RuddBaron

I don't know of a place that sells them. However, I'll tell you what I did when I was a wee Scout on the ceremony team. I asked mother to make a black sash for me. The sash itself is simple to construct out of black fabric (broadcloth works well)...especially using a modern sash as a guide. The arrow was done in applique (as I believe the original ones were). Cut a basic arrow shape out of white fabric and sew it down before finishing the black sash itself. The arrow should be of basic design, not the current style embroidered on the white sashes. There may even be a drawing of it in the handb

Check out the MacLaren Clan site in North America. http://members.aol.com/Rapmack/index.htm The link listed for the STS shows the five tartans mentioned. Two is the standard clan tartan. A 90 degree rotation simply means the either the Wood Badge swatch on the neckerchief is rotated...or perhaps it is the graphic on the STS web site.

Other groups that are not military use that same style jacket. Police, fire, Park Service, Forest Rangers, etc., either have or have had such a uniform. I cannot understand how they think a green tie is "military." Sounds like PC nonsense. What next? Phase out the campaign hat? Perhaps I shouldn't mention that the BSA uniform color scheme is essentially that of the US Marine Corps.......... You can get a green tie of suitable style and color from the USMC or, if memory serves, either the park service or forest rangers. Either way, it's a green tie, not a military uniform item.

Yes! Retro! Do it the old way from a time when our publications had paintings and illustrations by Norman Rockwell. Actually, there's another idea...a Norman Rockwell theme. I think he probably had a painting for just about every activity we do, probably even those at a camporee.

>>> So are you saying that if scouts are doing a good job you will somehow set them us for failure? Not generally. When I say "set them up for failure" at that age, I mean more along the lines of adding little "extras" that might challenge them a bit more. It takes practice to get it right so it doesn't totally frustrate the kid. Generally if they are doing a good job, I say let them do a good job in peace. >>> Do you think it is okay for scouts to joke around with leaders? Your message come off like you would control everything we an iron fist. Sometimes with thi

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Letting them fail is GOOD!!! Houston, we have agreement! In some cases setting them up to fail is a good learning tool as well if highly controlled and not done sadistically. The more I listen to you, the more I get the feeling we're trying to say the same thing, just coming at it from two different directions.

I cannot imagine that B-P would have taken any nonsense of the Scouts. Photographs of him that I have seen at Brownsea show him instructing Scouts...and his mouth is open. An adult being seen is a perfectly valid way of maintaining order, and is often more effective than speaking. A good ability to use one's eyes is often more effective than speaking. Who on earth said anything about preventing Scouts from having experiences? Yes, we should give the children respect. Respect is a two-way street. But, they (and we) have to realize that they are still CHILDREN, a period in which they gr

I dare say B-P carried a lot more weight than any of his SPL's, even if he let the SPL's lead. No organization will ever be fully run by those under 18 (Scouting is under 18...I'm not talking about Venturing here). It's a simple legal matter. Are you honestly saying that the Council President should, if he can't talk because the troop is being loud, reschedule his talk and waste further time by leaving and having to come back another time? Intimidation? Hardly. We must come from different worlds. I don't hardly hold with this apparent modernistic liberal trend of allowing ch

Visiting troops need not be interferance, though I am aware of that potential. It depends on the individual annnd the approach, but if done properly, it can help build a bridge between the unit and the district. It's a lead from the front technique. To quote Patton, the higher up on is, the more time one has to go to the front.

Perhaps my very narrow statements are causing confusion. >>> I guess I made a bad assumption, when you said you where not going to stand there and take it what did you mean? If not yelling? Scout sign, for one thing. One can also ask the SPL if this is how his Scouts behave (subtle hint to get them to be quiet). Or, one can speak directly to the boys effectively without yelling. >>> Okay by me to, but the SM conference would address this, and I would also be talking to the parent. Why are you worry about wasting the scouts time, they are doing that, and the

Next you'll be telling me that the Council President, despite having been invited to speak about the Council activities at a troop meeting, cannot actually speak without the permission of the SPL. Or...should said Council President speak, and the Scouts act up with no response from the adults or boy leadership, the President should just stand there however long it takes for the Scouts to quiet down. All well and good for a brief period, but expecting a guest to stand there for a half hour while the Scouts settle down is patently ridiculous. The adult leaders generally have responsibilities out

Did I say anything about anyone from District YELLING at the Scouts? I simply said that I do not simply stand there and take disrespect (which includes Scouts talking while I'm talking) just because the SPL can't or won't do anything about it. Usually this entails putting up the Scout sign. This should be the same for anyone, whether they are from District, National, or another troop. And you can be sure that if I was chastised for refusing to take lip off of Scouts while giving a talk, I would not be involved with that troop again. A troop that permits Scouts to be disrespectful towards

Fine, if they aren't disturbing the adults. However, giving them a set time for taps and then letting them get away with violating it challenges the authority of the leadership of the troop. If the boys can't get them quiet, I see no reason *I* should have to be up all night because of it. Also, not getting enough sleep CAN be a safety issue, especially in high adventure. When my life depends on a Scout being alert, yeah, I'll make sure they're quiet, with or without the SPL. Another example: In a troop meeting, let's say the Scout sign isn't working to keep them quiet when the SM

That's fine when it works...and usually it does. I certainly don't want to be constantly telling the Scouts to be quiet, do their work, etc. BUT...ultimately, if necessary, the adults must act as the disciplinarians. That isn't a failure of the boy-led system. It is an inherent part of the system. Scouts make mistakes in leadership; it's part of the learning process. Haven't you ever been learning how to do something, made some mistakes, and gotten to the point where your instructor had to step in and help out?

Ah yes, Monty Python. How could I forget that one. We used to do a lot of stuff from Monty Python.

You can always try manual labor at night if they need to be relieved of some pent-up energy. If the SPL and boy leaders cannot get them quiet, then the adults have to step in. Boy-led doesn't mean only boy-led.

Regarding the bedroom situation...at that time in history it was a sign of wealth and position to have a bedroom for the master and a bedroom for the lady. Mansions in Newport are a good example of this, as are many southern plantation homes and castles in Europe. It had nothing to do with the status of their relationship.

You can always do something about King Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the quest for the Golden Fleece, and other such stories that teach points of morality, duty, and virtue in a chivalric setting (since BSA's principles largely derive from codes of chivalry). Most of these are pre-renaissance, but it's close enough. For pure renaissance, there's always Cyrano de Bergerac.

I'm a bit late here, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous. Certain Order of the Arrow lodges use highly controlled gunpowder charges and KEROSENE to light fires for shows...but never fireworks and gasoline. What have you obeserved the response of the girls at camp to be when these two teach them these things?

Yeah, you have a point. "Your kind" is more into what I would call cooperative approaches than men. Girl Scouts are from Venus and Boy Scouts are from Mars...sorry...couldn't resist.

And this raises the next academic question of what constitutes a Scoutmaster Conference. The requirement says "participate." What does participate mean in this context? It seems highly subjective, and thus at the discretion of the SM. If the Scout calls the SM an SOB and is rude during the conference, it seems the SM could easily decide that the Scout didn't really participate.

Why not have someone (a volunteer) work in your council as an unofficial commissioner? Get your council Executive Director (isn't that the name?) to agree to support that person. Have the commissioner chat with the BSA commissioners to get a feel for how to work it. Make the program a success and then have it spread unofficially. Eventually GSUSA might just pick it up as an official volunteer position.

There's another interesting question. If a boy comes to a BOR totally ill prepared, and it is obvious that he is winging it, then the board should turn him down. Now...in that situation, who is at fault? The boy, his Patrol Leader, his Patrol Scoutmaster, the Scoutmaster, or all of the above? Certainly the SM's ought to ensure that the boy is prepared. Does anyone's troop have the PL work on rank advancement with his patrol members and serve as another checkpoint in the system? My old troop about which you have heard me talk so much used to have the older boys do a "pre-board" for the younger

Ah, you're in TEXAS. I am familiar with their nonsensical zero tolerance policies. Those are getting more common. They're quite bad in general, as they serve as a deterrent to risk taking and creativity. They say that failure is simply not tolerated. If you can't accept failure as a risk to something like, say, an invention, then you're not likely going to attempt the invention. This nation was built by risk takers, and it is now being harmed by the zero tolerance risk averse. As for the medication, what was the child supposed to do? Let the other one die? Do we punish those who try to h

Right...it's not in the job description, but it's nice. Visiting when there is a perceived problem is certainly something that should be done. But, visiting before there is a problem can perhaps nip things in the bud or at least let the units see the District as something more than an aloof body that puts on camporees. I'm not suggesting all DC members need to do this. It does take extra time, and we all have limits. Some are more suited to admin, and some are more suited to field work.