NJCubScouter

Packsaddle says: The question that BSA evidently does not address is where the OK line is drawn. But I think that's perfectly fine in this case. The BSA leaves the line to be drawn on the local level where local attitudes, and attitudes between one CO and another even in the same town, may differ. I wish they would allow local line-drawing on at least one other issue also. And the discussion about Leviticus reminded me of something. There are, concentrated in the state of New York and scattered throughout the country, troops chartered to Orthodox Jewish organizations, some of which are either exclusively Orthodox Jewish or so overwhelmingly so that they could be considered "Orthodox Jewish troops." It's probably safe to say that you would not see a leader or Scout in one of those troops with a tatoo.

Is setting up a tent supported by one of the points of the Scout Law or the Scout Oath? What about cooking? Doesn't this get back to the same old discussion of BSA aims v. methods? I thought the point is that the boys improve their character, fitness and citizenship (and self-reliance, which could be considered a fourth aim or maybe it is part of character) through the medium of the tasks and skills that are part of the outdoor method. Or to put in terms of the Scout Oath: Does "physically strong" just mean being able to pushups, or does it also include being able to do things for yourself and have the self-sufficiency to figure things out and get them done? Or, if that sounds like it might blend in with "mentally awake," that's because it does. It sounds to me like learning to set up a tent, or cook, and actually doing these things, would fit right into physically strong and mentally awake if you look at it that way. And then there's the Scout Law. Are you putting up the tent yourself, or with others? ("Helpful")Are others going to benefit from the work you are doing in putting up the tent, or cooking? ("Helpful" again.) Are you putting up the tent any old way you want, or are you doing it the way you've been taught. ("Obedient"?) And yes, I do realize some of this is a stretch. But I think that Scouting activities are "supported by" the basic principles of Scouting.

I sometimes (often while reading this forum, now including this thread) wish the phrase "PC" could be wiped out of everybody's vocabulary. It has such a vague meaning that it often means different things to different people; it isn't usually used to mean what it was originally intended to mean; and its very use is politically and ideologically charged. To me, that's enough of an indictment to get it banned from the language. One person's PC is another person's courtesy. When I was growing up I was taught to avoid offending people whenever possible, especially if they came from different circumstances and therefore might not understand my words to have their intended meaning. Now suddenly that's PC, and I don't need to avoid those things? I can just say what I want and the heck with what the other person thinks I meant, or what they think about what I said? As I said, if the term PC did not exist, some of what is today "condemned" as PC would be considered part of "courtesy." So when someone says "PC has no place in Scouting," I have to wonder what that really means. Now, do some people take the idea of "not giving offense" too far? Sure. But I don't think that's an excuse for throwing courtesy and respect out the window, and sometimes when I see people ridiculing "PC," it seems that is exactly what is at risk.

What ever happned to Bud Cort anyway? According to the Internet Movie Database he has been in 38 films since Harold and Maude (including tv.) Most of them I have never heard of, including most of the recent ones. I did see "Dogma," from about 5 years ago, in which he plays God, sort of. (Actually a person whose body is being temporarily occupied by God; he is listed in the credits as "John Doe Jersey," while Alanis Morissette is credited as "God," but it's not quite that simple, either. It's an odd movie.)

"of age for Philmont" Philmont has programs for all ages and all genders. True, when some talk of Philmont they are really referencing "a Philmont trek" which does have age (and weight) limits. Yes, Acco, you are right. I meant a Philmont trek. I guess that is what I do think of when I hear "Philmont," however incomplete my initial reaction might be. When I hear people talk about "going to Philmont" that is almost always what they mean. (Which again reminds me, I am pretty sure Sunday is the 30th anniversary of the date I left for MY Philmont trek.)

Oh, and BP, regarding your examples from your Scouting days: Keep in mind that the policy only excludes those who are "avowed homosexuals," or in the more common term, "openly gay." Therefore the Scouts who were "suspected" of being gay would not be excluded. The BSA does not ask people if they are gay; it is only if they say they are gay that the policy is involved.

BP, this subject has been discussed in many, many different threads and at great length and with a lot of "heat" (sometimes boiling over) as well. There are people on both sides with strong opinions. I have explained my own position many times, and one of the great things about this forum is, all the old posts (at least for the time period I have been posting here) are still there to be read. I will just say this: Of the people who have posted in this forum who do not favor the current BSA policy (including me), virtually all (including me) would agree with the basic premise of your next-to-last paragraph. That is, no unit should be forced to accept an openly gay leader, and no unit should be forced not to.

My son is shy, but he eats a lot, so it would be a close call whether he would sing or not. On the other hand he is not "of age" for Philmont yet. I think whether it is "hazing" depends a lot on how the boys are asked or told to sing. If it is done in a lighthearted manner for the purpose of building Scout spirit and not as a "punishment," I suppose it might be ok. If the adults and staff have to sing also, it is probably ok. (Ok rules-wise, not music-wise. I can sometimes do pretty well singing, but as my family could tell you, I can do pretty poorly too.) OGE, you are correct about "I know it when I see it," actually it was one justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Potter Stewart, writing a separate opinion concurring with the majority in a 1964 pornography case. In a one-paragraph opinion, he started off by explaining that in order for the government to criminally punish someone for distributing pornography, it must be "hard-core pornography," and he then concluded as follows: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

These birds sound like they come from Liverpool and a very famous band that came from that neck of the woods. Gerry and the Pacemakers?

As for when one does not have to be submitted, I believe the national rule says something like, you don't need one for trips "in town." My council takes that very literally: Unless you are staying in the municipality where you meet (regardless of whether the municipality is called a city, town, township, borough or village -- unlike some other states, in NJ they all have equal "rank.") That actually makes it pretty simple. And, I believe my council does require them even for council and district events.

The cons are if you don't file one, you are in violation of policy & not covered by the Troop insurance. Actually Ed, that's another "pro," not a "con." MrsSmith, as you have probably figured out from the previous posts, it really isn't a question of pros and cons. You have to file one, for all the reasons others have stated. (People often focus on the insurance aspect, which obviously is important, but FScouter does a great job of summarizing the other reasons why it is important. In fact, my council places so much emphasis on making sure adequate and trained leadership is in place that they have their own form for the Local Tour Permit, with extra questions, and they will not accept the national "Local" form.) It would be interesting to know what "cons" people have come up with, and what on Earth would make someone suggest to you that you should not apply for one for a canoe trip. Of all things, a canoe trip! Think of the training that is required (as FScouter mentions), and beyond that, the knowledge required for a safe trip. Think of the things that can go wrong on a canoe trip without the proper training and knowledge. Think of the things that can go wrong with the proper training and knowledge. What about rock climbing, do the same people say you shouldn't file a tour permit for that one, too?

Boleta, you're correct all around. But FOG gives offense intentionally. It's the character he plays in this forum, someone who delights in saying outlandish things and getting other people upset. I was trying to take a light-hearted swipe back at him. I thought it was funny. But maybe, as you suggest, the reference to "lynching" makes a humorous response inappropriate, so I'll just leave it to everybody else to discuss knots as per the opening post.

Then there are the lynchings too. Other peoples', or your own? (It's not such a ridiculous question if you've seen the movie "Harold and Maude")

A Fahrenheit 451 reference, that just about blows all the other pop culture references away. Seems to me I have heard something about a very recent film that is a play on that title.

If they are paid models and not members of BSA isn't it a violation of BSA policy for them to wear the BSA uniform? I think the answer is: Only if the producer of the photo shoot does not have written permission from the BSA to use models in BSA uniforms, which seems unlikely in this case since the producer is the BSA. I went looking on the Internet for the actual policy regarding unauthorized use of the uniform, which I have seen, but this time I couldn't find it. However, from what I recall, the policy is basically that use of the uniform outside the BSA program is prohibited without the express written permission of the BSA. Sort of like, any re-broadcast, reproduction, retransmission or other use of the pictures, descriptions, and accounts of this game without express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. If you have permission, it's ok. To EagleInKy: My guess is that the happy 6-year-old on the front page of the site is not "paid talent" but rather an actual Tiger Cub. Of course, you never know.

Oh, and yes, I do know why he would be called "Kermie": Because that's what Miss Piggy calls him. The real question, sticking with the Muppets theme, and the theme of relative desolation in the forums (especially Issues and Politics), is, which former participant in the forum corresponds most closely to the role played by Joan Cusack in the most recent Muppets movie (maybe it was just a tv special, it was based on It's a Wonderful Life and had David Arquette as an angel, Fozzie Bear as Uncle Charlie, and Whoopi Goldberg as God. And Joan Cusack as the evildoer who wants to take the Muppets Theater away.)

Someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection, The lovers, the dreamers and me. Or is that a different movie? By the way, I think you can tell a real Muppets fan by the fact that he calls Kermit "Kermie" in normal everyday conversation.

I'm not a stockbroker, I'm an attorney. Just read some of the posts in which people have personally attacked me and somewhere in there you'll see mention made of my profession.

I am not a big fan of tatoos or piercings of any kind. I even protested to my wife when she allowed each of our daughters to get their ears pierced, back in a bygone and more innocent era. In more recent days, both girls have "threatened" to get a tatoo, but I don't think they were that serious because when I objected, they backed down pretty quickly. One is an adult though still subject to the "as long as you're living under my roof" rule, though the fact is (shhh don't tell her) I would not actually kick her out if she got a tatoo as long as it was not ridiculous. The other one would still need our signature (though only for a few more months), and she's not getting it. I don't think it's an issue with my son (of course I say that now, in 3 years he'll come home with spiked green hair and a pierced eyebrow -- which I have to say, sorry scoutmom, I find to be an utterly ludicrous thing to do. Maybe the pierced tongue is even more ludicrous, but at least it's not as "on public display" as the pierced eyebrow. My stomach turns when I see that.) As for the Boy Scouts, no there is no national rule though I believe a unit (the CO) could adopt a rule. My son's troop has no rule and for the past year or so, there have been one boy and one ASM (who not coincidentally are father and son) who have one small earring each (just a stud in each case, I think.) It doesn't seem to bother anybody, nor does it seem to have started any trend. It doesn't really bother me either, because it is on other people and not my family, and because it is really kind of minimal. I could see that if a boy came in with multiple tatoos and a pieced eyebrow, tongue, etc. it might be kind of disruptive. At some point I suppose it could be so disruptive that the needs of the troop would require that the boy be required to remove at least some items during troop events, but I don't know where that point is. In past threads on this, some have mentioned safety, I think that is a legitimate concern also, though if one is going to require that something be removed, I would limit that to specific activities where the item is likely to cause a problem. I wouldn't just say "no jewelry at troop meetings." Though I keep coming back to, why anyone wants to do this to themself, is puzzling to me. But I'm not going to impose my aesthetic standards on others, it has to be an issue of disruption or safety before I think any action should be considered.

We did something like this in a school board training session, though it was not exactly the same terminology. On this thing, I got a definite E and T (phone home?) but I am pretty close on the S/N and P/J. If I had to be one or the other on these I guess I would be ESTP.

Hey, look at that. I was on it yesterday finding some forms and it didn't look anything like that. I have not been through it to see if the substance is any different or if it is just a new arrangement with new graphics. I do notice that the "Other BSA Web Sites" (including national supply and the "BSA Legal" site) have been "demoted" -- previously they each had their own individual link with a graphic on the front page, now they are all grouped in one link and are not broken out until the "second page," and the graphics are gone. The front page WAS beginning to look a bit too "busy." This is more professional looking. (Though they need to increase the contrast between "scouting.org" in the upper right and the background, you can barely see the words.)

Well, there I was, being 8 years old (there were no Tigers then) with a father who had been a Boy Scout and then a Scouter since HE was 12, and was at that time a Scoutmaster, and... well, I'm not sure how many recruiting lessons can be learned from that. As an adult, I registered my son in Tigers because it seemed like a good idea at the time, though at that point I had no intention of becoming a leader. After suffering through 2 years of poor den leaders who basically turned a den of 10 into a den of 3, I decided it was time to step up and take my turn. Later I became Assistant Cubmaster. I guess I was recruited by the method of "Is there someone here who is willing to take a leadership role so these boys can continue in the program?" And there was. When my son crossed over to a troop, so did I, as a committee member.

Uhoh, I don't know about Tom Selleck, after all you know what kind of character he played in that movie with Kevin Kline. Might not be the image the BSA wants.

MikeF says: Pull-ups measured in 1/4 increments. That's an interesting approach. I will have to mention that to the ASM who tested my son. He (the ASM) seemed perplexed about what to do when my son improved in every other area, but could still not do 1 pullup after about 30 days. (His solution, without any "help" from me, was that my son had "shown improvement" and passed the requirement. I am not sure whether that was based on "overall improvement" or whether my son actually got his chin closer to the bar.)

Ack, I hit the button too soon, and I can't edit posts. Here is what it is supposed to say: Scoutdad, although the version you are looking at says "2003" I believe there is a newer version in which the paragraph in question has been rewritten to what ASM59 has quoted. The version on the BSA web site matches ASM59's quote. They seem to have replaced the "requirement" that each Webelos be accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, to a "preference" that each Webelos be accompanied by his or her parent or guardian. In the absence of a parent or guardian, the boy can "be under the supervision of a parent approved adult." (I think for clarity that last phrase should be read as "parent-approved adult," in other words an adult approved by one of the boy's parents.) I think that because of the way it is worded, people are assuming that an adult can supervise both their own son(s) and someone else's son(s) at the same time, but there is a logical ratio somewhere that should not be exceeded. I know I have read in the past that there should be a maximum 2:1 (boy to adult) ratio for Webelos camping but I don't see it in the current G2SS.