BDPT00

BDPT00: "My position on this, when taken to an extreme, is that we may as well just go directly from Webelos to Venturing. How's that?"

Sherminator: "I have stated my opinion, and I have stated why I hold it. You have stated your opinion. Yours may be absolutely correct, but the rest of us may never know as you haven't yet explained why you hold it."

I don't know what more I need to say. You don't agree with me, and I don't expect you to. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I didn't explain it well enough. So now I've just said it again.

"Absolutely correct?" Who cares?! I'm stating an opinion. And who is "the rest of us?" That makes it sound like everyone else agrees with you. I don't believe that to be true... but that, of course, is also only an opinion.

BDPT00

Sorry. It was meant to be inflammatory.

Regarding my unwillingness to be forthcoming, I have no clue what you're saying. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. They're not the same. It's clear then that that obviously means I'm wrong. You were curious to get the thoughts of the group. I shared my position. What more do you want?

My position on this, when taken to an extreme, is that we may as well just go directly from Webelos to Venturing. How's that?

BDPT00

That would be correct.

I see Boy Scouts getting squeezed from both sides (Webelos and Venturing). Webelos want to do BS programs, and now so does Venturing. I haven't yet seen what will happen to NYLT, but I'm not a fan of it. JLTC and NYLT and the courses that came before were to demonstrate how the patrol method works while the participants lived and worked and played in a model environment. Now what? From the other end, by the time kids get to their first year of summer camp, they've already done most of the good stuff in Webelos. It seems that nothing in the BS program is protected from the parasites that surround it. There ... how's that for inflamatory?

I'm resistant to change. When a new program comes out, I'll embrace it. I always do, even if I don't like it. I do make waves on occasion, sometimes big ones, but not on this issue.

BDPT00

"You know an old mule gets pretty set in his ways and when he doesn't want to move sometimes he just needs a good ole slap on the ass to get him to see that stubborness is not to his benefit. Reminds me of some people."

So to whom are you referring? Me or Sherminator? There's a lack of willingness to move from both sides. We're standing at a distance lobbing pebbles at each other. One side has a desire for change on their side, and the other side keeps stating what they think should be obvious.

If one wants change, then wave the argument in front of those who can make changes. Arguing here is nothing more than that...arguing. The longer we just pound the table, the more hostile we become.

BDPT00

What DeaconLance states is factual. It has nothing to do with what you, he, or I "honestly believe."

BDPT00

You make it sound like someone might care.

BDPT00

BP: "When that happens and you see the new REVISED requirements what will you say then?"

** Welcome.

Sherm: "By pointing out that murderers are not excluded from OA membership, and that you happen to like things the way they are, you are indeed indicating a membership preference to murderers over Venturing youth."

** There are a lot of people who are not excluded from membership. Someone decided to pick on murderers. My point, obviously missed, was that some people ARE excluded. Again, I'm satisfied with how it is. Repeating what I just said to BP, when Venturers are allowed elections, I'll welcome them (whether or not they're murderers).

Someone picked murderers as an extreme to make a point. So did I. I guess I must have crossed a line somewhere. Someone also mentioned cross-dressers. Haven't seen them excluded from elections either. Should I have chosen them instead?

BDPT00

Did I say that?

Someone assumed murderers were not allowed, and that's not true.

Fact.

Venturing crews cannot hold elections.

Fact.

Is that proposing something? No.

BDPT00

Ya know, a Silver Star's a pretty significant award. How about allowing that too? Someone had mentioned a Sunday School award. It's not as big a deal to me as a Silver Star, but it might be to the wearer, and it was earned as a youth. So maybe that might be even better.

Why can't we just follow the uniform guidelines as outlined in our official Scouting materials? It's a Scouting uniform, and there are guides regarding how to wear it. Pretty simple, really.

BDPT00

I see this as much ado about nothing. There are requirements for entry into the OA. Some people are excluded, and murderers don't happen to be among them, by the way. But there are others who are.

I happen to like things as they are. Just thought I'd throw in a vote (opinion).

BDPT00

If I use 4 gallons, 3 of them will be for a shower.

BDPT00

This can happen anywhere, and I hear what you're saying. Some things you can't fix, and some aren't worth trying. However ... if you know of someone who deserves an award, then you should fight for it. That includes a quality nomination. I've sat on numerous selection committees, and you wouldn't believe the laughable crap that people turn in. Take the time, do the research, be specific, and address the things that are stated on the application or the actual award. Many times, people are nominated for the wrong award. Just bein' a good guy or just showing up doesn't hold much water. Be specific to the award you're seeking.

BDPT00

I agree with Hobcaw regarding the "boy craziness" comment. The boys do the same. "Girl craziness" makes them act very differently than if it were just the guys hagin' around. The question then becomes "Is this good or bad?" These kids hang around each other all the time in a co-ed setting. I believe the kids need a chance to just be boys and/or just be girls without the other gender infuencing their behavior. I remember many years ago, my wife took several younger Scouts (12 & 13ish) on a week-long trip. One night they camped next to a group of girls. The mood of the entire group of Scouts changed. They became squirrelly and totally focused on the girls. The were no longer the Scouts she'd seen for several days. Now they were individuals, competing for the attention of their new-found interest. It's for this reason that I'm against co-ed NYLT and co-ed Boy Scouts. The program works. Leave it alone. If you want co-ed activities, keep trying to cooperate with Girl Scouts or Heritage Girls, 4H, or whatever. Ask educators what they know about same vs mixed gender learning environments.

BDPT00

Let's give Venturers an Outdoor Award, too. Problem solved.

Eagle92 quoted: "* Recognize those who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and through that recognition cause others to conduct themselves in a way that warrants similar recognition."

At what point do Venturers promise to live by the Scout Oath and Law?

BDPT00

John-KC,

Does Mic-O-Say allow/encourage youth female membership? Why? Why not?

BDPT00

Well, if you check out the replies in the "hazzing issue" thread, you'll probably get advice that says to wait until someone is injured, then hold back the offending Scout's next rank advancement, and take the parents to court.

I appreciate the comments here much more than there.

The activity by the kids can be expected if the adult leadership doesn't set the example and if there are no guidelines stated. The CM sounds like he just doesn't get it. He's a loose cannon, and needs some major adjustments. This kind of guy is unlikely to change, and either he leaves or you do. He's way out of line.

BDPT00

So, in other words, even though we're in the character building business, we just let kids do whatever they please (even if not living up to our Oath and Law) until someone gets hurt. Then we call the sheriff. Makes sense to me.

BDPT00

I'm in Mike F's corner on this one. This "boys will be boys" until someone gets hurt is the wrong way to go. If the behavior is wrong, then don't allow it. Don't wait for an injury.

This reminds me of a drunk driver causing injury or death. To me, it's simple ... the crime is driving drunk; not killing someone. The trouble is that action isn't taken until somebody dies. If we approach this as Mike F suggests, we prevent the accident from occuring (or at least we try). If we do nothing, people get hurt. These boys who are just acting like boys will someday be driving cars while intoxicated. Do we wait for them to kill somebody before we tell them it's wrong? We're in the example setting business. Let's do our job, and teach others to do likewise.

BDPT00

Looking for a little experience. I'll be helping plan an Eagle ceremony for a Venturer. His Scouting experiences are almost exclusively with troops, but he now belongs to a crew (and that's where he actually completed his Eagle). What kind of ceremony should this be? The Oath and Law are normally pretty important at ECOHs. How do we mix the two? Have you seen something similar? His primary unit is now a crew, and he'll be wearing a Ventuing uniform, but Venturing doesn't define him very well as a Scout.

Any thoughts or experiences?

BDPT00

Exactly. So it's either a simple, no-brainer requirement, or it's about time this Scout learned to teach and to help other Scouts.

I think it's a great requirement.

BDPT00

Hiking "shoes" might be a better word.

I wore some very nice, comfortable shoes a few years back, but the roads are so heavily crowned, I slid inside the shoes on every step...nasty blisters.

Hiking boots would be fine if they're really light. I think the message should be that sandals and cheap tennis shoes will cause problems after a few miles; and a few miles will get one through lunch on the first day.

BDPT00

It's interesting to watch this touchy subject. I don't feel it's worthy of debate except for those who are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Assumptions otherwise aren't worth much, and that's mostly what I'm reading. Interesting to watch though. I have only one question at this point, however: DanKroh ... I'd be really interested in "what science actually supports." Can you site an experiment or two? I'm interested in the words "actually" and science."

Thanks, BDPT00

Yes.

Satisfaction yet?

BDPT00

SSScout,

No.

I agree with Lisabob. Considering them asexual is an interesting way to say it.

The Scout in question is exactly why this whole thing is an issue. He's now going to make his sexuality a news item, and he's going to scream bloody murder when BSA asks him to step aside.

My one simple question is: what's his agenda?

It seems clear to me that he wants to play political football with my organization. If he liked Scouting as much as I do, it would be a non-issue. He's made a choice (to me, frankly, he's made another choice), and he'll have to learn to live with it. It's too bad he feels no Loyalty to BSA, and it's too bad that he was probabaly less than Trustworthy and/or Brave in his quest to become an Eagle Scout.

My concern now is for the Scouts with whom he comes in contact.

BDPT00