nolesrule

"Our district Eagle board of review says to either wear the full uniform, or come dressed as you would for a job interview." And that right there can be used to define "neat in appearance" without conflicting with the updated guideline. It basically states that if you aren't going to wear the full uniform, this is your alternative. While it doesn't make the uniform required, it does mean that a partial uniform is not an option as it may not be considered "neat in appearance".

It also isn't one of them because it says 2000 on it, not 2010. I have my order in for my BSA 100th ADC and UC patches (3 of each). Who knows when I'll get them though.

"Do your best" does not override the fact that requirements cannot be changed. Requirements as written must be met to earn an award. It's right there in the advancement policies book... "No council, district, unit or individual has the authority to add or subtract from advancement requirements." Giving it to everyone regardless just reinforces the entitlement attitude that is develoing among our youth.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

You could enforce them both by stating that a partial uniform is not "neat in appearance".

The previous Advancement Policies book already had a "uniform is not required" paragraph in the EBOR section. What it did say was uniform or coat and tie, if I remember correctly. "Neat in appearance" does leave a lot of wiggle room to set policy. It just can't force a uniform.

I didn't respond the postcards or emails at all. I figured it was like those Who's Who books.

Repetition is key. Use it or lose it. Blah balh. I think every Scout should know it till the Alzheimers kicks in. :-)

Yes, my mistake. I was referring to Eagle specifically. I apologize for the lack of clarity. But my point is that even though you need it memorized for Tenderfoot, unless it's being repeated on a regular basis, it's very likely it won't be retained in memory beyond meeting that requirement.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

Well, to be fair, there is no actual requirement to memorize the Scout Oath and Scout Law. But if a troop recites them in their opening (and perhaps closing) of their weekly meetings, then memorization is a byproduct. I would hope you are not using memorization as the standard for "scout spirit", but rather how they actually live their life.

After the Challenger exploded back in 1986 (which we could see in the sky from the playground at school... I am sure that had a lot to do with it), I developed a severe irrational fear of flying, to the point that my parents sent my younger sibling to visit relatives and stayed home with me instead of going to what was supposed to be a huge family gathering. It took about 4 years and many, many visits to a psychologist, but eventually I was able to fly. I still have those fears every once in awhile (and I really hate when they hit me just before I go to sleep), but it hasn't stopped me fr

Definitely been down more than up lately, by a large margin. I've been getting 502 and 504 errors.

That's very interesting because our DE was told the requirements and support materials had not officially been finalized... and that was as of yesterday.

I said he used the word suspended. I never said anything about permanently cancelled. Don't see why he's wrong. Either way, it means they can't be earned right now anyway.

Just to confirm what has already been mentioned, we were informed by our DE this evening at the Commissioners meeting that the Historical merit badges have indeed been "suspended". He gave a list of reasons why, but it basically came down to the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

The Who was chosen because of CBS's love affair with the group. All 3 CSI shows on CBS use Who songs as their theme songs. And all 3 of those songs were part of the set. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Happy Birthday BSA! Who brought the cake and ice cream?

Just to insure there is no misunderstanding... What they said. :-)

Only person I've ever seen actually wear the formal attire is our DE once or twice, so I really don't have a frame of reference to comment.

Wasn't really addressing that part of it, but yes, I do remember reading that it could be worn with professional dress.

While the 1992 OA handbook (most recent copy I have on hand) does state that Courts of Honor are OK, the most recent online handbook quote I could find was posted online in 2005(not sure what the year of the handbook though). The quote reads as follows... The sash is worn "at OA functions and special Scouting activities, when members need to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services." I'll need to pick up the most recent edition of the handbook at the next lodge weekend to find out what the handbook currently states, but I was under the impression that the quote above

Semi-off topic. I don't know if this is a joke or not, but it appears that a corporation has decided to run for Congress in Maryland. http://www.murrayhillincforcongress.com/

I don't think there's really a wrong choice. If I was in your situation, I'd wear the uniform. A Court of Honor is, after all, a scouting activity. By wearing it, you are honoring all 5 boys and the troop you serve. I remember at my Eagle Court of Honor, there were 2 of us. My dad wore his ASM uniform, and the other scout's father wore his CC uniform.

The general rule of thumb for wearing an OA sash is to wear it when participating in something primarily as a member of the OA, such as an OA event, activity, or when performing service. For a troop-level formal function such as Scout Sunday (or a Court of Honor), the merit badge sash would be appropriate.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

You're right about the centennial commissioner patches. I think what makes them work, as opposed to the rank badges, is that they say 1910 and 2010, not just 2010. I can't wait to get my hands on mine. No idea what a Division Commissioner was. A basic google search didn't yield anything.

Actually, the full statement was "in many states, if he is 16 or 17, then he can't have any passengers (except for parent, guardian or trainer), or be driving at night." In my observation, the 16 or 17 part of the statement overwhelmingly correlates with the intermediate licenses, so I'd say it is a valid generalization. Secondly, the statement wasn't restricted to passengers, but also about nighttime driving. Thirdly, as boomerscout points out, lets not confuse the meanings of "most" and "many". Finally, with at least 40 states having some kind of restriction on pas