packsaddle

Is Trail Life really floundering?

KenD500, kill switch? An affirmative response. I will begin to clear this thread and leave a followup message as a marker for future reference.

This is human nature. It was recognized long ago and just as an example there is this classic paper by Chamberlin (1890) who proposed a way to try to avoid these kinds of 'personal' entanglements. Science (old series) 15:92. Link to the text. It has been republished and reprinted over the years, and notably referred to by Platt (1964) in his paper on Strong Inference.

This is called a 'shot across the bow'. I hid this thread for a while because it was going beyond the bounds of decorum and I wanted it to cool off. When KenD500 asked about what happened to it, I explained and told him I would bring it back to life if he wanted me to and if the rules of decorum will be followed. So this is everyone's chance to show that they can discuss this topic with some decorum. Good luck. To KenD500, if you want this thread killed, I'll gladly do the deed.

Could you share some more details? How many boys (families) are in the pack? Are you urban, rural, suburban? Is your CO a church? LDS? How long has the pack existed? How did you have those leaders before they left, where did they come from? I agree with Skip, you have to do what's best for your family first. You for sure will burn out if you try to keep up this level of intense involvement.

As has always been the case for all of us. The rules of decorum have always existed but perhaps were not very clear and perhaps not applied as stringently as they needed to be applied. As was made clear to me by Bob White a long, long time ago when I was out of line, a person is not welcome to write or post anything they want. They are welcome to write or post what they want within limits. And in response to recent posts, Terry just made the limits clearer for all of us.

Who is 'us', Eagledad? While I understand that you feel the way you do, I want you to know that as far as I'm concerned, and I suspect other moderators as well, you are welcome here. I hope you can feel that way in the future. When I became a member of these forums the Dale decision was the hot topic. You don't show up as a member for another few years yet, and 6 or 7 years after the 'birth' of this site. But at that time, my recollection was that things were VERY one-sided and only a very few of us at that time were willing to take up for what we perceived as the 'underdogs' in this issue

Twenty years. Egad! It's really been that long. OK, well, I guess it doesn't make me feel as old as my grandsons do, lol. Yes, I would like to see some kind of special celebration...I'm just at a loss for how something like that would happen or be structured. My suggestion would be for someone to start a new topic in the Program or Announcements forum for a discussion of how to do something like this. The whole 'virtual' concept is what clogs my thoughts, kind of like time travel or that sort of thing. A very, very long time ago I started a sort of humorous comparison of everyone's forum

I would have to know (and I mean really know, personally) that person before I would cut any slack at all, even after 20 years. This one of the few absolutes I have in my life and some of you know the reason why. A drunk is a hand grenade with the pin pulled. The only question is when or where they'll 'go off' and whether or not people get hurt or killed. For me this is 'end of discussion'. For me, it means no leadership if I can possibly prevail with the CO, and so far, no friendship. I know it seems hard and unfair. But that's that as far as I'm concerned.

Hope they come to their senses.

Stosh, why do you attend that camp?

This is a particularly touchy subject for me, the DUI thing. If National doesn't care about DUI but they DO care about check fraud, I have a big problem with National's decision. To me they have it completely backward. As for your question about where to draw the line, I don't know. I doubt that anyone else here does either. My guess (worth the paper it's written on) is that "sever all ties" means no training, no leadership. That's all.

I've met a couple here and there. I was hoping to meet OGE on one of my trips to NY but his unexpected passing, well...I'll really miss him. Went camping with one forum member and his unit and was glad to have provided a much needed downpour for the entire trip, lol. It always seems to rain when I'm with someone on the trail, almost never if I'm solo. I met one with whom I had numerous arguments on these forums for years before we met. We had a great time and a great outing. Turned out we had far more in common than our differences in these forums indicated. It really helps to be able to see

I agree. Up to the counselor...for low impact fire as well..the context is also important. I have never had this problem with Cooking MB but several notable times with Environmental Science MB. In those cases, I merely asked the boys about what they had done to complete all of the requirements. They were honest about it. I asked them if they felt good about it and if not what did they think was the best way to correct the situation. They collectively decided to actually complete the requirements, which they did. Afterwards I asked how they felt about the whole situation, how we had all handled

We've had a few of those boys as well. One had mild regrets later but they mostly were there for the camaraderie and adventure. They were excellent Life Scouts too, when they turned 18.

Here's the thing: the OP mentioned in the first line a "financial type crime". What kind of financial crime warrants banning someone's presence as a parent? If this person had been convicted and spent prison time for murder or some other kind of really violent crime I could see it...but money? I'm just curious about what "sever all ties" really means and under what circumstances?

David, I've seen that already but not, I suspect, in the context you are thinking about. I've seen (counting through memory now) about a dozen, at least a dozen times that a leader in both cub and boy scout units have suggested a different faith as superior somehow to the faith that a boy's family currently followed. It has happened to me and my children as well. For my children, on a couple of occasions when they politely declined, they were informed that they were "going to go to hell" as a result. Do you think these 'invitations' came from persons from 'liberal' faiths? This kind of non

ScouterRob, would you like the title of this thread to be changed to: Two Eagle COH For One Scout?

Edit: Eagledad, I hope that in the coming weeks you can feel differently about this site.

Do you have any idea what standard was not met? I've never had any experience with anything like this. But to me, "...sever all ties..." is very strong language and it makes me wonder what standard, not met, can result in that language.

Is this really the way the insurance works?

Welcome to the forums! First let me congratulate you for working with the cubs. To me the cubs are the best part of scouting and I'd go back to working with them any time. (this might also have something to do with having grandchildren not quite the same age yet). I was CM for quite a few years. There are a couple of things I learned that might help you with your question about keeping them active and involved. There are two aspects of that. First is the broader aspect of 'active and involved' in all pack levels. This is something the den leaders must do and they can get ideas from roundtable

I could go ahead and delete this duplicate thread but Eamonn is a moderator himself so if he wants to delete it, he can.

I guess my most vivid memories are not from the council camp (which is now part of a big gated 'community' on the land near a big lake). Rather, my best memories are the real summer camps in which the troop packed up a pickup and trailer full of gear and we headed into the mountains for an variable amount of time, usually about 10 days but sometime a couple of weeks. Those trips (with no MB involvement whatsoever, only adventure) are the ones that made lasting good memories of other scouts and places which, in some cases, I doubt I'll ever see again. Those were times in which the only structur

Skeptic, I knew there were gay leaders, even gay professionals, back in the '60s - never heard of any 'scandals' though. I don't remember anyone making objections about it either. I don't know how to cite something that comes from personal experience and definitely not if I didn't even know about it at all (reference to the so-called 'perversion' files). I first learned of the existence of those non-public files in these threads. The old policy to which I referred was the exclusive membership policy that was never mentioned when I first applied as a volunteer a few decades ago. I don't know h