penny and I would've eventually bought the whole uniform anyway. But all at once, the course fee plus potential uniform costs, plus potential cost of taking time off from work, can really add up for those of us who keep a close watch on our budgetary bottom line. Lisa'bob

Spongebob, They are not official BSA - although my scout shop stocks them. There are no specific requirements for them (so you can use them as you feel appropriate) and they can't be worn on the uniform. Most folks I know put them on the back of the red vests, in concentric circles around the "Great Activities" patch or something similar. In the past our pack has used them as monthly pack meeting mementos, as well as to mark other special occasions or events. And as I mentioned, to recognize boys who are earning a beltloop the second time around (where there's a rocker patch that correlates). So by the time a boy crossed over, he had quite a display on his vest. The kids all thought these were so cool and they remembered exactly what each one stood for, which I thought was neat too. Here's a link to the Grand Teton Council's page where they show a bunch of these segments. (Note, they seem to have established their own criteria for earning some of these - but this is a local thing, not a BSA policy. You can use them however you want.) http://www.grandtetoncouncil.org/index.cfm?pageid=1379 Have fun with these! Lisa'bob

Congratulations to you and to him! Lisa'bob

OK then this is easy to solve. Tell her it is not about making you do more or less paperwork, but rather about teaching the boys that they have to fulfill the requirements AS WRITTEN (nothing added, nothing subtracted). It is as important for the other boys to see that her son has done everything "by the book" as it is for her own boy to learn this. Otherwise, among other places, they'll have a harder time when they become boy scouts and can no longer do things this way. I'm sure she has the best intentions and just isn't thinking about it this way. And hey, the paperwork involved in recording a beltloop is practically nil, not a serious burden for you.

We've done the same thing for the most part - but where feasible, we've sometimes used those little "rocker" patch segments to recognize the second time through a beltloop. Advantages: they're cheap (about 40 cents each) and the boys love them. Disadvantages: it is still 40 cents the pack is paying and parents don't like sewing them onto the red vests! I think the most important thing is to be clear up front about what you will/won't be purchasing as a pack, and then be consistent. Lisa'bob

Yes, this comes up occasionally. Does your pack have a set procedure for getting advancement info to your advancement chair? Do you do any record keeping (pack master or other spreadsheets, for example)? Who is in charge, if you do? We found it was helpful to have a set procedure - for example, den leaders need to turn in a written summary or report for awards to the adv. chair and if it isn't on there, the adv. chair doesn't buy it. If the adv. chair is aware that this is the policy for your pack, then you can start with hey, I don't recall requesting this award....there must be a mis-communication here. Also: who is presenting awards at your pack meetings? If it is the CM or den leaders, that makes it harder for the adv. chair (or any other parent) to go behind your back. Finally, procedural fixes aside, I'd just have a short heart to heart with this person. She probably means well and may not realize that this is a problem. Assuming you and she do not have other power struggle issues going on, you may be able to solve this problem just with a direct and caring approach. Good luck. Lisa'bob

Agreeing with Scoutnut - contact your DE. In the case of many churches, there is a national document outlining the relationship between the church and the BSA. This relationships document is hammered out by the church leadership (at a national level). What we've sometimes found is that individual churches do not know about, or do not understand, this document. At least around here, our DE is very good at explaining the situation to those local churches. That frequently brings them back on board as chartering organizations. Also, I think it is better to involve the DE in these discussions as well for the fact that it keeps you out of the rumor mill process. I know that in the town where I live, if a pack or troop started discussing the possibility of searching for a new charter partner, word would get out pretty quickly and it might cause hard feelings either with the current charter org., or (in the event that you don't switch) with any potential replacement charter orgs. Having the DE involved here makes the local politics a little easier for you and your pack. Lisa'bob

Ma Scout, I like your idea. I'm not sure it would be all that much more work to do at an event that was already well planned and established (like a camporee) since a lot of the logistics would already be in place. But it would certainly require some buy in and a commonly held vision of what should occur and why it is important. Kind of like an applied version of university of scouting. Eamonn, I agree that training cub leaders in skills they don't need or can't use with their cubs wouldn't work. I guess what I was trying to say is, let's do a better job of training cub leaders in things they CAN use for the cub outdoor program (all of the things I listed are easily applicable if a pack has a good outdoor program - and if they don't, well maybe the training would help them develop one). The thought I had was that we would do a better job of developing troop leadership that is "comfortable in the outdoors" if we spent more time and effort developing cub leadership that is also comfortable in the outdoors. But, you're right that it can be a challenge to get people to training and that more training might not work. I must say, having sat through a lousy training session recently, that it would have to be done really well to draw a crowd and it might take some time to develop a reputation as a worthy endeavor. In that regard, maybe Ma Scout's idea of doing this at camporees, etc., makes a lot of sense - as the leaders will likely be going to those events anyway so at least you "have the body". Then "all" you need to do is provide worthwhile content. Lisa'bob

Here's a thought, though maybe I'm pipe dreaming. If we want to improve the outdoor skills of our adult leaders at the troop level, then we need to do more to provide serious outdoor training to adult leaders at the CUB level. Yes, I know we currently have BALOO and WLOE (or whatever it is called now in your area - outdoor webelos leader training). BALOO doesn't really get into hands-on material though and WLOE is only one night, plus a day and a half or so. It is a good start but that's all it is. Around here our RTs for cub leaders have been pretty well run lately and the attendance figures reflect that. We have University of Scouting once a year as well. But these, too, are not generally hands-on in terms of outdoor skills. And they mostly focus on cub crafts and games - which is important, but seems to come at the expense of a focus on outdoor skills. Here are four things I'd like to see us all incorporate into how we train cub leaders, so that they can do a better job of delivering the Outdoor program to their packs now AND be in a better position to serve as ASMs and SMs with troops, down the road. 1. Fire building and fire safety, and NOT IN THE ABSTRACT. I've been "told" and "shown" how to build fires plenty of times. Doesn't really stick. Help me actually do it, more than once. Provide me with multiple opportunities to do this at training, at RT, etc., because where I live, maybe I can't do it in my backyard or city park, etc., and even if I can, I probably am not going to try it on my own if I don't have any experience and don't know what the heck I'm doing. 2. Knife and axe usage and safety. This is over-looked in the cub program a lot of times because adult leaders don't feel confident in teaching this material. People who aren't personally skilled in these are probably going to just skim over knife safety with the boys, if not skip it all together. 3. Outdoor cooking. Look, our Univ. of Scouting runs all kinds of cooking classes for cub leaders. They tend to consist of things most of us would never actually cook (expensive packets of dehydrated food and/or nasty things like hot-dogs in crescent rolls) and they're seldom hands-on. Branch out past foil dinners and eggs in plastic baggies. Teach cub leaders to use a coleman stove, a backpack stove, and do some dutch oven cooking. The problem I've seen here is that we spend more time focusing on WHAT to cook (and apparently assuming that these adults don't know how to cook anything where the directions are more complicated than "just add water"), and not enough time focused on HOW TO USE the equipment, in order to cook something people might actually eat. Yeah, I know, someone will say: Cub leaders want to learn simple things so they can teach their (young) cub scouts to cook those things. But you know what? If it tastes nasty or looks awful (gloppy one-pot casseroles come to mind) then the cub scouts themselves aren't going to like it or want to do it twice. If we're going to teach the boys to cook, we might as well teach them to make something good, not only something simple. 4. Rope skills. We can go back and forth about the utility of learning to tie a bunch of different knots as required through the 1st Cl. rank but the requirements are what they are. So let's teach cub leaders to tie and use those knots, to lash things, to splice and fuse and whip ropes, etc. OK and actually five things... 5. LNT training that actually takes place OUTSIDE and as more than an after-thought. (Actually I noticed recently that some councils in my area are now offering beginner and advanced level LNT training for boy scout leaders - which I think is great. Anybody know how this dove tails with what's offered in WLOE, OLS, and Woodbadge? Is it hands on or classroom format? Can Cub Leaders sign up for this?) Yes, I know, a lot of these things are covered in various scout handbooks and sure, leaders of all levels ought to READ those. As a cub leader myself, I did a lot of that to try and develop skills I didn't already have. But that's certainly not the same as DOING these things, with the help of someone nearby who is actually skilled already.

Leaving aside the question of the skill level of most women entering the Scouter ranks... (though I admit to having the same reaction as Ma-Scout) I think Eamonn has hit on a really important issue. OLS and Woodbadge both help teach rudimentary outdoor skills. This is not the primary focus of the current WB, one ought to be able to learn some things from one's patrol mates at the very least. But...then what? Having had exactly three weekends of outdoor experience (1 in OLS and 2 in Woodbadge), a brand new leader with no particular skills would be utterly unprepared to deliver a good outdoor program to their troop. Calling them "trained" is silly at that point. Also our OLS program is divided based on entry-level skill. "Newbies" are grouped with other newbies and very experienced (and patient) staff and don't interact that much during the weekend with other, more experienced patrols of scouters. So what a "newbie" patrol gets from OLS is very different from what a more skilled group gets, yet it is the newest group that needs the most. My point is that the knowledge gap going into the course persists, and might even be widened, by the end of the course. Not surprising I guess, as one weekend can't possibly make up for a lifetime of experience (or lack thereof), but it is something to keep in mind when we talk about training and the utility of OLS in particular. Because of the above, I actually think it would be a good idea to have different levels of OLS and expect people to attend multiple times. But that's probably not too realistic. Whose job is it to help build a cadre of truly competent outdoors-men and -women? 1. The COR, who is supposed to recruit appropriate adult leadership? Well, around here the COR is usually a ghost or shadow at best and hasn't got any clue who the adults are, let alone what skills those adults might possess. They are a name on the page, that's it. So... 2. The new leaders themselves? Hopefully they understand how woefully unprepared they are to deliver a strong outdoor program. And they'll look for other volunteers who have a different skill set and then leverage that resource for all it is worth. 3. District folks who encourage setting up new units? In my (limited) experience, these folks are more interested in securing a Charter partner and getting some boys signed up and getting paperwork processed, and less concerned about the more pragmatic stuff like how to make it work, longer term. 4. Other units in the area? I love the mentoring idea brought up by several folks but I just don't see it working out real well for a lot of troops. In our town, we have three troops already plus two more in the next town over. I know leaders in all of these and there are some excellent, helpful people. But they are either very busy with their own troop, or they aren't interested/able to be leaders (if they were, they'd be doing it with their own troop already). The chances of them taking time to work with somebody else's troop to get those adults up to speed are pretty low, just due to time limitations. So that leaves me thinking it is up to the new troop leaders themselves to seek out other adults with the skills that they, themselves, lack. By the way, I see the same problem within existing troops where new leaders who cross over from Cubs with their boys may have very little outdoor experience. Teaching these new parents is crucial for the troop's long term success since the highly skilled, established leaders are probably going to move on at some point when their boy quits or ages out. But, it often doesn't happen. And then we get into the question of running two programs again (as discussed in a different thread a little while ago); one for the boys and one for their parents. When you have a large group of untrained or inexperienced yet officially "trained" adults come in, you almost have to do this parallel training for the new adults if you want them to lead and succeed in the future. I wish I had a good answer Eamonn! If you develop one, let me know. Lisa'bob

Brian, Does this absolutely have to be "one of the first" subjects for your 3 day adventure? Does it all need to be done at once? Or can you work in a little bit of it at a time, all through the weekend? Are you one of several instructors who has a specific time slot for your assigned subject, or are you going to be on hand the whole time? If you can break it up, I'd do something like this: first evening before dark, talk about fire safety (not fire danger), teach them what poison ivy looks like, and then collect fire wood and build a fire together and have marshmallows. Next day: early in the morning break out the sunscreen and bug spray and talk a little bit about why, then go on an animal watching hike. Talk about why we don't disturb wildlife in general (squirrels aren't cuddly either and once I got chased by a pair of swans I unintentionally got too close to!) and work your bit about snakes into that. What I wouldn't do is talk about snakes, spiders, bears, etc. right before bedtime! As for drowning, well I guess it depends on where you are. Most of the places we've camped are not anywhere near water so that doesn't come up as a pressing issue. But couldn't you work that in to the buddy system? I would think another aspect of the buddy system is what to do if you're lost. I'm in agreement with you and others that a big does of "danger" right up front could spoil the enjoyment. If you can work your discussion in to some fun hands on activities then that will give them some context and something else to focus on besides wild imaginings of bears and snakes or whatever else they might conjur up. Have fun! Lisa'bob

touche, purcelce, lol. Lisa'bob (I don't know why but our troop is not big on class b)

Eaglebeader, that might be true in your area. It is not in mine. I know that our council does run background checks on each and every registered volunteer. I also know that it has turned up some surprising results on occasion. I know this as a direct result of having been involved with a unit that had some problems with potential volunteers. As to whether a potential volunteer should be disqualified based on their past record, well that is somewhat of a judgment call, depending on what they did, when, and what happened since then. As my DE has explained it, someone with a traffic ticket 20 years ago isn't in the same category as someone convicted of a felony more recently. With some of the "grey area" cases, there is some discretion that can be applied by both the DE and the unit leaders. I'm not saying that these checks are 100% perfect at identifying people who shouldn't be leaders. They only check for criminal records so if someone has been repeatedly accused, but for whatever reason the case didn't go to court or they've gotten off on technicalities or whatever, then that wouldn't show up. It also doesn't catch people who haven't ever been formally accused, even if they're terrible people. You're right, there's no substitute for being comfortable with your unit's leaders. But I do believe the background checks are logical and at least somewhat effective. at least when they are used as intended. Lisa'bob

Our troop follows this policy: Full Class A for travelling to and from campouts or other events. Once camp has been set up, boys can wear whatever they want (within reason and BSA guidelines). I don't think very many (any?) of them spend much of their camping time in uniform because it is seldom practical to do so. At summer camp: Full Class A for flag ceremonies, dinner, and other special occasions. We encourage Class B for other times at camp and have troop t shirts and sweat shirts for the boys to purchase. Most boys only buy one T shirt though, so they tend not to wear it all the time (one hopes - by the end of the week, yuck!) and wear whatever makes sense the rest of the time, instead. Public service and other outings: Full Class A if it makes sense for the occasion (parades, etc). Troop Meetings: Full Class A We're known (with all the inherent plusses and minuses) as "the uniformed troop" in town. Lisa'bob

Woodbadge IS fun. I admit to being surprised how much fun it really was. But I hesitate to "sell" it that way on a general basis because a lot of adults have already tapped out their "discretionary spending" for scouts and while we all like to have fun, the big question I often hear from people who have been heavily recruited in this way is "yeah, but is it WORTH it?" To which, of course, my answer is YES IT IS, followed by specific examples of how it helped me and my unit, and how it might help them and their unit. And it is fun, besides. Lisa'bob

SpongeBob, There's something to be said for being proactive. It might not be a bad thing to start thinking about what kinds of groups in your town might be willing to pick up your pack, particularly if the American Legion and VFW aren't in a position to help you. Around here, most packs are chartered either by PTOs or by religious institutions (which does not necessarily mean the packs themselves reflect any particular religious belief - but this depends a bit on the religious institution). Other service clubs (Lions, Elks etc.) have also sponsored units in the past around here. John's right about contacting your district leadership ASAP about this. You may also want to bring this to the attention of the district membership chair who, along with your district's professional staff (District Exec. or Director) have the responsibility of helping faltering units maintain their charters (or find new charter partners) and starting up new units. These people may have insights into who in your area might be able and willing to become a new charter partner for your pack in case things do fall through with your current charter org. I hope training goes well for you. Pack cultures and dynamics can change pretty quickly so although you've described yours as "very casual" it doesn't take a lot to get things up to speed in terms of program - just a few adult leaders who are willing, and that starts out with training, so keep it up. Lisa'bob

SpongeBob, welcome to the group. I guess you might find it helpful to contact your district advancement chair and ask him or her for a clear interpretation. I don't have a copy of the current cub leader handbook to reference, but if Lucky Red Lion is correct and it does indeed say that on pgs 19-6 and 19-7, then that would certainly be something to point out to your committee and the district adv. chair too, in your quest for a clear explanation. The following is a quote from the "Tiger Cub History" section of one of my favorite Cubbing websites, the Virtual Cub Leader's Handbook. While not an official BSA site, it is highly reliable and a good starting point for locating additional information about the cubbing program. (Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been updated to include the forthcoming Tiger changes yet - but note that the change re: when the Bobcat may be earned is listed as having taken place in 2001.) "During the first 18 years of the Tiger Cubs program the BSA received ample feedback regarding the successes and shortcomings of "Tiger Cubs - BSA." Then, in May of 2001 the BSA announced vast changes to the Tiger Cubs - BSA program. Highlights of the new Tiger Cub program include: "Tiger Cub" is now a Cub Scout rank. Tiger Cubs can complete the Bobcat requirements before leaving first grade. ..." And here's the URL for that page: http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/tc-history.html And for the homepage of the Virtual Cub Leader's Handbook http://www.geocities.com/~pack215/home.html

CNY, same thing is happening here with regard to summer camp and word is that basic training will become mandatory in the not-too-distant future, as a condition of getting unit insurance. Which irritates the heck out of me only because my district charges a pretty large "registration fee" for all of the basic training sessions (usually between $15-$30/person) in comparison to others in the region, and then frequently delivers a lousy product. Or at any rate, that was my experience as a new cub leader a few years back and again last week for troop committee training, so I see a pattern here. Grrrrr. I'm not opposed to the idea of requiring registration and training. Actually I like it. If people are going to be spending a significant amount of time with my kid, I want to be sure they're not sickos and that they know what the rules are. But it had better be done well if that's the route we're taking or we're going to end up causing ourselves more problems than we'll solve as an organization. Lisa'bob

Oh and I'm not so sure that BL needs to go to an online format. Part of the fun (at least for the younger guys) is getting something in the mail. Plus I really don't need more competition for computer time! Lisa'bob

My son enjoys reading Boy's Life, always has. But I agree that it would benefit from more focus on scouting skills. And I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to read that too. Lisa'bob

Thinking about my training experiences, both with cubs and now with the troop, here's my observation. I'm curious to know whether others have had the same kind of experience? Basic Leader Training is the session the most folks attend. It is also the most poorly run. Wrong information, poor planning, poor delivery, failure to stick to the course syllabus, etc.. The next level of training is better. I've done BALOO and OLS. They were decent, informative, well planned and delivered, clearly and immediately relevant, and even fun. There's a whole lot of planning and work that goes into putting on these courses and it shows because they're worth while at the end of the day. Not as many people will take these courses than the Basic Training though. Woodbadge was absolutely worth while, no doubts about it. I can't say enough good things about it. The preparation and work that goes into putting a WB course together is enormous and the staff is extremely dedicated and knowledgeable. Relatively few people will experience WB though. Problem is, we put the most time and effort into running excellent upper-level training courses, but the majority of leaders who have a lousy experience with basic leader training are never going to walk through that door again (at least, not willingingly). They're lost to us after their first and only training experience. We have got to focus, therefore, on providing basic level courses that are every bit as excellent and timely as the upper level courses. I'm at a loss as to why we don't seem to be doing that??? In my professional life I teach undergraduate college students. Some of my classes are introductory level sections, often with 100 or more students. Others are small upper-level seminars. I love my job and all my classes but I'll be honest, I put the most effort into keeping my freshman-level intro classes, which I teach every single semester, fun, engaging, and relevant. If we fail to excite students there, we won't have enough upper division students to justify teaching those upper-level seminars and then I might be out of a job to boot. Seems like the same logic should be applied to BSA training. I'd like to think this is just a weird element of my own council but I rather doubt it. Tell me, does the above description fit your experiences? (I hope not...) And how do I get the "veteran" folks who run our training and aren't open to new ideas, new people, or feedback, to see the light? Lisa'bob

gwd, I guess there were three things about WB that I found extremely useful. Given your background, you might find that certain of these are more, or less, important to you. But here they are anyway. 1. Networking, networking, networking. I took the course 3 years ago and I continue to rely on the folks from our course today for ideas, resources, skills, and shoulders to lean on. They do the same with me and with our other fellow WB'ers. It has been invaluable as a resource to me in that sense. And this is true even though I knew a lot of people in the district prior to attending WB. 2. WB helps you figure out how to build a vision and get buy-in from the other people in your unit. And that's so important to someone who is struggling to re-build a unit (as you've described your own role within your troop). I signed up for WB for exactly this reason, as I was engaged in rebuilding a pack, along with the pack CM, who also took WB at the same time. Our combined experience with the course helped us immensely in our attempts to rebuild the pack. 3. The ticket items. They're really all about improving your own unit (and perhaps yourself using scouting as a venue, depending on how you structure them - which is a personal choice). I focused my ticket on things that I knew the pack needed, that I could help them get going with, and that would help develop a sense of shared ownership and mission within the pack. Some of these things, I might've done on my own anyway, but the process of drafting and revising the ticket, in consultation with other highly dedicated and competent people, was very helpful and certainly improved my motivation and perseverence. And the process of writing and explaining my ticket to others in the pack gave me many opportunities to work on building that shared vision - opportunities that might not have been there otherwise. I don't know if now is the right time for you to take WB or not. I do know it was by far the best training experience I've had within the BSA and I highly recommend it. (and I paid most of my costs out of pocket too and was pretty sceptical about it, going in.) Lisa'bob