LongHaul

Merlyn,

I use the term because the Post-Register, which exposed the BSA's complicity and attempt to seal the court records, used the term 'pedophile'.

OH! So if I find a reference in print that equates atheism with what ever action or trait specified further use of that reference is totally justified because hey it was in print.

If you're trying to improve current policies, yes, you DO need to know how well the OLD policies worked in order to measure if the NEW policies make the situation worse, better, or the same. Old data would also be useful for other kinds of analysis, like whether there are specific councils that are especially bad (or good). You know, having INFORMATION on a problem REALLY HELPS.

Yes data helps but it should not be essential to completion of the task. YOU ASSUME that information on how well the old policies worked was not given to the committee because the BSA refuses to give even their own committee their internal data. I do not need to tell you who, what, where and when to have you tell me where the system broke down. When I approach the PLC and tell them to examine their provision for checks and balance in signing off requirements I should not have to tell them which scouts performance precipitated this request. I should not have to sight example and designate individual patrols to address an issue. You seem to be suggesting that the committee asked to review BSA child molestation practices was kept unaware of the fact that child molestation had already occurred within BSA.

Well, if people hear "human being" and think "POSSIBLE child molester", I can't really argue against that, but that's no reason to bar all human beings from scouting, either.

Yet you defend you use of pedophile as just what I read. Unless you declare yourself an atheist how can anyone declare you to be an atheist? Unless a person declares their sexual preference how can anyone declare it for them? I can ASSUME what ever I want based on my own prejudice and how I allow that prejudice to affect my interpretation of someone elses actions but it does not change the facts. When I said you equate pedophile with child molester you say you did not but add But even if I did, that does not make equating one group with another a valid method of argumentation. However the failure to correct such a connection between words in your references is a valid method of argumentation?

Actually, I should have pointed out that the catholic church criminally shielded BOTH pedophiles and child molesters; thanks for the correction.

Again I ask where is it documented that any defendant declared themselves to be a pedophile? You want to talk about specifics and yet knowingly use terms inaccurately for shock value. Charging a person with a crime, convicting a person of a crime and that person actually committing a crime are three separate things.

Ah, I see. It's much more important that I make "proper" arguments than to address the molestation problems of the BSA.

That is exactly the point you are not addressing the molestation problems you are addressing the BSAs handling of these problems. You focus is on the BSA and not on the molestation.

So far, I'm the only one taking the BSA to task for my points 1, 2, and 4. You've shown no interest in anything except getting back at me.

And you have shown no interest in anything except to get back at BSA for excluding you. Point 1 is your assumption as what BSA did and why. Point 2 again is an assumption on your part as to what was provided the committee and what was not. And point 4 is simply an attempt at guilt by association. Why should your opinion interest me when mine does not interest you?

LH

Kudu you assume a lot! Serving in a position of responsibly to the satisfaction of my Scoutmaster was a requirement 47 years ago so saying it is intended to serve the new leadership focused training is ridiculous. Considering the PL as holding a position of responsibility exactly the same as the Scribe is holding a position of responsibility in NO way affects or effects the training each is given. Just because I train scouts in the general skills and traits of leadership does not mean I do not train my PLs to be PLs. Are you saying that in your unit the PL is the only leader that is job specific trained? If this is a boy-led PATROL METHOD organization how am I as SM supposed to control who the PATROL elects as their PL? How does requiring each scout to perform in a POR stop an individual scout from being elected PL? Saying that the patrol should be under the strongest leader seems to imply that someone other than the patrol members identify and empower this person. Or is it your position that the "strongest leader" is the one that manages to be re elected?

LH

Meryln,

Why must you continually equate pedophilia with child molestation? All child molesters are not pedophiles and all pedophiles are not child molesters. You object strongly to the equating of homosexuality with pedophilia even though they are both sexual preferences which by current belief are genetic in nature and beyond the control of the person in question. You hear pedophile and you think child molester but rebuke those that hear homosexual Scout leader and think POSSIBLE child molester.

You list 4 things seemingly specific to BSA in reference to child molestation cases within the organization. In the first you use the term pedophile for its shock value even though those facts are not in evidence. You state as fact that the reason the BSA sought to seal the records was to protect the molester again facts not in evidence. In point 2 you claim that numbers and details are important in an examination of practice. Before I can examine whether a program is working I must first determine exactly how many failures there have been? Not providing numbers and details to a group or examiners should not stop them from examining. Should the conclusion be that everything is fine and those cases of failure are still kept secret then there would be room to question the purpose of the original investigation but determining motive? In Point 3 you talk about equating one group necessarily with another yet you are guilty of this same practice as I have pointed out. In Point 4 you demonstrate the equating one group with another for shock value by using the word pedophile where child molester would be appropriate.

Physician heal thyself. Look at your prejudices before you attack others for theirs.

At least try not to seem as though having something to trash BSA with is the important part of this issue even though you show no concern for the youth involved here.

LH

I can't speak for the old boys in your council/district/area but I don't remember anyone in this thread or the others on the WB subject recently saying that those who took WB after 2001 are not as good, qualified,or worthy as those who took it pre-change. Most of the pre-change people that complain about WB21C just rue the loss of the old course. In the 70's I was told I would never really be a SM until I was invited to take WB. WB in my area back then was by invitation only. In the 90's I was told that if I wasn't WB then I was not doing justice to my unit. Now I'm told that even though I took WB, because it was not the new WB21C I'm not as good of a leader as I could be. Somethings never change. You say you will never be part of the Brotherhood. If you completed WB21C then you are part of the New Brotherhood but it sounds like you want to be part of the OLD Brotherhood. You sound like you think it should be one Brotherhood except that the Old Brotherhood is not welcome in the New Brotherhood as equals we have to give up our beads and start over if we want to be part of your Brotherhood. If the good old boy old course was so bad why would anyone today want to be associated with it and the name it made noteworthy?

LH

So in the spirit of inclusiveness why not include everyone. You get your beads as soon as you become a trained leader. All trained leaders would be recognized the same, no more knots, no more DAM or SB. How would that sit with you AvidSM?

LH

AvidSM practically makes my point! The beads and woggle and neckerchief are important. The recognition of the name WoodBadge are important. It seems that the only thing that is not important it the fact that ALL the importance that is associated with the beads and woggle and neckerchief came from the OLD course. Powderhorn didn't need to rely on the WoodBadge name, woggle,beads, or neckerchief when it began in 1999. National knew it would get Venturing leaders to take the training even if they had take WB. Sea Badge training, started in 1970 by the way long before the corporate fad frenzy, didn't need to capitalize on the fame of an unrelated course. It was never promoted as a replacement or substitute for WB.

If I bought General Mills and started putting Cheerios in Raisin Bran Boxes would that make them Raisin Bran? Promoting the product as Raisin Bran and delivering Cheerios makes things like "bait and switch" "deceptive marketing" "false advertising" come to mind. What does not come to mind is Loyalty.

As for what the WB21C grads should wear, design something just like WB did in the beginning, just like Sea Badge did in the beginning, just like Powderhorn did in the beginning, why try to be associated with a course that is obsolete?

"Why does it need to be called WoodBadge?"

LH(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

>>Being able to transition them from parent guided and adult-led to self-directing seems to be a vital soft skill for a Scouter.<<

Yes!,and that Scouter would be the Webelos Den Leader NOT the Scoutmaster. The New Scout program how ever it is approached is NOT supposed to be a Webelos III program.

 >>Understanding Cubbing also allows the Boy Scout program Scouter to give better reachback to area Packs, which in turn helps recruitment.<<

 Which is exactly why a solid and effective Webelos Transition Program is necessary in every Council, District, Boy Scout and Cub Scout unit.

Why does this NEW course have to be at the expense of the OLD course?

"Why does it need to be called WoodBadge?"

LongHaul

OGE began this thread with; >>OK, from the thread on What WoodBadge is supposed to be I have a few conclusions. Many posters want to see WoodBadge be a much more Outdoor skill course. If that was/is the intent, then it may be best to allow WoodBadge to morph off into such a program.<<

morph off into? How about return to? For 90 some years it was a more Outdoor skill course when compared to the present version. What about the rest of us? For 90 some years the Scouting program flourished with a course that didn't focus on "the rest of us". Kudu asked the question "Why call it WoodBadge" but it went totally ignored. For 90 some years WoodBadge courses were run across the country and they built a reputation. It was the reputation of the OLD course which the NEW course needed to even get off the ground. The NEW course needed to eliminate the OLD course before it could be launched. This NEW course is WoodBadge in name only, those so intent on defending it want the prestige and recognition of WoodBadge a prestige and recognition that has nothing to do with the NEW course. How about putting WoodBadge back the way it was for 90 some years and 'morphing off' a new course. Call it ULT Ultimate Leadership Training market it as the pinnacle of Leadership Training for Life. Develop some form of neck wear that would herald the wearer as and Ultimate Trained Leader. Why not, because National knew full well they could not compete with WoodBadge so they had to eliminate the competition but kept the prestige and reputation of the name.

 There is absolutely nothing wrong with the NEW course in fact it fills a much needed training void but it also created a void which the old course had filled. If this new course is so great why does it NEED to be called WoodBadge to survive?

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

Rather than looking for someone to suggest a project try sitting down and asking yourself what you care about. What stirs a passionate response within you? What would you like to change in your community? Who would you like to help or who do you think needs help most? While there are many things you can do that will make a difference and be of value, ask yourself this; What will make a difference to me?

LH

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

I too would like to do away with advancement but for the opposite reasons from Eamonn. I want to get rid of those that are interested only in advancement. Notice I say advancement but not necessarily skill acquisition or growth. These are the boys, and parents, that are interested only in making Eagle. They look to get past Personal Management early so the budget and record keeping can be all zeros. Bobby does not handle money. Camping is done in the back yard. Where does it say the tent has to be pitched outside? Acquisition of scouting skills, cooking, camping, hiking, are viewed as necessary evils. Merit Badge Clinics, Midways, Colleges and GiveaWays are seen as the answer to everything. They have the DAC and CAC on speed dial and can quote the ACPP flawlessly. Loose the advancement and I loose half my problem. The other half is those boys that think merit badges are silly. This is not a camping club, this is not a boys club, and this is not an adult supervised play date program. If these boys are not interested in personal growth thru the outdoor program and merit badge program then Im not interested in providing them with my time. Send me the boys that want to be Boy Scouts and all that entails.

LH

Anyone that is familiar with the current Leadership/Team Building seminar training will tell you it is designed to be delivered to the group not individual members of a group. Corporations don't send one person to this training and intend for them to come back and implement it in their business. For this type of training to work at the unit level we would need groups from each unit to take this training. If we could get groups of adults in each unit to be willing to pony up the cash and the time to take this training we would not need the training because these people would already be working as a team after position specific training.

When a person furthers their education and goes for a Masters Degree would they be taking team building and leadership training or would they be looking to hone and develop their knowledge within their specialty? I think this new course should be given it's own name and be presented as the PHD level, if you will, and put back the outdoor, program centered, Boy Scout or Cub Scout(yes there was a WB for Cub Scouts at one time) based refinement of basic skills course. Basic training should be followed by Advanced training in your program area. We need an Advanced Outdoor Program and Leadership Skills course. We need the old WB and the new WB not one or the other because they focus on different aspects of the program.

LH

 Old Course Participant

Beavah's statement that these new requirements were not well thought out made me smile as I think most advancement changes are not well thought out. Some are just not as bad a others, laws of chance say you gotta be right sometimes whether you planned it that way or not. What really got me LOL was the DARE reference. The DARE program in our school district gave out thousands of pencils with DON'T DO DRUGS printed on the side so that which ever way the pencil was laying on a desk or table the face pointing up would have the slogan. Problem was they spaced the breaks between words so the slogan took up the entire length of the pencil, DRUGS being at the eraser end. After several sharpenings ( which occurred almost immediately) all the pencils proudly proclaimed: DO DRUGS

LH

Why isn't this part explained as well as the others? >> The second part of the review is the Board Of Review. If all the other steps have been met correctly, by the time a Scout gets to the BOR there should be no question if the Scout is ready or not. Ready or not for what? The BOR itself? Advancement? If it does become clear that something is not working? This needs to be taken up with the Scoutmaster. After all he or She has by sending the Scout to the BOR said that the Scout is ready to advance. Then why do we need a BOR that results in the SCOUT advancing or not advancing. Why not a BOR that results in the boy advancing 100% of the time but the SM and the troop program facing consequences? Again this is a time when the program offered by the Troop can be looked at and feedback can be given to the SM. It again is a time for the Scout to demonstrate his understanding of the Scout Law and Oath and make plans for the future. The word "again" in the preceding statement would indicate that we can indeed ask a boy to repeat tasks already completed.  Some of these plans might be within Scouting and some might have to do with interests outside of Scouting.

Any of us that have been around long enough to actually care about this topic know full well what you are trying to say and I wish it were that simple but the truth is it's not. It's not because MBCs don't always do their job, it's not because Parents don't always allow SMs to do their jobs, it's not because some people, National included, are more interested in NOT offending someone than in setting a standard of excellence. It's not that simple because it's left ambiguous so that everyone has negotiating room.

LH

Hunt,

    Your opinion is based on your interpretation of the word test. You also go on to single out "skills". >> I am amazed the lengths to which folks will go, and the knots they will tie themselves in, to justify continuing to test skills at BORs. If you disagree with BSA, and think that retesting is good, that's one thing. But requiring a boy to demonstrate skills and saying it's not "really" a test is something else.<<  So am I to believe that testing skills is a no no but continual retesting knowledge of the Oath and Law are all right? or is it OK so long as we reword the question each time? National uses terms that can be interpreted differently, "test","earn", they compound this with publications and forms that confuse. The advancement form from National says >> "I certify that the following record of advancement is correct and that it meets the standards and requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, and that merit badge counselors are registered adult members of the BSA."<< The ACPP says that the BOR should have the following objectives in mind when they conduct the review. The first of these being "To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rank." And if he didn't do what he was supposed to do? If he obtained a signed merit badge application or certification improperly? We can't ask him to do it over, we can't invalidate a registered MBC's certification. The handbook says this boy has demonstrated tying the bowline and described several ways it could be used but now he doesn't even know what a bowline is let alone what to do with it. "Bowline? Oh no I don't have Archery Merit Badge." Can't tell him to redo work already completed. Too many catch 22s. You say >> If you disagree with BSA, and think that retesting is good, that's one thing. But requiring a boy to demonstrate skills and saying it's not "really" a test is something else. << I can't tell if I disagree with BSA because BSA won' t let itself be pinned down to actually saying something definitive about this. AS for your last sentence should we take that to mean you do not believe proper communication skills are just that skills? When we sit for 30 minutes talking with this boy are we not actually requiring him to demonstrate his communication skills? We use different words like they are interchangeable then balk when someone does not agree we our understanding of a word. I've stated how I interpret "test" it's a pass/fail designation, but because you don't agree, I'm wrong, your right and you claim BSA supports you..except that it's not written anywhere except in the terms over which we have a disagreement of meaning, that disagreement being why I'm wrong and your right.  Kinda reminds me of the definition of pornography being "I know it when I see it."

LH

Look thru some of these, http://kudu.net/outdoor/skills/index.htm

>>Per the National Website (scouting.org) a Board of Review is how the troop committee (or the Eagle Scout board of review) tracks the progress of a Scout to determine his understanding of the ideals of Scouting and how he applies them in daily life in the troop.<<

 All in the space of 30 minutes. These guys need to hire themselves out to screen job applicants for the government.

wingnut that is what the SM conference is for IMO.

>>"What does A Scout is Loyal mean?" Nope can't ask that. "Why?" Asked him that for Tenderfoot. "What does A Scout is Loyal mean TO YOU?" Let's see we asked him to explain that in his own words for Tenderfoot but I guess the spin would work. >>Tossing a lad a length of line in a BOR and asking him to tie a bowline is a test, and should not be done in a BOR.<< Says you but National leaves it as no retest so I can spin the knot tying just like you can spin the Law meanings. I don't care if he can tie the cotton picking knot I want to see how he handles the challenge. I want to see if he tells me I can't ask him to do that.

 >> The BOR is an evaluation - but is an evaluation of the attitude, satisfaction, momentum and motivation of a scout.<< So the SM signing off on Scout Spirit means nothing more that the ink it took to initial the box because the BOR is going have to pass me off yet again on Scout Spirit based on my attitude. Attitude toward what? What the people on the BOR think you should be thinking of course. Prepare for that why don't you. Your satisfaction with Scouting so if your not having a good time don't let it show or you won't advance. They will look at your momentum and motivation so if your stalled because we don't have much of an outdoor program or your loosing interest because this is a dad and lad camping club more than anything else, don't let it show. Cuz you won't advance.

So far all I can tell is "test" is what ever the person posting says it is.

We can ask the scout to answer the same questions over and over and expect different answers. We can tell him that having his SM attest to his abilities and performance is fine except for Spirit. The BOR determines Spirit even when they have never seen this Scout before in their lives. When I'm asked to decide if a Scout fits my expectations of something I will ask him to do or answer what ever I feel I need to make that decision. So long as my decision is on his fitness for advancement and not his ability to perform I don't see a problem.

 LH

Over and over we talk about No retesting how a BOR is not supposed to be a retest. When I look up the word test I find this;

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

test1 tɛst - Show Spelled Pronunciation[test] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

noun

1. the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.

2. the trial of the quality of something: to put to the test.

3. a particular process or method for trying or assessing.

4. a set of questions, problems, or the like, used as a means of evaluating the abilities, aptitudes, skills, or performance of an individual or group; examination.

This sounds exactly like what a BOR is particularly number 4. Lets think for a minute what comes to mind when we use the word test. What I think of is a pass/fail situation. Now I know that a BOR is not a pass/fail situation it is an advance/not advance situation. 

Some hold that if a boy cooks a meal for rank it should count for MB work and visa versa, if he sleeps in a tent he can get credit for Tenderfoot and Second Class and Camping MB and OA eligibility but every time he wants to advance he must clear the Scout Spirit hurdle. When I was a scout First Aid MB was a requirement for Life as well as Eagle but we were not expected to earn it twice.

If Im sitting on a BOR and I toss a scout a length of line and ask him to tie a bowline and he cant but I still vote to advance was the request a test? Memorizing the Oath and Law is required for Tenderfoot yet almost every BOR includes some form of revisitation of the Oath and Law. How is tying a knot a test but explaining what a Scout is Loyal means to you not a test?

LH

>>If one of the requirements is that he earns 4 merit badges, one of which must be an Eagle required merit badge, then the Scoutmasters task is to check to see that the scout has earned 4 merit badges and that one of them is Eagle required. << Exactly my point and the topic of this thread when is the badge considered earned. Define earned. As I posted is earned defined as obtain accreditation by any means?

 LH

Its Me, actually while some of us may indeed be Man Scouts forums such as this don't provide enough audience or "center stage" for my idea of a Man Scout. They need control and power, while they can dazzle 'em with their brilliance and baffle 'em with their BS here they can't control, they can't stop opposition. In my experience Man Scouts don't respond well to people telling them they are wrong in public. They tend to avoid opposition.

LH

Actually there is no requirement that I can find that says a Venturer must remain dual registered to attain Eagle. Page 5 of the 2006 requirements book (2007 being in the truck of my car right now) says that the SM conference will be conducted by the Advisor or Skipper which also leads me to believe that dual registration is not required. LH

OK, before I begin round two let me say that your #2 is exactly what I did with 3 boys who earned First Aid MB in a manner such as the one I described. I was promptly called in front of the TC by the CC for exposing these poor boys to shame and embarrassment. These poor boys should not be held responsible for the lack of QC on the part of council. These poor boys attended the "class" in good faith and did exactly what they wee asked to do. Blah Blah Blah. One of these guys actually got to the point that all he needed was an Eagle project but neither he nor his mom could figure how go get credit without actually doing the work before he aged out.

On to round 2;  So, when we get to the part that it is a SMs job "To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rank" we conclude that what a Scout is supposed to do is obtain by what ever means accreditation for completing certain tasks not necessarily doing those tasks? Same being said for the BOR?

LH

Female Eagle Scouts? IMO you'll see gay, atheist, sex offender SMs first. LH

Beavah has presented a progression which kinda says we learn right and wrong as children and then refine those definitions as we grow older or wiser. As children we learn right from wrong from those older than us and they from those older than they. Going all the way back to who decided right from wrong in the first place?

Trev spoke about the evolution of attitudes. The validity of the belief not withstanding can we agree that our basic attitude of right and wrong originated in religious trainings long long ago in a place far far away? Taking the evolution of attitude to the extreme, eventually the majority of peoples will be atheistic. The seeds of right and wrong were sown long before we decided there actually is no GOD. These basic rights and wrongs were the product of fear of reprisal from some GOD. If some "entity" was to descend upon us with absolute proof that their race started the life cycle on earth would right and wrong change? They come down and say look we got proof, pick a religious figure and we'll show you the DVD on what really happened. There is no GOD never was a GOD. Will right and wrong change? Does right and wrong hinge on a fear of reprisal more than acceptance of principle?

 LH

Welcome cseltenright,

       My original post in this thread was a little jumbled as I was trying to think and type at the same time, not being female I don't multitask well. Originally I wanted to know if anyone knew whether females were allowed to earn merit badges. Male Venturers are indeed allowed to earn Boy Scout merit badges and those who had obtained the rank of First Class while registered in a Boy Scout troop could attain the rank of Eagle if they chose. Since starting this thread I have come to find out that the merit badge program is considered by National as part of the Boy Scout Advancement Program and therefore not available to female Venturers. Whether a counselor or council summer camp program would allow a female to participate in the learning experience without expectation of "earning" the badge is and individual or council decision.

LH