Zahnada

I think most people in this forum are here because they love scouting and want what's best for it. And I think that's why debates get so heated. I agree that the BSA program is a thing of beauty and when followed properly it can bring about wonderful results.

However, I also believe that nothing (at least nothing man-made) is perfect. BSA is no exception. I like coming to these forums because people here bring up questions that I had never considered before. They push the limits of the program. Everyone here who complains does so because they have an idea of what is best for the boys and for scouting.

Of course there's a line too. And I think that line is the forum. This is a great place to air out ideas and so I don't mind people testing the limits of the program and even the basic elements of scouting (oath and law). However, when we get out to the troops, our duty is to deliver the best program we have to the boys. It is not a time to experiment around or form renegade troops under the name of scouting.

So I say let's allow the forum to be heated and constructive. It can be critical and helpful. But always remember our duty.

Hmmmm... paper ideas...

So it needs to do with the field of communication. You want to use a scouting topic. Your professor wants you to focus on the controversy surrounding the gay issue.

Although you could write a dissertation on whether it's right for the BSA to exclude gays, I don't know if that's what you want to use for your paper. And remember, as many people have already said, with that topic there are really two issues: Can the BSA choose their membership? and, Should the BSA impose those membership restrictions?

I think the second question is the one that's debated most in this forum and probably the more interesting topic. The Dale case centered on the first question.

Anyway, for some paper topics...

If you want a comparative content analysis paper you can research articles from journals and newspapers about the BSA from say 1999 and then look at articles from similar sources from 2003. Then compare the general tone of the articles and see if the media or academic fields have changed their tone regarding the BSA. The research question is then, "Have public/academic perceptions of the Boy Scouts changed since the Supreme Court case?" This is definitely communication oriented.

You may want to do more of an argumentative paper. If you look through some of the threads of the "Issues and Politics" section, you'll see some good arguments. Check out the ones started by TJHammer. Anyway, a possible idea is to look at the rhetoric used by the BSA to explain their position. Effective/ ineffective? Consistent/inconsistent?

Perhaps you'll want to analyze the role that the communication industry (the media) played in the entire Dale case. They really brought the issue to prominence and thus made one case into a major controversy. How are the different sides using the media to their advantage?

These are just some options. Good luck!

I'm curious as to how these weapons are being found. Are these stories about kids getting suspended and punished for having knives at school taking place in schools with metal detectors or searches?

Having a knife in a backpack from a camping trip is completely believable. However, if the student just keeps it in the backpack, unless he's searched, nobody would ever know and he could remove it once he's home.

I hate to not give the kids from these stories their due credit, but I assume the only way it was discovered they had weapons was because they were telling people or pulling them out and showing people. In such cases, I lose my sympathy for the kids in question. Otherwise, I don't know how anyone would ever find out they had a knife at school.

Koreascouter said, "But, there was certainly a period of time during which I was on the fence, and would have come back if I thought somebody cared. But nobody called and asked where I had been or why I wasn't coming. So, I figured they didn't care."

Note to all scouts and scouters: Don't let boys "disappear"! If a scout stops showing up, do some follow up. We're not the mafia. They can choose to quit. But they must know that we all care and that the troop will always be there for them if they choose to come back.

I agree with everything you just said, Packsaddle. After reading over my comments I saw that I was making a link between atheism and science. And I was in error for that connection. Thanks for making the correction, packsaddle.

When people meet me, it doesn't take long for them to find out I'm an Eagle Scout. Then they always explain how they were a Cub Scout or Boy Scout and why they dropped out but wished they hadn't. Well, I'm interested in what causes the drop outs. This might be useful information to any leaders out there who read this and are dealing with boys or sons who don't think scouting is right for them.

I actually quit Cub Scouts. My friends had all left to pursue sports. The program always struck me as too focused on arts and crafts (at least the den I was in). Also popularity became an issue and scouting wasn't the "cool" thing to do. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Boy Scouts by my older brothers. They had to force me to go to meetings for a year when suddenly I made some friends and everything kind of clicked. I was hooked ever since. If not for those brothers, I wouldn't even be starting this thread right now.

So for everyone out there who dropped out of scouting or considered dropping out, what prompted you to do it? No time? Poor program? No friends? Popularity? Sports? Money? The meeting place had a funny smell? Moved and never started again?

And if you feel you made a mistake by dropping out, what advice would you give to a teenager in your position?

Hi Bob,

I guess the difference between us is that I consider atheism a chosen belief structure. Instead of classifying it as a "disbelief" in a higher being, I would say "belief that there is no higher being." Fine line, but it explains our differences of opinions.

In regards to religion, people are confronted by a series of choices throughout their lives. A person who chooses atheism has still chosen a structure of faith that can guide their lives. The scout law says, "respect the beliefs of others" and I consider atheism a belief that science holds the answers and that there is no supreme being. Therefore I respect people's ability to choose that lifestyle.

Although I don't agree with atheism, I would never go as far to say that I would not let an atheist into my house or do business with them. I think an atheist can also be a moral person.

These are just my rambling opinions. Obviously, we don't share the same views on the subject, but that's okay. Just as long as you see how I can respect a choice to be atheist and I can also respect a person despite their atheism.

"I do not understand however why you think I have to respect your choice, just because you respect mine."

Despite my personal opinions of atheism, I respect the right of people to make that choice. It's their right, and our country is a stronger nation because we allow people to make those choices. So I respect Achileez's choice.

I think Bob is confusing a respect for the ability to choose (which is how I interpret the conversation) with a respect for the actual choice or the person making it. There is nothing about atheism that harms myself or my family and friends. It is not illegal. I respect the right that Achileez possesses in his ability to choose a religion, just as he respects my right to make that decision. We don't have to agree on the choice, but the freedom to choose is what's important.

(As I aid the downhill spiral of this thread...)

Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan is one of my favorite movies of all time. The movies are very hit and miss, but that particular movie set the groundwork for the franchise of Star Trek films.

Sort of on the thread topic: Has anyone seen the boxer shorts with the American flag design? I don't mind handkerchiefs or T-shirts, but I draw the line at underwear. I vividly remember seeing those on display in many stores after Sept. 11. Just like Kid Rock's presentation, it's poor taste.

Althought I must admit, when I came back from a trip to London, just about everything I bought had the Union Jack on it somewhere (towels, mugs, flip-flops, etc). Maybe it's just different to me when it's the flag of the United States of America.

Bob White,

I completely agree with everything from your last post. The definition of "serve" must be laid out for the scout before they enter into their position.

I interpret acco's post as saying that the BOR decides whether the leadership is satisfactory for advancement (as they determine whether completion of all requirements is satisfactory). However, after serving for the time period, the boy has then fulfilled the requirement. This is kind of confusing for me. So the requirement can be signed off, but the BOR can say that even the completion of the requirement is not enough to advance a rank.

Anyway, my previous arguments concern boys who do not "serve". As acco's post says, "If you have a Scout in a position and he isnt doing his job, he needs to be counseled and removed if necessary. At some point down the road, he may be ready to try that position again or another one. Remember, if he served in the position for two months that is two months fulfilled towards completing the requirement."

So any amount of time that a boy is holding an office, it should be assumed that they are actually serving in that office. If a boy will not serve then they lose their responsibility to hold that office at that particular time.

That's why I believe that a boy who held the office of Patrol Leader for 6 months should meet the requirement. It does not help him or the troop to let a leader who refuses to serve maintain their authority and then complain about them after the fact. If he refused to serve during his term, he should have been counselled and if that didn't work, he should have been removed.

I think I'm just extending the logic of acco's post to answer the original question of this thread.

But once again, I agree with your assessment from your last post.

Yours in Scouting,

Zahnada

Thank you acco! I knew I wasn't completely crazy. There was truth in what just about everyone said during this post. And I assume that this decision applies to everyone? And is there any place where this decision is written down? Thanks.

Fair enough, Merlyn. Thank you for your reply.

Merlyn,

Sorry to distract you, but I have a quick question. I know you're getting attacked from all sides, but believe me that this post stems from curiousity and not any malignant nature.

To put it simply, why are you here? I know your mission to end government related support to scouting. Although I don't support that mission, I do understand why you might feel strongly towards it. Your vigor and research into the matter is impressive to say the least.

But to understand your motives better, I personally am curious as to what your goals are on this forum. For the most part, this forum has brought people around the country (and even around the world) together out of a mutual love for scouting. The debates and heated arguments that take place here arrise from a desire to aid scouting and the boys in scouting. Even the ever popular gay debate is carried on by people who only want what they feel is best for the program. You, however, don't make any pretense of caring about the program. It is insignificant to your arguments.

Then what's your goal? I would venture to guess that there are no Supreme Court justices on this forum. There probably aren't an city council members who are in charge of distributing government funds. So who are you arguing against? And what are you trying to change by being here?

Once again, I hope this doesn't sound like an attack because it is a genuine inquiry. I want to better understand your position and goals. Thank you.

Go to http://www.lavasoftusa.com/ and download "Ad-Aware". It's free (at least certain versions of it are). If you get reoccuring pop-ups, most likely you have some sort of cookie that's attached itself to your computer. Ad-Aware cleans off many of the annoying cookies. You might be surprised at how much junk is hiding in your computer after you clean it just once. It's free and it's easy to use. I highly recommend it.

Haha!

Very well, Fuzzy Bear. I can take a hint.

Besides, I have a feeling that only you, myself, and Bob are the only people still reading this thread/rope. But why cut it off at page 2? I wager we could have at least gone to page 5.

Bob,

Please read the parenthetical section of my last post that begins with "Please note".

I never say that a struggling leader should be removed from office. Some boys will have difficulty with their positions no matter how much help we give them. If they exert the effort, then they pass the requirement in my book.

My argument deals with how active a boy is. If a boy does not show up and is not performing his functions as a leader then he should lose his responsibility as a leader. Then there would be no arguments about whether he was active during his 6 months of office because he wouldn't have finished the 6 months.

These arguments are for the boys who might try to be patrol leader and a player on their school football team during the same period. If they can't make it to meetings because of practices and they can't make it to outings because of games, the SM should have a conversation with them about their priorities. For the benefit of the troop and patrol, if the boy decides to devote his time to football instead of scouting, then he should not be patrol leader at this time. To me, removing the boy at this time is preferable to waiting until the end of his term and then complaining that he was never around.

Bob White,

I think we're very near an agreement except I've used the logic to go an extra step. Those 6 months should be a learning process for the boy. However, if he fails to actively perform his duty then the SPL or SM needs to counsel him on what that duty entails. If he still refuses to put the effort into his job then there should be more conversations. If these conversations don't help then the boy should be removed of his office. An unactive leader hurts the troop, the patrol, and the other scouts.

Therefore, if the boy makes it through his 6 months in a leadership position, it is assumed that he was an active leader during those 6 months. If he was inactive, he never should have made it that long.

I believe that this is the thinking behind the requirement. As you said, "I don't know if he was ever told or trained as to what those responsibilities were. If the Scoutmaster didn't do his job, then I feel he has no right to punish the scout for not doing his." It is not helpful to the scout or the troop for the SM to simply take attendance records and then add up if he thought the boy was active during the 6 months.

If he retained his leadership position for the required time then it is my understanding that he fulfilled the requirement. However fair or unfair that is doesn't matter. The boy should have been coached throughout the time of his office and if he refused to respond to the coaching then he should have lost the responsibility of holding an office.

(Please note: My arguments mainly involve the "activeness" of a leader. It is true that some boys may struggle with leadership througout their term of office, but if they put in the effort they should receive the requirement no matter how effective their performance. However, if a leader does not participate then they are not leading. This issue should be addressed and dealt with long before the 6 months are complete.)

I think this post may have indirectly answered the posts by Fat Old Guy and Ed. If not, I apologize and will try again.

My understanding of the leadership requirement is the same as Acco's. If a scout is not "actively" serving in his position of leadership, intervention must take place during the course of the 6 months. A discussion should be held with the boy on what he needs to do for improvement. If he still refuses or fails to be an active leader, he should be removed from office before the end of the 6 months.

This has happened several times in my troop where a boy thought he could juggle commitments to a sport and to scouts. After a conversation with the SM, they decided it would be best to finish the leadership requirement at another time.

In any case, it benefits nobody if the boy is allowed to be an inactive leader. I believe the thinking is that if he makes it through the 6 months and wasn't removed from office, then he must have been active. If he wasn't active and refused to be active, then he never should have been allowed to complete the 6 months.

So as I understand advancement rules, if he held the position for 6 months, then he has completed that requirement no matter how much work he's done. I've heard stories of boys who never attended a single meeting so the SM refused to sign off on the leadership requirement. The boy's parents complained to the higher ups and it was decided that he met the requirement by virtue of holding the position.

If I am in error on any of this please inform me. But it is my understanding that this youth has completed his leadership requirement.

I actually think that Bob and Acco are very near agreement on the issue. From what I've read, it seems that Acco is more optimistic about what the boy's response could mean while Bob is more pessimistic.

The way I see it, there are only a few options for why a boy would declare himself an atheist.

1. He is an atheist. In which case he cannot be a member of BSA.

2. He lied about being an atheist. This could have been done for a number of reasons. Perhaps he really didn't want to earn the religious award and thought he found a loophole, but didn't understand the BSA's policy. Such a lie does open up new issues, but if the lie comes out into the open, then I don't think it should necessarily stand as grounds for removal.

3. He is unclear on what it means to be an atheist.

And there's only one way to determine which category this boy falls into: Talk to him. A gentle conversation with the boy is the only way to determine a future course of action. I believe this is what both Bob and Acco have recommended.

I actually don't have exact figures because I'm not in charge of them and because we're reworking the budget for this year, but I can take a stab at some of your questions.

We'll charge about $200 with an FOS discount that will drop it to about $160. There are two different courses and each have 12 patrols of 8 boys (96 boy camp). The staff is usually 15-20 in strength with about 10 adults, a good portion of whom are in that 18-21 age group. The staff hat and jacket costs about $20 per staffer. The staff doesn't have to pay to be on staff unless you count the money they're not earning by working at a normal summer job. In which case, some of these kids are sacrificing significant change to be a staffer.

Sorry that none of my numbers are exact.

It looks like beaver1onit may have just copied and pasted an email into his post. So, he may not have deliberately misled everyone into believing this happened to him. I bet the email or where ever it came from was written in first person.

Looking over some of beaver's other posts, he doesn't seem to be a trouble maker or a malicious forum member at all. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and I hope he continues to post.

If nothing else, if I hear this rumor again, then I'll know there is no truth to it.

Bob White and Fat Old Guy,

I apologize if you feel some of my comments are inaccurate representations of you. I did preface what I said with "some of my personal observations". So, yes, this is all my own opinion and I acknowledged it as such. I do know that, "Just because you post it does not make it true" and that statement goes for everyone in this forum. Once again, those are my personal observations and you can agree with them or not, but I stand by them, except for the "never admit when they're wrong" comment. "Never" is a harsh word.

The purpose of those comments was an attempt to establish some common ground. Maybe give some reasons for why these two particular people are always butting heads.

In any case, it is a minor detail to the overall intention of the post and I would rather not sidetrack by entering into a argument about my "personal observations."

Once again, I'm sorry if you feel these observations are inaccurate, but "I call them as I see them."

Happy Holidays, Everyone!

And since it is the season for giving, I was hoping that two of you would be willing to give a gift to the rest of the forum this holiday season. This is a petition to end the feud between Bob White and Fat Old Guy. (Note: if you want nothing to do with any of this nonsense, stop reading now).

Personally, I would have preferred to post this in the Issues and Politics forum. Things get heated there, but that's what it's for. However, the childish bickering and attacks between two forum members has moved beyond that forum and has contaminated the rest of the discussion on this site.

Let's start with some of my personal observations:

Bob White and Fat Old Guy are two very similar people (remarkably).

They are both very intelligent.

They both have an extraordinary knowledge of scouting and scouting resources.

They both are active scouters who I believe genuinely care about their scouts and their troops

They both have a knack for selecting a single phrase or sentence and attacking an entire post based on it.

They both bait each other on with snide remarks.

They both will often fail to directly answer to an attack, meaning their arguments take a circular pattern that will last for an excessive amount of posts.

They both really don't like each other.

They both will never admit when they're wrong.

They both probably disagree with at least half of what I've just said.

With all these similarities, I don't know if you two will ever get along. I don't believe it's possible. But I can't stand to see what you two can do to perfectly good topics and discussions. A scouting forum should be a safe place, just like the scouting program. This is not a safe place when you two start going at it. I have to wonder how many people read the forum, but are afraid to post because they don't want to enter the types of arguments that are now frequent. How many regular posters just start ignoring topics when they see that Bob White and Fat Old Guy have started fighting again?

It is ugly and uncomfortable in here sometimes. Such a change from the supportive network that the forum is suppose to be (and usually is).

So this is a petition. Anyone can sign this petition. Bob White and Fat Old Guy, stop your childish behavior. Argue respectfully or don't argue at all. By "respectfully" I mean to actually read the other side's post and comment on it. You don't have to agree, but try to seek a middle ground. Try to find an understanding. This isn't a discussion if the sides don't try to understand each other.

If you don't want to be respectful to each other, then be respectful to the forum. Ignore each other. If you want, tell us right now that you plan to ignore the other party. When they attack you or argue with you in the future, we will all know that you have chosen not to reply. You will come across as the bigger man and it will probably drive your opponent crazy. And everyone on this forum will support your efforts.

So there it is. This is a call for Bob White and Fat Old Guy to stop bringing a negative tone to this forum. This is a call for everyone who agrees with what I've said to tell them to end this feud.

And once again, Happy Holidays.

"The question is what makes the difference. What keeps a unit from becoming Troop A or enables it to be Troop B."

I'll bite.

Naturally, any real life scenerio is much more complex than this and would have more complex problems and solutions. However, (as I think most of us figured out, so I'm probably just stating the obvious) the answer lies in the first sentence of description for both units.

Troop A does not use First Class emphasis or New Scout Patrol

Troop B uses First Class Emphasis and New Scout Patrols

As Bob White might say, "It's the program, Stupid!"

(This message has been edited by Zahnada)

"The question is what makes the difference. What keeps a unit from becoming Troop A or enables it to be Troop B."

I'll bite.

Naturally, any real life scenerio is much more complex than this and would have more complex problems and solutions. However, (as I think most of us figured out, so I'm probably just stating the obvious) the answer lies in the first sentence of description for both units.

Troop A does not use First Class emphasis or New Scout Patrol

Troop B uses First Class Emphasis and New Scout Patrols