NJCubScouter

Re: Merlyn, I agree with what Packsaddle says. I would add that when Merlyn is discussing First Amendment law, I believe he is correct about what the law is, at least 99 percent of the time. When he makes a factual statement, it is generally correct. As for his opinions, sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree. He often uses a "tone" that I think is inappropriate, and he insults people when he should stick to the actual issue, and his motivations are sometimes questionable -- but he is not alone in this forum, in any of those things.

I don't think "we" (meaning the public) really know whether the boy decided to quit when his mother was kicked out or whether she pulled him out of the pack. But of course, in this forum, if there is an absence of complete facts, it is customary to make up one's own.

This thread was brought to you by the letter Ahhhhrrrrr... One year my son decided to play a little trick on me on Talk Like a Pirate Day, which I did not know existed up till that point. Got home from work, ate dinner, went on the Internet to check some things (with my son paying more attention to what I was doing than usual, though I didn't realize it at the time), and suddenly every web site was in pirate language. It took me a little while before I figured out that this was not the Internet's doing, but my son's. (Apparently there is some browser add-in which makes your computer "talk" like a pirate, in other words my son installed what I would basically call a virus on our computer, but it was easily turned off.) There is more than one reason why I am happy he is now in college.

Anyone who thinks the moderators in this forum do their jobs with too heavy a hand needs to get out more... meaning, out on the Internet more. It is a nasty virtual place out there, from which this is a relatively sheltered, tranquil oasis. Of course, that's a bit of an exaggeration, since things do tend to get heated in Issues and Politics, but my point is that I would classify this forum as being "lightly moderated." I have seen too many forums where someone (often someone about half the probable age of most of the mods in this forum, or less) gets a title and a few tools to keep things under control, and suddenly they are commander of all they survey, and then there is the inevitable invasion of Russia in wintertime, and it's all downhill from there. As for the thread in question, it was getting out of hand, and I think it was reasonable to do something about it, if only to hide it for awhile so things could cool down, which is what ended up happening.

SMT, I would suggest looking at this outside the context of the "gay issue" and then putting yourself in the place of the den mother who was told that she could no longer be a den leader for what she believed was an invalid reason. (I assume that's the case you are talking about.) So now you have been informed that you can no longer hold whatever position you hold, for what you believe is an invalid reason. It doesn't matter what the reason is, someone might think you're too fat, too skinny, too tall, too short, or maybe a District Commissioner or someone doesn't like the clothes you wear, or your politics, or whatever. To you, it's an invalid reason. Do you go quietly, or do you say something? And why do you use the term "temper tantrum"? As far as I know, this particular former den mother hasn't actually yelled and screamed about the issue. She spoke up about something she thought was unfair. It's ok to do that, the BSA says so in the description of "A Scout is Obedient."

Abel, I am sure SP knew what you were referring to. The point is, there really is no need to bring up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this, especially when you were just speculating. The reality -- at least, the past reality -- is bad enough without that.

Eagle732, if by "from a traditional family" you mean someone who was raised by two heterosexual parents, I am sure most of the speakers at the DNC were from traditional families. Maybe some of those speakers were Eagle Scouts, I don't know.

Pack: Or maybe your students are just very knowledgeable about alcoholic beverages?

We are all in different parts of the country, so this question may be viewed differently by different people. Personally, if its zero degrees (F, not C), and it is a rustic cabin with one little fireplace, I do consider that camping. I have been on a couple of those.

Hey, did anybody else see the "Google doodle" for today? It's an animated, interactive Star Trek thing. Pretty cool.

Fred, I am not in any of those camps, nor am I in either of the camps of which Beavah has written. I will try not to take it personally that nobody seems to want me in their camp. I do believe the requirements are the requirements. I also believe there are times when a common-sense interpretation must be made. I also believe that a Scout who has made an agreement and ignores it has displayed a tenuous grasp of trustworthiness that should be addressed in a BOR under the heading of "Scout Spirit". If you want to find a label to fit all that, be my guest, but I don't see the point.(This message has been edited by Njcubscouter)

Eagledad says: One more story, NJ will point out that I always seem to get to homosexuality in these post. Im not sure that he will understand that to me the immorality of being gay doesnt rise above most other immoralities discussed in this forum. I do understand that. I know people in "real life" who believe the same thing, though not very many any more. But do you understand that I do not believe homosexuality is immoral? That doesn't mean I approve of what the two teenage boys in your story were doing. They were involved in something that they most likely aren't ready for, they may have been risking their lives, they weren't showing respect for themselves or each other. But that would also have been the case if they had been of different genders. And just to try to nudge this back in the direction of Scouting, so what we have here is that you think something is immoral, and therefore it is right to exclude its practitioners from Scouting, while I think that thing is not immoral, and therefore it is immoral to exclude those people. A way exists to accommodate both of those viewpoints, in different units, but you don't support it and the BSA won't do it. That's what I have a problem with.

GKlose, in no circumstances would you owe the Scout an apology. You have expressed exactly the right attitude in a previous post: I do understand your point of view, and I fully realize that the DAC and the EBoR might view this case differently, and I am fine with that. I am not trying to sink this Scout, and if he advances to the EBoR, and passes, I will be happy for him. I will congratulate him. With this history, I am guessing that he will opt out of an ECoH with the troop. I will support him if he decides otherwise. That's all anyone could expect. In fact, some who have posted in this thread seem to be supporting a more "adversarial" attitude. But I think you are right on target. What you and the SM are doing is reasonable, meaning I think that the requirements could be interpreted the way you are interpreting them. If persons with the authority to overrule your decision decide to do just that, so be it. They may interpret the requirements differently than you did. It doesn't necessarily mean you were "wrong", and you have nothing to apologize for. (I have yet to hear a judge apologize to a litigant when the judge's decision has been reversed by a higher court. They probably grumble a little to themselves and maybe to their peers and spouse, and get on with the next thing. I don't think anyone would fault you if you did the same -- well, except for fred.)

bnelon, Thanks. I am aware of what subjects are covered in which books when it comes to advancement. I was not saying the advancement requirements are in the GTA, I know they are not. I was merely drawing an analogy between what appears to be a plan to revise the new GTA after only two years, and the apparent intent to make a major revision to the advancement requirements that would take effect only four or five years after a new Scout Handbook, and concluding that the BSA generally seems to be making revisions too quickly for those of us out here in the hinterlands (i.e. the people who are supposed to actually be administering this process at the ground level) to keep up. It's just my opinion. As for the Boy Scouts Requirements Book being the definitive source for advancement requirements, I know about that too, and I have always had a problem with it and have mentioned that opinion in this forum a couple of times. Our families buy a handbook for their sons, and they generally buy it once. When a new handbook comes out, they generally don't buy it if their son has the old one. The one major exception was when I was a Scout in 1972 and a new handbook came out that was SO different, with the advancement requirements not only changed but completely reorganized, that you really needed the new handbook. (It may be that some Scouts who were already First Class or above got by without the new book; it wasn't an issue for me because my father (who at the time was an ASM and a former and future SM) was a BSA publications fanatic and always bought the new thing as soon as it came out -- and I now have several boxes of books to prove it.) Anyway, so our Scouts have their handbooks, and that is where their requirements are and that is where their requirements are signed off. Very few people have the up-to-date Requirements book. The troop doesn't even have the current version as far as I am aware. I don't have one. When the requirements change we do the best we can to make sure that the boys are following the requirements that are in effect for them for that rank. Troopmaster helps with that somewhat, because the annual updates basically produce an up-to-date checklist of what the Scout needs to do for their next rank, which supersedes what's in the handbook. But in my opinion, it is too confusing and it is unnecessary. I believe the requirements should only be changed between editions of the handbook if there is an "emergency," so that changes in requirements between new editions of the handbook become very rare. What we have instead is different printings of the same edition of the handbook so what looks like the same edition really isn't when it comes to the requirements, and a year or two later even the newest printing may be out of date. And we have different boys working on different versions of the requirements at the same time, because they are generally "grandfathered" for the rank they are working on when the requirements change, except sometimes there is a cutoff date beyond which they are supposed to switch to the new requirements. If you can't tell, this is a pet peeve of mine. Added note: So where do I send that feedback? But I probably wouldn't even bother, because I seem to be swimming against the tide of history.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

So I am going to need to block out 45 minutes to an hour-plus to do this? That's good to know. Um, is there a deadline? And it can't be my 18th birthday, I already let that deadline go by about 35 years ago.

This time I agree with Beavah. There should be no need to come out with a new version of the Guide to Advancement every two years. On the other hand, the BSA seems to be into a rapid revision cycle for things in general. The requirements were revised along with the new handbook about two years ago, and now I have been reading about a major revision of the requirements expected in about three years. (Or was it two?) I wonder if they are also planning a new edition of the handbook at that time, which would be a much shorter interval than usual. And if they make a really major revision of the requirements without a new handbook, that will make a real mess. We had enough problems with kids using the old handbook but having to go by the requirements in the new one. That has mostly worked itself out by the passage of time, the only remaining glitch is the EDGE requirement for Life.

BadenP, you emphasize "13 year old Eagles", but when I read the posts in this forum, the biggest issues seem to concern Scouts whose 18th birthday is looming on the near horizon (or has already finished looming.) The vast majority of the Scouts in my troop who make Eagle make it after their 17th birthday, probably about half in the last six months, and several have gone down right to the wire. That involves its own issues, of course.

Tokala, I could be wrong, but I think that's a different subject from what SeattlePioneer was talking about.

Just wondering, does anyone have anything GOOD to say about the Scouts? You know, those people we are all supposed to be serving?

I guess it depends on whether you believe the advancement requirements are requirements, or just suggestions to be added to or subtracted from at the discretion of unit leadership. I think a lot of these problems and uncertainties could be avoided by simple communication, as IM_Kathy suggests. Leaders should be making clear to the Scouts, if you have a problem, including a problem that is preventing you (or is going to prevent you) from attending regularly (or at all) for some period of time, please let us know. And the Scouts have to do their part, and actually communicate rather than simply vanishing for awhile with nobody knowing why. We have had Scouts come to the Scoutmaster and say they are basically going to be absent for an entire sports season, and the Scoutmaster says fine, thanks for letting me know. That also gives the leaders the opportunity to relieve that Scout of any POR's they may hold for that period of time. And that conversation should also include a discussion of where the Scout stands advancement-wise and should seek an understanding that any relevant time periods are "on hold" during the leave of absence. I also agree with IM_Kathy that after the "season" is over, or before it begins, the Scout should be giving extra attention to Scouting activities and being especially active, though reality doesn't often work out that way.

Barry, I'm sure you're not fat, you're just not tall enough for your weight.

I hate to throw a curve ball in here, but has the Scout actually completed the six months in his POR? I seem to recall one of the earlier posts in the thread saying he was in the process of fulfilling the POR, but I got the impression he had not completed the time. I ask because, if he is asking for signatures on his Eagle application, he must have filled it out, including the part where you have to list the dates of your POR's as well as the date of your Life BOR, and if there aren't six months of POR's after that date, the Scout has yet another problem.

Packsaddle says: NJ, did you accidentally post that in the wrong forum? Edit: oops, just re-read the OP and I see the link now. Yes, it is lurking about halfway through the first post. I found it a little jarring. When I started reading the post, I thought Barry was making a revelation about his own mother. (Not really.) Then I thought I was reading about the general moral decay of our society, again. When I got to the homosexual part, I realized that that's probably what the post really is about. Barry's posts (even in Issues and Politics) almost always relate to Scouting in some way, and as far as I know there is not a huge nationwide issue with strippers in leadership positions. Although, as I have pointed out in the past, the policy on strippers in leadership positions is, apparently, "local option" -- but there's no local option for the man living a quiet suburban life and working as a librarian and living with his male partner, but also not hiding the fact that they're gay. (And actually I'm not making up that example, I knew two guys, a librarian and a pharmacist, who had been living together in a quiet suburban lifestyle for about 30 years, not bothering anyone, no flamboyant parades or anything like that. It's preposterous to me that a Boy Scout troop would not have the option of selecting one of those guys, or countless others like them across the country, as a leader if they wanted to.)

Well, when you read the Guide to Advancement, it almost seems to be National's intention to create a legal/judicial setting, with district, council and national acting as judges rather than Scouters when it comes to advancement. It is very much a legal document. (But it is far from perfect, legal-writing-wise. The problem is that once you send a "guidance document" over the line to being a "legal document", you really need to go all the way and make it a good legal document.) At one of our committee meetings I was reading portions of the thing out loud, and people were horrified that it has come to this. (And I was agreeing with them.) It may not be long before the Scouts have actual lawyers to represent them in this process -- apart from their own parents (some of whom may be actual lawyers), that is. I am very thankful that we have seen virtually none of this in my troop. I think the reason has to do with the specific requirements that seem to cause all the trouble, mainly, what is "active." We seem to have been successful over the years in getting the message through that to be in the troop, you need to participate -- and this is without a specific attendance requirement. We also have not had people disappear for two years and come back at 17.5 to "go for Eagle" -- well actually we did have one who tried, but he (and his parents) did not like the "terms" of coming back (such as actually having to do the requirements), so he found another troop to "make Eagle" in. Maybe that case is why we have not had the problem again, although that was so long ago that none of the current Scouts would have known that Scout.

I agree with Lisa. Maybe we still don't have every single fact relevant to this Scout, but we have enough. Someone who was really determined to do so could probably figure out what troop you are in and who this Scout is based on the information you have already been provided. Remember that under the Guide to Advancement, all of the letters, emails and whatever that go to council/district are supposed to be destroyed after the entire process is complete -- but postings on the Internet are "forever." At this point, it's probably best to let the situation play out and see how it goes -- and I do hope you will keep us posted on the process, but I think we have already seen and heard enough of the "evidence."