Gone

LOl, this discussion is FAR less "intimidating" than the religion/evolution one.

And you know for sure some magical (supernatural) being didn't? Just curious. If you don't know the answer, then saying your don't know is perfectly valid.

You said there was an "intimidating discussion" going on. I was curious as to what you were referring to, hence the question. It would help if you quoted those discussions you thought were intimidating.

They did in 1974. During the April outbreak that year a monster went through where I lived (3 miles away) and hit dead center of the closest town. Our troop mobilized and helped direct traffic and run the shelter for those made homeless. The lawyers have made this experience something boys today could not participate in. Very sad.

So you are insinuating that I am doing this with @@Sentinel947 because he espouses an opinion devoid of experience? If so, I go back to my climbing analogy. Or let me make it easier: Who's opinion about space would be more valid: Neil Armstrong's or someone who watched a few episodes of Cosmos? I have opinions about stuff I have no experience with, but I would not profess to know more than someone who has a wealth of experience in that area. That's not intimidation. Please.

Agreed on all counts. However, there are times where our opinions -- while well meaning as they may be -- have no basis. It is difficult, if not darn near impossible, to have an opinion about something without direct experience. When confronted with that experience we may reshape our opinion. But an opinion based on no direct experience is one that does not carry much weight. If you were an expert mountain climber, and I took a few indoor climbing classes, would you give my opinion on how to climb K2 much weight? Sure, I have an opinion but it is not an informed one based on experience. If I had climbed K2 once or twice you'd probably taken my opinion with more weight. Sure the discourse should be civil and respectful, but that does not mean because we disagree that my opinion based on no experience is correct.

So all that "stuff" that was created out of nothingness just happened? That's like saying the egg just showed up one day. If that's not magic I don't know what is. That's the scientific equivalent of alchemy.

Well said @@Stosh. As part of our TLT we teach our boys the "Sandwich Principle" for giving constructive advice: Give an example of something good the scout has done, discuss the "area for development" or criticism you need to discuss with the scout, and close with another example of something good the scout is doing or has done. We have found this has been a good tool to teach scouts (and some adults) on how to give criticism or discuss areas of development.

I am not saying your are (or have) done this, but there are also those who can use eloquent language and high-brow humor and intellect to do the very same without the person in question knowing he's ever been insulted or belittled. George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde were very good at this. There's a famous Monty Python skit to this effect. [Note: Semi non-Scouting content in the link]

Moisture, quality foil, proper heat and rotation are the key to non-burnt foil dinners. Just like you wouldn't just toss your DO on any old fire, foil dinners aren't just tossed in the coals. Move coals off to the side of the pit and check temp remove until about 300F and the put dinners on top. Rotate after a few mins depending on what you're cooking. Similar rules to outdoor grilling for whatever you're cooking. Done!

Lulz, yeah I was going for the clean cut kid who was more likely to be a Boy Scout but still rebelled a bit. Eddie Haskell is more likely a better representation of most Scouts though.

It's hard to have an opinion on something you've never experienced. I've never been to China so I can only talk about what I've read and seen on TV. I *have* been to Japan many, many times. I've lived there and spent many years there I CAN have a detailed opinion about that. Having been a teenager allows you to speak with authority on BEING a teenager. It does not, however, give you the same insight as to what it's like to raise them. Anyone without kids will continue to think they're right...until they have kids. Then they'll get the picture. I knows it's tough for you to see it at this age but them's the facts. No need to agree. Anyone with kids knows what I mean.

Wearing a moose hat on a table in front of 400 people while being sung Happy Birthday would not be considered positive by many people. You see, it is all in the delivery. Any action can be slightly adjusted to have either positive or negative outcomes. It is all in HOW it is done.

@@Sentinel947, Being a teenager and being around teenagers is NOT the same as being a parent and having first hand insight in to how rebellious a child is. Your perspective is that of a recent former teenager, that doesn't make you an expert on kids or teenagers. Sorry, but that's another thing that sucks about being young...you simply don't have the harsh marks or tours of duty to know what you're talking about in some cases. Call me when you have kids and put in the sweat equity....but wait about 6 years and enjoy being young. I've seen scouts challenge a group. I EXPECT scouts to challenge ANYTHING that goes against the Law and Oath...anywhere. That is why we are in Scouting. We are NOT the same as those people who follow the crowd. We tell our Scouts all the time to be that person who stands up for the kid being picked on, be the person that refuses to let someone cheat off your paper even if it means being shunned, help that person on the corner who dropped their groceries while others walk by, be that person who picks up that piece of garbage in the park that several folks walked by. How you do things has a huge impact on whether someone experiences it as embarrassment or harassment.

No offense, but how would you know? I know kids that are regular "Richie Cunninghams" at Scouts, but talk to their parents and they'd tell you the kid is a back-talking, rule-breaking putz 50% of the time at home. Children very much *do* challenge authority a great deal. It is part of growing up and finding yourself. There's a great deal observed and learned in being a parent that those without kids will never, ever learn. This knowledge can only come with having kids and being that close to them as the grow and learn in a family environment. Sorry, but that's a fact.

Intent is only part of the equation. I think any reasonable person would agree that ANY action intended to cause embarrassment and humiliation is wrong. Those who cannot see that will be blind to any other such argument. HOWEVER, as we have seen, there are other well-meaning things done in Scouting (hat removal, OA tap outs, and even I would argue singing for lost stuff) that causes unintended embarrassment. The intent, if you ask the scouts, is not to embarrass people. We asked our scouts this question recently and the answers we got we "tradition", "because" and "because it's fun" (note they didn't say "funny" but "fun"). So you cannot always apply your interpretation of "intent" to a situation. There are unintended results from well-intended actions; the results can be the same those intending to embarrass.

Hmmm. "Most of the time"? My experience has been different. It is usually a group of people who feel entitled to belittle and bully people. As individuals they may be lonely and have low self-worth, but I have found they usually band together and go on their tirade that way. Strength in numbers.

We also instituted pack-level training on how the pack operates. Also DL training that filled the holes the BSA training left. Huge helps.' However, this only works if those who follow continue the tradition.

Seems this one is on the market too,

@ Stosh, I am surprised someone hasn't worked in singing for your dessert yet.

So I suspect you missed this quote then: "The study, led by Professor Dieter Wolke from the University of Warwick, UK, is the first of its kind to directly compare the effects of maltreatment (by adults) and peer bullying in childhood on mental health outcomes (ie, anxiety, depression, self-harm, suicidal tendencies) in young adulthood." Something that is the first of its kind usually means that there are no other similar studies to corroborate the findings. For all we know the study size may be too small. The devil is in the details. Now don't make the leap from my comment to think I condone bullying (as I suspect some might). I just am skeptical when I see studies that are the first of their kind until we see additional studies that have similar findings. Ironcially, Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said: "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." -- Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". MJA 172 (4): 148–9.

I was in a pack that kept an electronic folder of meeting plans over a period of several years. They all followed the Program Helps format and had games, skills and crafts complete with equipment lists. Used gear was kept in the CO so we had a stockpile of some things. When we became leaders we kept that tradition going and passed it on to those after us. This may help new leaders become more engaged and feel less hopeless or need to fall back on adult-style presentations.

To link two threads: We should probably wait until science has peer reviewed this study or there have been many more such studies in order to corroborate the findings.

Lecture classes for Cubs? That's where the boredom reputation comes from. Cubs should never be about lectures.

Try this thread and this thread. There were several great ideas and recipes in those threads. I am sure @@Stosh (aka, Mr. Dutch Oven) knows where a few other such threads are buried around here.