Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BDPT00

  1. Personal opinion here...

    Regarding terminology (class A, field uniform, etc), it's obvious that class A and class B go together. To me, if one uses the term "field uniform" they would also use "activity uniform." I doubt that people would use field uniform and class B. That being said, my opinion is that activity uniform is still the proper ("official") term.

    Am I wrong?


  2. I didn't really have a comment on the subject, but I looked in on it because of the title. It just reminded me that many people don't know the words to the song. I'm assuming that's where the subject line came from.

    I thought Mrs Trevorum's line was priceless.

    My youngest is now 27, so I fall into the same category. As long as we stay up to date on the latest training, we're a huge asset to Scouting. If we allow ourseves to become too entrenched in our own rut we become a liability.


  3. I agree with Narraticong (although IM_Kathy stated her view pretty well). The last post stating that boys behave like boys is the point I think we're brushing over. My wife is an educator, and she loves Boy Scouts the way it is. She'd hate to see it go co-ed. Boys and girls act differently when they mix it up. The reason I'm agreeing with Narraticong is because I think it's great that the boys can participate in a growth experience without the distraction of girls watching them perform. Where else can they do that? They act differently. When they're camping with other Scouts, they don't need to be so concerned about looking or acting cool. They can just be boys! They can do the primping and posturing every day outside of Scouting. Same with the girls. When they get together they like to try on clothes, and they sing and dance and laugh with each other. They have a ball. Put them with boys, and they giggle, whisper, and flirt. They change. Should we take away that opportunity? Why take it away from the boys or the girls? Give the Scouts a chance to play water polo in lake without having to worry about how they look, how tough to play, where their hands go, and they can win or lose without having to try to impress a girl. Let the boys be boys.


  4. Oak Tree: "My question is this: do any of your troops normally mean "Scout pants" when you tell the Scouts to wear the activity uniform (or their "Class B" uniform)?"

    It sure seems to me that most of the comments lean toward wearing Scout pants with the activity uniform. I think the key word is uniform. If your unit happens to think blue jeans are the uniform, then they'd probably look like Scouts if they all wore matching shirts and blue jeans. The trouble I have is what I see as a burning desire by some kids to look as little like Scouts as possible: sagging pants, basketball shorts covering their calves, sloppy footwear, etc. I think that Scout shorts, Scout socks, and matching t-shrts look pretty sharp. That's what we wear at Wood Badge, NYLT, NAYLE, and Jamborees. It's clearly the desired uniform. Those units that choose to dress similarly get my praise, and I don't think that's overthinking anything. We're a uniformed organization, and as such should be recognized at Boy Scouts.


  5. skeptic: "as long as the scout is not held up on completion of his Eagle."


    FINALLY ... someone whose perspective is back on the Eagle! We're a society that always cheers for the underdog, and I think we sometimes lose our focus. The Eagle candidate has completed his project, and we should all rejoice.


  6. Eagle92 is obviously correct. You'll get plenty of replies on this one!

    I commission for a troop which won't allow women on campouts, and they've certainly got reasons (all could be argued), but because of that they lost out on a den of 12 Webeloes who decided to go elsewhere because of it. The troop not only lost the new Scouts, but at least 3 active adults as well.

    Until they remove their CC (former SM), I don't see the "policy" changing. It's "always been that way."

    Don't allow the troop's leadership to try to convince you that it's a Scouting policy. If they really believe that, they're way out of touch with reality. Do they even go to roundtables or training??



  7. There are a lot of issues and emotions coming out here. I find it interesting that we seem to always defend the Eagle, no matter what. Now we suddenly want to defend the union and insult the efforts of a Scout who appears to have done his best to serve his community and to advance in our program. Looks like we've found a soft spot to poke if we ever want to start an argument.

    I have two solutions. When the Eagle candidate approached the city, maybe the city should have first offered the volunteer work to the union guys. That way the Eagle could lead qualified personnel, and the laid-off guys would have had some worthwhile work to keep them busy. If they didn't accept, the Eagle could find others to volunteer. Either way, the work gets done and the Scout fulfills his requirements. Now that the project is done, and our 20/20 hindsight can't undo what's already been done, the other solution might be that those who wish to make a statement could organize a picket line when this young lad has his Eagle ceremony. I normally don't cross picket lines, but I would this one.


  8. I'm hearing what the Scoutmaster is saying. I think we're all attacking him because we know the kid will win an appeal. The question I have is more along the lines of our Aims in Scouting. What I'm hearing the Scoutmaster say is that the Scout is coming up short in the character department. "Leadership is just one of the methods." Well, so is advancement. The Scoutmaster wants him to get more out of Scouting. What I'm hearing people say is, "Just sign the papers." "You've obviously messed up." "It's too late to fix anything now." "You should resign."

    It sounds to me that the Scoutmaster is trying hard to justify this candidate's quest for Eagle, and it's just not coming out right. He's not ready in the eyes of the Scoutmaster, and I'd guess he's not ready in the eyes of other adults and the Scouts. Has he fulfilled the requirements? Probably. Is he "Eagle material?" Probably not.

    Black and white ... the kid wins. The Scoutmaster is dealing in the gray area, and I'm empathizing with his dilemma. My very first EBOR was with an almost 15 year old. I felt he wasn't worthy, but I was out-voiced. Two weeks later, he was gone completely. His Eagle was just a resume item. I wish I'd have had the courage this Scoutmaster is displaying. I think he's trying to help this kid, and he's trying keep the bar high at the same time. The advice he's receiving here is that it's ok to lower the bar. (Sign the papers and/or resign). I don't agree. Unless we've walked in this Scoutmaster's shoes, I think we need to listen more and offer judgement less. He's clearly troubled over this, and he obviously knows his responsibilities and objectives. He wants to do the right thing. That's why he's a Scoutmaster.


  9. I happen to lean toward John's argument on this particular service. I've experienced the same thing. There's no need to say who we believe Christ is, but there are some wise words in the New Testament ... lots of valuable lessons and teachings. It seems that those who put together these services think that the New Testament is off limits. Why? If we can so openly use teachings from other religions (even though there's a good chance that nobody from those particular religions are in the audience), why can't we use something that is familiar and significant to what I'll bet was 90% of that audience? 95%?

    It's no wonder that John gets upset with this. It's OK to express beliefs and teachings of other "prophets," but not the teachings of Jesus Christ. Where's the sense in that? Is someone trying to say there are no intelligent words to share from the New Testament? What is upsetting to me (and I presume John) is that somebody is boldly saying that Christ (and Paul and others) have nothing of value to say to young people. If we're going to call it inter-faith, then don't skip over Christianity so that we can include prayers to mother earth.


  10. That's fine. Sounds like you've found what works for you. It makes sense, and you should stick with it. Others may have other ideas.

    The answer to Pamedic18's question is yes, it's appropriate to wear palms on the knot.

    The last part of the question though sounds like it's asking if they can be worn on the Eagle badge (patch). The answer to that is no.


  11. A few comments...

    In days gone by, an assistant course director was authorized to wear 3 beads for the duration of the course. The 2 beads and 4 beads were (are) permanent. Most who'd earned 3 wore them permanently, too, and the new standard has changed to accomodate that.

    To the original question ... do we really need extra beads?

    No. Do we appreciate the recognition they represent? Yes. Should we wear them? That's totally up the the individual who earned them (Thank you, by the way, Brent.), just as with any other recognition. If people have reasons for wearing or not wearing recognition, that's up to them. Personally, I don't care what the reasons might be. I consider it phony to read, "I don't wear my 7 knots" for the following humble reasons.

    Wear what you want ... just wear it properly.








  12. Thanks for the replies, but you missed the question. Where does it say that the additional person cannot be the choice of the counselor?

    This is stated as fact to a person who is seeking advice. Whether a good idea or not, I don't believe it to be so.




  13. "I am all for "Gray Area Scouters" taking training.

    I know that I had some "challenges" doing group projects with fellow students in school b/c I was a commuter who worked 2 jobs in addition to goign to school FT."


    This is precisly the reason a youngster should not be taking Wood Badge. Right now they have other important things to do. Personally, I think our highly motivated, goal-oriented, young Scouters have one goal in mind when taking Wood Badge, particularly when they've been staffing NYLT: beads.

    I'm sure there's an exception out there, and good for him.





  14. Nachamawat,

    You're certainly more than just curious.

    They sure wouldn't wear it during the course, no. That patch has been around for many years, and I happen to like it. I think it looks pretty cool. A lot of people wear it because they don't realize it's unauthorized (similar to wearing the panda in the wrong place), unlike the rainbow square knot.





  15. I'm glad this thread came back to life. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise, and I enjoyed reading it, as well as looking up its history and meaning. Good comments from both sides of a heated discussion.

    I've seen one of these knots. Seemed like a good guy, and he was open and sincere about it. Nevertheless, because of it, he won't be asked to serve on the staff of the course he was taking. We make sure our trainers are in proper uniform. That may or may not get a comment ... don't care. Just stating what happened here.

    I've also seen the Wood Badge knots. Those people will also not be asked to serve. It's a demonstrated disrespect for proper uniforming, which is the exact opposite of what a Wood Badge staffer should doing.

    I've obviously tipped my hand. I appreciate the "bravery" of those who wear, and therfore earn it, but I don't think it's appropriate.





  • Create New...