BklynEagle

Scout Spirit or no, they should shoot the idiot who came up with these. Hope your Troops and Packs have a supply of old ones.

You have a pretty good point there, scoutingagain. Jim Webb (D-Va) is supposedly backpedaling on Obamacare due to (legitimate) concerns about its popularity in Virginia (I've got family in Virginia, according to them there's some fierce opposition to the whole thing). He used to be in Reagan's cabinet, could switch back if the going got tough. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the appointee Senator of the Accidental Governor, is facing the possibility of some serious opposition should Harold Ford (former D-Tenn) mount a primary challenge. Though Ford has "re-evaluated" several of his old

Cold Weather all the way. No bugs, no humidity, no roasting to death with no relief in sight. A chill in the air to remind you that you're alive, and a warm fire to sit around and shoot the... uh... well, you know what it is that gets shot in these instances. And on a personal note, I hope that whatever was ailing you has been resolved, Scoutfish.

BadenP I would hardly consider Wikipedia to be a credible source for an academic discussion. Frankly, with the exception of their articles on the episodes of the varied "Star Trek" shows, I don't hold much stock in the analytical capabilities of most Wikipedia contributers, as anybody with a keyboard and an Internet connection can edit the thing. Regardless, NJCubScouter has already exposed the flaw in that reference. As far as your conviction about Benedict restoring the Latin Mass, I frankly don't know where you get your information; I have heard nothing of the sort. In any event, i

BadenP Not being an average layman in the pew, I have a better understanding of Diocesean politics than you might imagine. In addition, I'm very sorry that you have had negative personal experiences with the more recent scandals which have rocked the Church; I have had some second- and third-hand experiences with that tragedy myself. You might be surprised in that I too would prefer to see more accountability within the Church, but I do think that it must be a two-way street: let us hang the offenders and their abettors by their toe-nails, but let us not sit quietly when we realize that

BadenP - I would have gotten back to you sooner, but was thwarted by technical difficulties. Please don't take my delay as some sort of concession of defeat. Now, on to my reply. Contrary to your commentary, I'm not a bigot, nor some whackjob; as a matter of fact, I am on record on this site as being in opposition to a particular wahoo who was claiming that the OA was a secret Masonic path to the devil. I am certainly pleased to know that YOU are apparently an expert on MY religion. I am, however, curious as to your views on Benedict being against interreligious dialogue; last time I

Two Points BadenP - you ought to get that apperently raving bigoty of yours under control. "Elitist and prejudicial pre Vatican 2 status"? Ignoring the fact that Vatican II was the biggest FUBAR to hit the Roman Church since Avignon, BSA would only be a shell of itself if RC, LDS, and other Churches who actually have the audacity to insist on morality pulled their sponsorships, so frankly, from a pure business perspective, it would be suicide to do as you seem to wish. Who's gonna sponsor a Troop if not not a Church? The local Public School? I don't know if it's different in other pl

This is not a Troop Policy, just my personal thought process - Assuming you go camping fairly often (say, 7 or 8 times a year), a simple majority's worth of attendance on Camping Trips, i.e., 50% + 1 would probably be acceptable (Let's face it, High School kids get Weekend Jobs, which is another element in their personal growth); if you go camping less often, then the attendance factor would have to be larger. Meetings I'd be a bit more strict about, say, 80% cumulative attendance, assuming absences are infrequent. Exceptions, of course, could exist to these rules, but that woul

Friend of mine bought me the Klingon Interpreter Strip as a joke, but I fear I am not nearly fluent enough to wear it. (taH pagh, taH be) Brooklynese, on the other hand......

Though I feel sorry for you, Balding, at least CNJC had the decency to inform all of you that they're looking to close KMSR, unlike GNYC, which only put out a press release (and nothing more) regarding its hope to sell Camp Pouch (See: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=260032 - GNYC Seeks to Sell Camp Pouch). Additionally, I must applaud CNJC for offering Scouters the opportunity to make their opinions known on the matter, again, unlike GNYC. I guess it just goes to show that Manhattanites really are the scourge of all that is good and right.

JerseyScout and scoutingagain: You're absolutely right; Pouch also serves the purpose of providing a convenient base for any out-of-town Troop that's visiting New York. I can only hope that you, and others who feel like you do, make use of the petition found on the SavePouch site, and express those opinions. Additionally, I find scoutingagain's suggestion of NPS taking it over to be an interesting one; the Parkies already have the rather large Gateway system spread throughout the greater NY area. I wonder, though, if the Honorary President of the BSA would sign off on it? skep

In the past two weeks, it came out that the Greater New York Councils (GNYC) has decided to try and sell off Camp Pouch, located in the New York City borough of Staten Island. The Council Executive Board voted in favor of the measure 11/24, and it made the local Staten Island papers 11/25. The catch: no other borough found out until 11/29 (at the earliest). Pouch, being the only BSA camp located within NYC, serves as a highly valuable opportunity for our urban Troops to be able to experience the great outdoors without completely breaking the bank. Though Council expresses that they would p

Got to agree with moxieman, it's the holiday. I didn't even bother going online from the day before Thanksgiving until about this past Sunday night. And much like SequoiaWDL and DancesWithSpreadsheets, I couldn't access the site for love or money on Tuesday. But fear not - there's always problems somewhere in the world of Scouting.

Obviously this Salza fellow is a whackjob, like those types that get bent out of shape over the jolly old elf from the North Pole, on account of "Santa" being an anagram of "Satan". (Cue the forboding music and the cameo of Vincent Price) As a Catholic, and a rather conservative on at that, I have no problem with the OA, and neither does my priest. Like many others who have posted here, I can think of more than a few OA-affiliated members of the local Catholic Committee on Scouting. It seems that Salza feels that (A) the lack of obvious recognition for the Christian God and (B) the simi

Technically speaking, TheScout, you are correct: there is no clause that specifies "Seperation of Church and State". Having said that, there is Aticle VI, Section 3: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States", as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, specifying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Additionally, there is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, though its original intent was with regards to race.

>There is a good reason our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution a clause for the seperation of Church and State. < Yeah, to protect the Church from the State.

Believe me, Eagle92, no offence taken, and not trying to dish it out either. Obviously, your council is highly concerned with its legal protections. I'm sure they have a good reason for this. The fact that the troop you mention made use of a Council-designed CSP, even an old one, is probably the real crux of the issue there. Having said that, they may even have an objection to being mentioned on what effectively amounts to an advertisement without their consent. The varied organizations here in NYC have (by and large; there are exceptions) not made use of any image not created by persons

Back at Summer Camp a few years ago, the camp was running a form of Campwide Games in which a mascot or totem was required. A few troops brought the mascots/totems back with them in subsequent years.

Eagle92 - >BSA nationally and some local councils, are really getting anal retentive about BSA 'branding" and ARE going after individuals and units. There is a troop in my district that had the lawyers coming after them b/c they designed an all in one patch that had my council's old CSP design in it. Looked great, but it violated the law and they had to quit makign them< Oak Tree - >The answer that I think the lawyers would give is yes, they do need to protect their brand. If they are aware of people using it without authorization and do nothing to stop it, then they can lose legal

>Brklyn, Welcome to the forums. You may need to be care/get your council's approval for that. BSA nationally and some local councils, are really getting anal retentive about BSA 'branding" and ARE going after individuals and units. There is a troop in my district that had the lawyers coming after them b/c they designed an all in one patch that had my council's old CSP design in it. Looked great, but it violated the law and they had to quit makign them. Came to someone's legal eyes via an ebay sale.< Thanks for your concern, Eagle92. If the Council goes after my guys, they're gonna

My Troop, and its affiliated Pack, have a real simple solution to the red/white vs. tan/green conflict - We've got custom shoulder patches that identify our council, ourselves, and where we're from.

I've been reading this thread with keen interest, as my Troop has had a few questionable candidates slip through in years past. I find it difficult to believe that the young man in question suddenly woke up one day and was no longer living in a manner consistent with Scout Spirit. If I had to guess, he was probably a cause of consternation from Day One. Now that he's going for Eagle (and with a stated intention of leaving after Eagle), his problematic nature is causing uz2bnowl some real agita. My question is this (and please don't take it the wrong way): Why didn't he cause uz2bnowl a

"Eureka! Simple solution Class A's are boxers and Class B's are briefs.... Both would have fleur-de-lis on the bands. See how simple that is!" Wouldn't that be a violation of Youth Protection? I'd say that epaulets ARE useful, particularly if we keep on dressing Webelos in the Boy Scout uniform rather than the Cub uniform. Overall, I never had a problem with the De La Renta shirt, or even the De La Renta pants (though those were far from ideal) - It was the De La Renta shorts that I hated. The new uniform bugs me - I don't like the design of the shirt, I don't like the pants,

Scoutfish, we think alike - There exist parents who ruin Scouting for their kids. Personally, I wish my Troop would make the parents stick around, and then get involved in some way, shape, or form, but when our Scoutmaster is incapable of making it to a meeting less than 30-45 minutes late, what can I expect?

I'd say one of the biggest problems is that there are a heckuva lot of kids whose parents dump them into the Scouts as a means to get away from them for 1.5 - 2 hrs every week. It's no longer Boy Scouts of America, it's Baby Sitters of America. Then, too, you have what Scoutfish makes note of, the "All about me" mentality. My troop had something like that a few years ago; The boy's mother refused to allow him to go on any camping trips (we go camping about 10 times a year), then demanded to know why her son wasn't advancing. The Committee Chairman had to break it to her that we weren't