packsaddle

While I was reading through the other thread on Hillcourt, I remembered this one. Is he still excluded? Anyone know?

It's working for me.

See, the great thing about this issue is that it gives all of us some common ground to rally around rather than just arguing among ourselves. So while we should politely ignore them (OK, maybe not politely) we can also be thankful for the times like this that they hand us a 'gift' like this.

It's 'genus and species' and that's not what anyone is asking for. A boy ought to be able to tell the difference between a bumblebee and a honeybee. Or a bullfrog and a tree frog or a buzzard and a hummingbird.

Would "bird" be enough?   "Snake"?  "Worm"?  

No. Common names such as 'robin' or 'killdeer' would be needed for birds. 'Scarlet king snake' for snakes. I would let them go with something more generic for invertebrates like: 'crayfish', depending on what it is. However if they know what something as distinctive as a zebra mussel is they should distinguish it from, say, a heel splitter or an Asiatic clam. The reasoning is that while the distinction between some decapods, for example, may be difficult, the distinction between things that are obviously different should be noticed and named accordingly. 

I also allow them to take it to a very small scale, such as different kinds of ants. One boy was even pretty good at soil arthropods.

Thus far, no one has picked lice out of someone else's hair....at least not for this requirement.

Edit: Thanks TAHAWK, I hereby retract my condemnation of the requirement...but not the phrasing.

qwazse, it was the entire PHYLUM of Arthropoda. Not to mention Echinodermata, Platyhelminthes, Porifera, Bryozoa, Cnidaria, etc, etc.

I interpret the requirement as those listed things being EXAMPLES of organisms to look for and not exclusive of all others. In that sense, Mollusca exemplifies all of the invertebrates. I just happens that the thoughtless person making the list - listed vertebrates for all the rest of the examples. From this I infer that all Chordates and invertebrates are good for the list.

As for the visual sighting of the bird, I require them to show me or hand me their photo that they just took with the phone. A feather is good though or a bird song that we both hear.

I'm with desertrat77. Like I said before, ignore this nonsense and just do what you think is right. If anyone needed confirmation of how out-of-touch with reality Irving is, this is IT.

So stop complaining and just ignore them.

Insects aren't on the list in 2nd class requirements. Has to be bird, mammal, reptiles, fish or mollusks. 

yeah, this is the place where the requirements are totally stupid. What that means is that frogs and salamanders don't count, nor do starfish, jellyfish, bryozoans, or sponges...some of the most interesting creatures on the planet. And...what about the one class of animal for which there are more species than all the others put together? Nope, can't count them. Stupid. I ignore it as a thoughtless and unintentional exclusion of most of the animal kingdom.  Whoever wrote that probably failed basic biology.

Morning or afternoon. I also maintain a collection of plaster casts of various tracks and skulls as voucher specimens, just in case there's any question.

Insects and other invertebrates count. Should be easy.

OK, we've had our fit of indignance. NOW, just ignore it and do what we think is right. The best way to really get the message across is to politely ignore them.

Wait a minute! This could be the beginning of a movement to take back the spirit from the bean counters. We could start with nonsense like water guns and move on to things like actually camping out and stuff. We could restore the spirit AND the trademark. Scouting could flourish with renewal of all that is good.................................NAAAHHHHH!

Mea culpa, I will now fall onto my scabbard and get a nasty bruise.

Sarsaparilla has always been fascinating...coming from the Smilax genus. The common name in North America is woody greenbriar but the one that yields the flavorful drink is tropical. You might want to check on the pharmacological aspects too, they're interesting. I used to make it from the natural extract but I understand the flavor is synthetic these days, I could be wrong.

Bad Wolf, I condemn the substance and its use. I'm sorry for anyone for whom alcohol has achieved such importance in their life. I hope they can eventually see that good things don't have to come from a bottle or a tap.

I'm not sure how to apply that in terms of a group of people other than alcoholics and I do condemn them. Every time they 'fall off the wagon' they actively chose to drink. In every case they could have easily avoided whatever unpleasant situation they get into by NOT doing something, not taking that drink. I would not allow them ever to drive or operate anything that could potentially harm others. Ever. There is no such comparison to ideas or someone's nature.

Yes, I also condemn pedophiles and other criminals. I can't know who is (or is going to be) a pedophile until they act. I'm a little surprised at your comparison to drinkers. I think that comparison is a little harsh until the drinker harms someone. Then I condemn the person as well as the substance.

Very true--the meeting with the SE would have been your very best avenue to stay in scouting.   It would have been unpleasant at first, as Twocubdad said, it may have ended with an olive branch.

 

If you follow the formal grievance process, my hunch will be the BSA will side with the council, offering your refusal to meet as further proof of a long personal feud that was not in the best interest of scouting.  

 

My humble two cents:   because this seems to me (reading between the lines) a longstanding feud, if you want to stay in scouting, in some capacity, reach out to the SE and ask if he/she will still agree to meet.   If so, go the meeting and take the spanking.  No quibbling--yes sir/no sir/three bags full.   Apologize where apologies are due, bury the hatchet and ask to press forward.    If you can't see your way clear to do that, then JoeBob said it best--enjoy the time off.   The formal grievance process will be long, painful, expensive and will not result in anything positive for any party involved.   Best wishes.

When I'm in a conflict with someone like this, it is part of my personal code of conduct to make sure I listen to everything they have to say. That means meeting with them. If the room is friendly, resolve the conflict then and there. If the room is filled with intimidation, just sit back and listen. Don't say a word and take careful notes of what is said. If they ask for a response give them as littlle information as possible. Everything they say is information. You can use it at will. Everything you say is a gift of information they don't necessarily deserve to get. Be stingy with it.

Be Prepared to walk away from the whole thing. If that's what you decide to do, merely get up and leave. No need for further words and it will leave them guessing as to what you plan to do if anything. Never make threats. Never give warnings. (also from my code)

I confess that if I read the situation correctly there's no way in h*** that I could respond in any way that I felt was dishonest about my thoughts or feelings. I might choose not to respond but if I didn't think they deserved an apology there's no way I'd give it just to have the privilege of continuing to work for nothing. Might be time to pull back and focus closer on family or something similar.

If JoeBob's sleuthing is correct, he's right, the guy is a bean counter pretty much like I suspect most of them are. You made your mistake mouthing off in an intemperate manner and I completely sympathize with that situation (been there, done that).  But now it's time to pay the piper. So be true to your thoughts and take whatever comes.

If you get that meeting, collect their comments in your notes and if there's something there to use with National, take your best shot, craft it carefully to inflict the greatest impact. You'll only get one chance this good. (another from my personal code of conduct)

Bad Wolf, I have formed my opinion based mostly on a personal experience from years back when a drunk behind the wheel nearly killed my entire family and society (and I see this as reflecting the lenience I see in your comments) basically let him off with a $200 fine while we suffered tens of thousands of $$ in medical expenses and years of pain and incomplete recovery. As long as society 'winks' at so-called 'responsible drinking' there will be lapses such as he had and more people like my family will suffer needless harm. And I haven't even touched on the harm that occurs in homes and the damage that results for families in those homes. In every case that first drink is a 'responsible' one.

I admit that I'm speaking in terms of absolutes here. I make no apology.

So, that Dr.'s appointment is still on?

Ahhhhh,..............so you're intrigued...aren't you?

 Not sure who this was dumbed-down for, the kids or the adults teaching the MB.

LOL, I have my suspicions. Maybe they should set it up as an online merit badge so the boys can find a 'virtual' counselor who actually can 'counsel' this one, lol.

The same argument can be made for guns and sex...

Under certain circumstances guns are useful tools and sex is essential and can be good for society. While it can be used as fuel or perhaps something like disinfectant or lab preservative, there is nothing about drinking alcohol that is useful or essential or good for society.

Irresponsible drinking does all that. There are those of us who can do,it responsibly.

Even for so-called 'responsible' drinkers, the risk of making mistakes, sometimes tragic ones, increases. As far as I'm concerned, people who think they're 'responsible' drinkers are people who 'got away with it' without hurting themselves or someone else...this time.

It's a personal thing with me. At one time I felt differently and engaged in the 'responsible drinking' deception just like so many others. But as with any other substance that impairs thinking, there is no 'good' or 'safe' level of alcohol intake...only a legal pragmatic limit that we have sadly agreed that society must tolerate as a practical matter.

Drinking is bad. Alcohol consumption contributes to much damage to families, children, and society. There is NOTHING redemptive or good about alcoholic beverages.

Then the next battle will be to admit transsexual scouts. And then the trans adult leader role models.

Fella, that train has already left the station. You just didn't know it.

I agree completely with NJ on this, regardless of my status as either insect or omnipotent entity from the 'Q' continuum. The first step of any problem solving process is "PROBLEM DEFINITION". And that is something that is woefully lacking in many of these discussions. But I DO get what is going on most of the time...[deleted for obvious reasons]

In other news, I'm fairly certain that the things I'm hearing spoken on one radio station here would not be allowed on the air in the USA. Even the students were disgusted. 

The reason I'm interested is because I think the adult awards are linked to the decline in scouter enrollment and participation. I'm curious if there were started as a means of adult retention.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm curious, anyone have the history of adult awards in scouting? I doubt there's a definitive guide, but the creation and evolution (see what I did there?) of adult awards in scouting would be an interesting read.

 

Frankly, I'd like to see awards given and or voted on by the boys for the adults. THAT would mean more than anything given by adding adults. Boy-led should mean in all aspects of the program, no?

I couldn't care less about the history of adult awards but I think that idea of boys deciding the awards is an OUTSTANDING idea! Yes, 'boy-led' should mean in all aspects of the program. Great Idea!

An engineer would say that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Yes, one can always point to that silver lining. Sounds like 'win, win' to me.