NJCubScouter

male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA Something seems curious about this language. I thought that an "adult leader" was someone who was registered with the BSA. Yet it says two adult leaders (one of each gender) but only ONE of whom must be registered. Does that mean that in this sentence, the female "adult leader" could be ANY woman age 21 or other regardless of whether she is actually a "leader" in the crew or not? If that is true, it appears that this female "leader" does not have to be a

I have mostly just watched this discussion bounce back and forth between Bob and others, so at the risk of anything "freezing over" (or maybe just a bit of floating ice in this case), I'll just say this: I agree with Bob. I think a little moderation and rationality is all he is looking for, and all I look for when I discuss gun control with people who talk about "my cold dead hands." I seldom find it. Wanting to have a gun for protection is one thing, but I hope people don't kid themselves into thinking that the protection is total, or that it is a risk-free proportion. More recently

Well, Eamonn, the story about the little boy who fished all week was a good one and worth repeating even if the forum software did it for you. This was something I have tried to follow with my son, who crossed over to a troop in April. When he went to summer camp he was very unsure of himself, partly because he had never been camping without his father before, and here was a whole week away from home. I regarded it as a mixed blessing that they had him (and all the other boys) very tightly scheduled in advance... Tenderfoot requirements Mondays and Tuesday morning, Second Class some o

Scoutingagain says: I think we need to remember that those who believe fundamentally different things, all equally have the right to those beliefs and I don't believe, we are in a position to judge those beliefs as right or wrong. We are free to choose are own beliefs and have the conviction that they are correct. That doesn't mean others are incorrect. It just means we believe something different to be true. I agree with those statements, but the reason for some of the contentiousness in this forum over matters of religion (which includes the issue of excluding gay people) is

I don't see the relevance of whether people eat cow brains or spinal tissue. First of all, it's my understanding that the beef industry uses the remains of dairy cows in feed for other cows (mixed with grains and whatever.) I heard a congressman on the radio the other day talking about banning this practice. But if it is going on now, I strongly suspect that those who prepare the feed are a lot less particular about what cow-parts they use to feed other cows, than FuzzyBear's butcher would be in deciding what cow-parts to offer for sale to human beings. Second of all, assuming th

Rooster, madly spinning the facts, says: However, when Al Sharpton steps up to the plate, the left embrace him like one of their own. If that is true, the "left" (whoever exactly that is) has a strange way of embracing someone. Al Sharpton is at 5 percent in nationwide polls of Democrats. As a result he stands a good chance of getting NO delegates at the convention. I suspect he actually will get a few delegates from New York and maybe a few others from other urban areas. In all likelihood he will get less than 1 percent of the total delegates nationwide. That's an embrace?

But as a general rule, Republicans police their own. Case in point - David Duke hasnt gained much ground since his coming out party a few years ago - YET, Al Sharpton is a Presidential candidate. A candidate that the likes of Howard Dean, John "F" Kerry, Richard Gephardt, and others take seriously. Why? Because they're pandering for every possible vote - no matter what the cost. Um, welcome back to Issues and Politics, Rooster. And you return in fine fashion. Your comparison of David Duke and Al Sharpton, showing how Republicans "police their own" while Democrats supposedly don't, is no

Laurie, I'm guessing that your husband did not expect the answer to the question to include boys with their arms impaled on a steel rod or Bob's apparently-dead co-worker and a True Story of Scouters in Action. (Do they still have that in Boy's Life?)

OK, I was going to respond to the last few posts, but you know what, let this thread be the land of make-believe. Just make up as much stuff as you want. It ought to be interesting.

Scoutingagain says: Wasn't Manson a Beatles fan? I'm not sure if the word "fan" quite fits someone who has his murderous gang write the titles of a group's songs on the wall, in the blood of their victims. There has to be some other category for that. I believe it was John Lennon who was quoted at the time, saying something like "Couldn't he have just left us out of it?" The Beatles were also interviewed about Manson's elaborate interpretations of the songs in question, and their basic conclusion was that he was "cracked." As in crazy -- not legally insane, just crazy. He evide

Thanks FOG, there's another example.

Bob, as to the SPL staggering with the steel rod through his arm, bleeding, all I can say is: (1) Wow, and (2) Forget the New Scout Patrol, I'd be curious to see how a bunch of adult leaders, all trained in first aid, would react to the identical situation. I have a suspicion that in many troops, their reaction would not precisely match "E.R." (3) Same as (2) but with a bunch of the most experienced youth, Eagle and Life, all with First Aid and Emergency Preparedness MB. Again, the reaction might be something other than "textbook" and I wonder whether this group would score

It seems to me that the person who wrote this article is engaging in the same kind of name-calling he is complaining about. Same goes for people in this forum who group a whole bunch of people together with labels like "lefties" or "liberal condescension."

Um, Ed? If you don't know what pants are -- not just Scout pants, but any pants -- please remind me not to visit any of your troop meetings.

One of the specific things I remember from some leader training somewhere is that the verbs used in the advancement requirements are all there for a reason, and they are carefully chosen. Discuss means discuss, show means show, demonstrate means demonstrate, and so on. My interpretation of "show" as opposed to "demonstrate" is that if the requirement says "show" first aid for a cut, you can "pretend" to wash the cut and you can put on a "pretend" band aid, but you can't just talk about washing it and putting on a band aid. Now, there is a certain amount of common sense to be applied here.

Commando, I am not sure about your purpose in some of these "joking" comments. I consider myself to have a pretty good sense of humor, but I do not really "get" the humor in some parts of your list here. But for now, let me just ask about one of them: Do you think that volunteer Scouters don't wear uniform pants?

I suppose I run a risk here of hijacking this thread, but under the circumstances it would be a mercy-hijack. My last post concluded with a sentence about a certain BSA policy, and having re-read it (and my computer apparently being Edit-challenged as far as this forum goes), I just want to clarify what I said because I can already imagine someone jumping on it: I agree with the BSA that adult leaders should be good role models for youth. My disagreement with the current BSA leadership deals with exactly what "good role model" means in one particular situation.

First to Adrian: I did not characterize anything falsely, nor am I required to abide by your dictionary. In other other thread I showed you a dictionary definition of "hypocrisy" that fit my usage. Whether it is a public figure or someone posting on this board, when someone holds other people to a different standard than their own conduct, I call that person a hypocrite, unless they have openly (and credibly) renounced their past conduct. You can call the person whatever you'd like. Second, to FOG: So basically what you are saying is that the responsibilities of role-model-ho

Adrian, I mentioned which thread FOG's post was in only for purposes of identification, so that people could go back and look at it if they wished. I did not mean to get into that discussion again. And, regardless of why he said what he said, FOG's comment was relevant to his self-contradictory comment here. As for what "we learned" about hypocrisy in that thread, I'll tell you that what I learned was that you use a narrow definition of "hypocrisy" that I disagree with. In the dozens of articles I have seen since that situation came to light, the vast majority have used the word "hypoc

Just a few points here. The terror alert system http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29 was created after 9/11/01, so the answer is no, there would have been no orange or any other color alerts in 2000. It was not thought necessary at that time to have a nationwide "graded" alert system for terror attacks, or any other safety conditions for that matter. (The military has "defcon" but that is for military use and I don't think that changes have been officially publicized.) While it is true that most of the nation was recently upgraded from yellow to orange, the New Y

Absolutely right, Acco. I had let the line about the Beatles being atheists go without comment, but it is ridiculous when applied to George in particular. For awhile after the Beatles broke up, half his songs were about God in one way or another, so much so that I remember discussing it with one of my college roommates how it would be nice if he made a song about something else. (Maybe not always "God" as conceived of by some in this forum, but God nevertheless. And the song "My Sweet Lord" shows that he wasn't really choosing among "Gods," hallelujah, hare krishnah, it was all the sam

I find it difficult to believe the part about it being easier to retain separate lodges within a merged council because of the separate numbering system. That sounds like real bureaucrat-speak to me. Are we really to believe that nobody at national has a list of lodges by council? Or that even if they don't, such a list could not be compiled from information in the hands of the regions, areas or other subdivisions? Or even if NO such lists exists, somebody in national has a list of councils with addresses, and somebody else has a list of lodges with addresses, and all they'd have to do is

FOG says: Why should I give money to someone whose lifestyle or politics I don't like? To help him buy more drugs? The answer to the first question is, if you really think it matters, you shouldn't, if you don't want to. If I don't think it matters, well, then, it doesn't matter (to me). Do you apply this to everything? Do you ask the owner of a grocery store who he voted for in the last election before deciding whether to shop there? As for the second question quoted above, if we're still talking about the Beatles, I suspect the only "drugs" purchased by the two survi

I hesitate to even post because I know FOG posts things like this just to annoy people and to see what kind of anguished reactions he can provoke. I suspect it's all an act, for all we know FOG has every Beatles' CD, the Beatles sheet-music wallpaper and the Ringo night-light from when he was 6. (I just made the last two up, I suspect that at least the last one, or something like it, did exist and would be worth $ if you had it now. I remember having a Beatles lunch box, I wish I had it now.) But, despite the fact that this thread is not to be taken seriously, there actually is a point

(Studiously ignoring the BobAndFOGandEd Show...) TwoCub, when I saw the top of your post I thought that maybe your cat or 2-year-old niece or someone had gotten hold of your keyboard. (Based on a true story: When my son was about 2, there were a couple of times when I would be on America Online IM'ing with someone, and step out of the room for a second, and he'd toddle up and type out a message looking something like what you typed, and somehow manage to hit "send." Much to the temporary confusion of the person on the other end.) Anyway, glad I could pick up on Eamonn's Beatles r