skeptic

There are two different types of "feeder" packs. One is a unit sponsored by the same group, often with a similar number with an extra digit. The other is a pack that simply traditionally feeds into a particular troop for various reasons, often family and friend related. Under the new registration formats at National, a related unit, sponsored by the same group, can actually "promote" cubs from the pack directly. They cannot "promote" cubs from non affiliated units. So, paperwork wise, that can be and advantage. But, having a regular feed certainly makes a huge difference. Even a few each year helps with balance going forward. If you end up with the big gap in the middle, it can kill the unit due to lack of leader aged scouts in the middle and partially disconnected almost aged out scouts, as noted by someone else.

Usually, it would seem simply forming a new troop, or even two in this case, might be the best solution. You also might look at breaking out your seniors and forming a Venture crew if you do not already have one. In a few instances, due to history and keeping the direct connection to a unit number, I have heard of troops simply splitting and meeting on two different nights, or two different locations on the same night; but they continue as one unit on paper and for district and council activity. That of course means having a large pool of leaders from which to draw. I wish I had even a little of that problem. We lost both of our long time feeder packs in the past five years, and the other packs basically continue to go elsewhere. We have almost disappeared due to few new members, since we have not on going pack affiliation anymore. We have tried to get a pack going, but so far it has floundered and also is not growing. The few webloes that it had just came into the troop, and the younger boys, of which there were only six, suddenly were gone due to 3 families picking up and moving out of the area, and one simply stopping his participation when the others went. So, we have a number, but pretty much no pack at this point. Hopefully we can rejuvenate it somehow; but I have to focus on the troop. Funny, we have a willing and cooperative sponsor, a great meeting place in which we have met since 1928, yet we have trouble getting members. Being on the "wrong end" of town is a factor I'm afraid. But we persevere. Good luck with your "problem".

Mine was a 502 Bad Gateway this time. Maybe it is the weight of the never ending thread???;-)

Ahhhhhhhh!! Rational and common sense comments. How refreshing. Thanks!!

Gee; that sounds familiar. What was it, about 110 posts back I suggested something similar? Good luck.

Likely impossible to say, if you mean "all" of them. Now if you are referring only to merit badge and rank insignia, and only the Boy Scout portion, one could likely come up with a good approximation. Add in the cubs, various senior programs over the years, and Lone Scout, and it would get next to impossible I would think. Just an opinion.

Okay; we just got a reason to pass the bill. Rush Limbaugh is promising to leave the country should it be passed. Says he will move to Puerto Rico, which I understand already has National Health Insurance. How many will miss him, should he actually do it?

Until last year, when I became Medicare eligible, my only affordable care was through the absolute minimum level of VA coverage. While it was/is better than some have available, it certainly was not particularly convenient, especially for basic stuff. Why was that? I got down sized and was very soon "priced out" of coverage, as has been discussed over and over here and in the media. I can see a lot of reasons why there are concerns about the insurance companies, as well as areas of the medical providers too. We read about the salaries of the people on the top of these companies, and they are often as obscene as those of the top banking heads. We read about "a few" doctors who are multi-millionaires doing specialties that often are seen as unnecessary, while apparently opting to ignore basic care to those who cannot pay. But, these same doctors will appear as "wonderful saviors" when they suddenly find the ability to bring someone from another country and do miraculous things. While few would want that child or special case to suffer, it still makes you wonder where these people find the resources when we have basic suffering that goes untreated here in our own communities. I suspect that "most" doctors do not make obscene profits and live up to their oaths as best they can. A few literally struggle almost as much as those to whom they reach out. Considering the training and dedication it takes, we should not begrudge care givers "comfortable" life styles. But, we who are on the lower part of the societal pot also likely often wonder "why" some seem to never have "enough comfort". While hard work should be rewarded, and innovation as well, it is hard to fault the majority in our society who question why those "very few" seem never to "have enough". Pardon my naivete, but why is a million dollars a year not enough to live on, especially if it is supplemented with other perks, such as access to places to stay and ways to get there without paying. Every time I look at my own life, I see that there was a short period, when I was still fully employed, and so was she, that we pretty much had no concerns. And we were no where nearly as well "compensated" as CEO's and the top echelons directly below them. So, a few questions. Should hospitals really be "for profit"? Should there be a "ceiling" on how much is enough, for heads of large companies? Wouldn't society, and shareholders, possibly be better served if the extreme compensation was paid to those who "actually are responsible, the workers in the business". There are really no easy answers to these problems. But until that "huge gap" between most of us and a few starts to close, we will continue to have more and more upset and rebellious people. But, "most of us" still need to recognize that "needs" and "wants" are two different things. If we cannot pay, then, if not a necessity, we need to accept that we do not need it at the moment. We need to, as a society, get back to taking responsibility for our own choices and actions. That includes "some type of Tort reform", not only for medical suits, but civil and accident cases as well. Okay, I guess I need to take off the "rose glasses" again.

Can we have pie before the nap??

Basically, Scoutfish is simply pointing out the obvious again. Taxes, in some manner, are an integral part of life in this country, and most countries. We all pay them in some way, even those who try not to pay some. So, technically, he is pointing out; no one should be able to use any of the publicly supported facilities, nor should they be paid from public funds, if they have a belief in God. Now, of course this is over-projection of the intent by the anti-God, anti-religion groups; but it has some credence at its basic level. "WHERE DO! YOU DRAW THE LINE?" Should Scoutfish's in-laws, who worked for the government, not be paid if they believe in God? After all, the money comes from taxes that Merlyn paid, or someone similar to him. That, I think, is what Scoutfish is asking.

Scoutfish; You can give all the info' you choose on the term, but neither of the two will admit fitting any part of them. I sometimes wonder if they are not really two faces of a multi-personality and are simply baiting themselves. Just try to ignore them 99+% of the time, as they will not stop.

Mr. LeRoy: You know, there was a time when public entities were not afraid to represent basic, majority beliefs of their constituents and clients, because most recognized that was a reasonable thing to do. When the challenges began, then many various responses materialized. But, that has nothing to do with this suggestion by me. What I am saying is simply that those opposed to the idea of God in scouting need to recognize that this has "always" been one of the keystones of the program, even in the original version of B.P. So, please, stop trying to twist this into "your" narrow minded agenda. Thank you. I will now continue to ignore your incessant whining.

It seems to me that we need to quit lumping the God and Gay issues together; they are not the same. While there are similarities, one is literally based on views regarding physical characteristics and responses to life style choices. The other relates directly to a foundational tenet of Scouting, belief in a spiritual entity greater than oneself. As such, I fail to understand why it continues to be put in the same arena with the Gay issue. It IS something that should be accepted or rejected at the point of joining. If you cannot accept it, then the organization is not for you. On the other hand, much of the contention on Gay issues stems from the over the top, public view, of a small, but strident few, in the Gay community. This translates to a "lifestyle" in a lot of minds, and it is one that is not deemed acceptable to many. And while the issue may have many similarities to infidelity, free-style heterosexual life choices, and even drugs and alcohol to some extent, most individuals engaged in those types of life choices do not try to make it such a public thing. I suspect, as has been pointed out numerous times, that even many in the Gay community are often chagrined by the "over the top" displays of likely a small percentage of their communities. But, because it is so out spoken, and often outlandish, it really pushes buttons. So, maybe it is time for reasonable people to stop putting the two in the same basket. Just my views from having lived more years than many.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Perhaps someone has more background on Dale's ultimate decision to make a public challenge to the dismissal from BSA. I am aware of a number of incidents that have been pursued in court, some of which got tossed or settled without trial, that were obviously "coerced" by outside sources looking for viable "victims" to advance their agendas. So, I wonder if James Dale might have initially simply accepted the decision as part of life, and gone on without a challenge? Who pushed the issue at the start, really? And, after the final SCOTUS decision, has Dale accepted it, and moved on; or is he still involved in the continuing attack mode of current challengers? Just Curious if anyone has "factual" evidence one way or the other.

Reverence and some type of higher consciousness is a cornerstone of Scouting. If you cannot accept that premise, then you should not be part of the group. It is so tiresome that this simple "fact" seems to be ignored by so many here. Removing a cornerstone of a building will eventually lead to its collapse.

Guess I am ignorant of proper knot use for shoes, as I have never used a square or granny knot to tie them; or at least not on purpose. We were taught to use a slip knot, or bow knot, and if we could not tie it tightly enough, secure it with a second one. You just pull one strand to undo it. Not sure why you would want one there that would very possibly get too tight. Finding a way to make knots seem useful to kids today is difficult, as we use so many other types of attachment devices. A good example is the taut-line. They seem to not understand that the little tab device on the rope that stops back sliding can easily slip, or come off. But it takes a few extra seconds to actually tie something; and they do not want to take the extra time. Kind of like the shoes that are always coming undone. We are now encountering on occasion a bit of the same syndrome with compass work; many seem to think the GPS is the only thing they need, and that it is better. We all know, or should, that it is not only not always accurate, but sometimes simply does not work due to low power or blockage of signals. Always new challenges.

Agnosticism has never been grounds for questioning scouts regarding reference. An agnostic is simply not sure, but is searching for something greater than themselves. As such, they are not denying God's existence, only searching for how he/she fits into their beliefs comfortably. So, it makes sense that humanism would be listed as an acceptable belief in this training. The big controversy is the mistaken idea that somehow Scouting is based on a narrow, basically Christian foundation. And that has never been the case. Unfortunately, there have been some individuals on a national level who have misspoken regarding interpretation of God and reverence in the program; and they have abetted the people who so enjoy finding fault with Scouting for its spirituality tenet. Just my thoughts and opinion.

Beavah; Please consider revising your idea that scouting has a poor rep in regard to camping. I still do not know where you are getting that idea. Your earlier comments regarding it seemed to be based on a very small negative sample; and most of the posts in response seemed to negate that idea. Certainly in our part of the country, it is not the case. Quite the opposite. Just a thought. Thanks.(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Two related comments. Over the long time I have been associated with our troop, I have had a number of individuals approach me for "service" by our troop at various events that were some sort of money raising activity for a club or other group; they sometimes said they would give us a "donation" afterwards. Most of these seemed to me simply an attempt to get the services free, or for little expense, rather than real "service", as the effort would have been like paying someone a dollar an hour or less; and I politely turned them down. A few years back, the huge "Day Fire" happened in the Los Padres Forest in Southern California. One major front was on the Ventura, Kern, L.A. counties border in the area of Lockwood Valley. The Forest Service used our scout camp as a base, and our reservoir as a water source for helicopters. The ranger, his wife, and a few available scouters helped coordinate things, and made sure the kitchen and other facilities were serviceable, as well as equipment on site. They paid for their food, and brought in most of their supplies, but we certainly did not charge them for the facility use, even though it meant the camp was closed to scout use for close to six weeks. That is service as it should be. I can also guarantee you that it enhanced the BSA standing in the eyes of the fire fighters and related services.

Great piece; thanks for posting the link.

Methodist have theirs the second Sunday of February as part of their standard calendar. So we have ours this weekend. Boys are greeters, then sit together; I have litergist duties.

While this is a great endeavor, I do not see how it is really an Eagle project. Eagle projects are not supposed to be done for the Scouts, but for community groups, schools, and so on. Maybe it is acceptable because it is public art???

Here in So Cal, it is also similar to the North's coverage. Just add in the requisite "flash flood warnings" and possible mud slides in the burn areas. Then they show the mud running down the same spot dozens of times on every station, and the few idiots who are dumb enough to attempt to do something stupid, like drive through two feet of water, or refuse to evacuate when the mud has already taken out a house a block away. The other weather thing that annoys me is that its wet, more later. Give the weather news and get on with other things. Don't give us bits and come on info, then make us wait for more info. And, maybe they could give us actual rain totals, if known. Also, don't keep showing the constant radar precip maps, unless they actually relate to real info'; and don't stand in front of the map and block the information, or pan through it so fast you can't really see it. Finally, don't make yourself look stupid by saying there will be "thunder showers", or there are "thunder showers". There is no such thing. They are thunder storms with rain showers. Rant off.

See the other thread in this section; exactly what this talks about. "L.A. Then and Now"; L.A. Times California Section

In the weekly article on L.A. history in the TIMES, they discuss a couple of groups of public debaters that were common in the L.A. in the first half of the 20th century. Of course they tended to be much like the discussions here a great deal of the time. I could not help but think of this series of threads when I read a quote from a 1935 TIMES columnist, Lee Shippey. He said; "when you know a thing, you may merely speak it, but when you are rather doubtful, you must assert it so loudly as to overwhelm all opposition". Seems somewhat apropos for here. ;-)}