BrotherhoodWWW

I'm seeking offers for most of my collection which includes lodge service award flap and several years of lodge encampment participant as well as staff patches. One year there were only 25 produced of the staff patch. I'm willing to part with that one and the same year's participant patch. If interested send me an offer. mark at blackwalnutjigs dot com, remove spaces and use the correct symbols.

johnponz, are you responding to me? I absolutely do not advocate the wearing of the sash on the belt and in fact could quote publications spanning a few decades where has has been forbidden. That I do not agree with the Chair does not make me wrong and him right by virtue of his title. Folks in leadership roles are often wrong. I'll guess he has not followed the progression of changes to the OAHB. If he is changing policy then perhaps he should also see that the OAHB is written in such a way as to make it clear and not open to interpretation. I can see how some read it contrary to how I read it but I follow what I was taught and what I can defend with resources deaaling with correct punctuation. But really believe what you want it matters not to me as I no longer have a pony in this race.

I think this is where I can jump in. In the 1980's the OAHB stated: "The Arrow sash is worn at Order of the Arrow functions and at special Scouting functions such as courts of honor." page 127 1980 printing of the 1977 copyright. For a historical perspective that should just about clear it up. Meaning to me that by the rule at that time Acco is wrong. Sadly in later versions, copyrights and printings this was changed so that now it reads: "The sash is worn at Order of the

Arrow functions and special Scouting functions, when members need to be identified as Arrowmen rendering special services." 2010 printing. My read and the read and interpretation of others I have asked at NLATS is that "Special Scouting functions" and "needing to be identified" are two different instances. Thus the interpretation aspect. Yes I do not agree with the Chairman you are quoting. he is simply wrong unless he is making a policy change and then he is misguided IMHO. To answer directly the OP, the correct answer was given right away.

I do not expect to change anyone's mind. However I think it is helpful if folks would either do the research or keep from posting because this thread is full of wrong answers. Either the policy has changed over the years, and prior to the 80's or '77 copyright I have been told that "special Scouting functions" was not an option, or it has not since then it has just been so poorly stated as to confuse the issue. Peoples ability to read and understand what they are reading and how punctuation changes the meaning of clauses, sentences, and phrases has also diminished over this time period.

Basement, thanks for being helpful! Perhaps next time you can actually answer the OP's question and only provide links that actually deal with his question rather than the broader subject. Your first non-link resource is a rather short and drafty thread. Once you changed the course it was taking it simply died and fell off the current posts page which believe it or not some folks look to first. This issue has been brought to the forefront last week by Scouting magazine on Facebook. Seems like a great time to revisit it as clearly only a few people commented on your thread in March.

I think this is one more EPIC FAIL idea that BSA has come up with. How soon will this crap become a required part of the program? Tote and chip makes sense. This however, must be re-earned annually. In boards of review we are not allowed to re-test or even test and yet this needs to be an annual requirement and when you read deeper it appears to be a entire unit all at once kind of thing. The BSA does not need to be the answer to every single facet of of youths life.

Since we are talking about a new troop I say it depends on theneeds of the youth filling that troop. In the case of my troop we started with older boys that were not getting what they needed in other troops but nearly all needed POR for advancement so SPL was used and still is. With a SPL you then can have an ASPL which satisfies a rank requirement.

+1 emb021

I think part of the "problem" is the software is proprietary to this forum and Terry is part of the development team, if not the owner. If this is true then there is also likely some amount of ego involved; just speculating...... Different browsers act different ways. With Firefox I do not have to log in each time I post because the browser is set to auto fill that for this site. With IE I do but only at this forum. None of the other forums do I have to do that for. Images would be splendid. The formatting box should be built-in. On the other hand it looks like I shoould also be able to just code it as I go if only I could remember my HTML........

Am I the only one that sees irony here? BSA prohibits Boy Scouts from using power tools and yet we will now have a welding MB.

I too think we need more MB's like this. Away from the metro areas schools still have shop classes. My son's high school has a full time Ag teacher.

SP and TF. Get a grip guys! Please do yourselves a favor and reread the entire thread without your bias. Read things in context. You villify myself and others for explaining what IS policy and our desire to perform our jobs in Scouting the way they are proscribed to be done. No where in this thread have I read where an Advisor wished to prevent a parent from access. Discouraged does not equal exclude. Education does not equal bullying. You can continue to have the thoughts you have but you are still wrong. There is no youth protection issue here.

Do the research yourself. Go have that talk with your SE and sign up for the very next NLATS course and learn for yourself!

Now for the ugly part: SP, why not focus on your responsibilites rather than those of other trained adults. It seems you are involved in the Cub Scout level. STAY THERE! We have enough issues in Boy Scouting caused by Cub Scouters that we really do not need even more attacking our Honor Society. I wonder if you and TF were OA members as youth? If you were how was your expierence? If not is that the source of your seeming hostility towards the OA? The OA sadly is just a shadow of what it once was as is Scouting itself IMHO. The knee-jerk, sky is falling, CYA, paranoid, eliminate rather than manage all risk types have made it so. Perhaps you will be happy when they remove the outdoors from SC......!

And SP if you wish to give Robert Fawcett a call I am sure he will know who I am. You could even go visit the folks in the council south of you and have a chat with two close friends that transfered there from here. All advisors serve at the discretion of the Supreme Chief of the Fire, should he wish to remove me so be it. Until such a time I will do my best to fulfill my duties as procribed by the program as it is written which is exactly as Eagle 92 has so stated. Perhaps it is my enthusiasm that frightens you?

Pie in the sky but I say ditch all but Boy Scouts. No Cubs, no Varsity, no Venturing, and no Explorer (LFL).

That said the reality of the situation is that BSA is more interested in numbers than serving the needs of what should be our primary target audience which is 11-18. It is my opinion that Cubs turns off as many or more boys and families to Scouting than cross over, and once they are turned off to Scouting they never give us a second look. It has been that way since at least the 70's. I remember then as a Scout that folks knew more about Cub Scouts than Boy Scouts and yet then as now we call our selves Boy Scouts of America! Part of BSA's mission is for boys to base the rest of their life on the Oath and Law yet most that join Cubs drop out before earning Tenderfoot!

If the ancillary divisions can not survive on their own why have them. If Cubbing has higher numbers than Boy Scouts IMNSHO shorten or drop Cubbing to improve recruitment and retention of Boy Scouts. I would much prefer a smaller organization that makes a meaningful difference in the lives of youth than one that only superficially does to more youth. Quality vs Quantity.

Do that and then the age problem will be much simpler.

ThunderFox I'm not sure you actually mean what you wrote. I did find it quite interesting the Urban Dictionary definition for the words you used. Had you actually read all of the posts I have made over the years in this forum you might have discovered that I do think the OA should be shrouded in mystery. I am also very aware of the rules and agree with their purpose, but which rule are you thinking I do not like? Surely not the rule that OA ceremonies need to be safeguarded. I take seriously my obligation and admonition. Parents and others with concerns need to consult with Advisors, and yes if it ever comes the time when I am placed into this position I will try my hardest to encourage parents that are not members to decide that it is not in their youths best interest to watch. Should they not agree after discussion I shal accomodate them as best we can as long as they do not interrupt the ceremony for others.

All that said I fail to see how you are getting to a public relations nightmare with this. We are a voluntary honor society within the framework of the BSA. We are by design an intergral part of each council.

If a Scout attempts to find a job will his parents request to be present during the interview? Are parents allowed to sit on their own son's eagle board of review or any board of review of their child?

SP if you were in my district or council I would not give you the time of day and would seek your removal from serving at those levels. I think you lack judgment and wisdom! Oh wait a minute that is what you would say about me, yeah whatever, I'll just chalk it up to you being anti OA. I'd not do that to you as it is not scoutly. I see the OA as one of the best parts of a boys experience in Scouting if only we adults would just stay out of the way and let it happen and should he impress upon those who have lived closest to him his sincere desire to live acording to the high ideals of the Oath and Law, and earn election from them.

Character is what happens when no one, espically parents are not looking. Are his peers going to be so impressed if his parents helicopter over him?

Eagle92 if memorey serves they hired an IT guy before Linda moved on,(not that she was in charge of IT) perhaps shortly after the last Jamboree. Did that guy quit since then and be replaced? From what I can gather the IT dept. has not been staffed by actual IT folks. Hence the need for 'developers' to have issued upgrades to fix the bugs in Scouting Community while they played with that software package and then abondoned it while it was stil in use.

I hope that if they do migrate to a different software that they do so with a redundant backup copy of the database first. I know first hand some of the problems with training records is the folks entering them wrong.

Beardad what does your pack's policy have to do with the OP?

I think units should run away from anyone regardless of age with real experience in Scouting. What better way is there to make Scouting an award factory lead by adults with no experience or knowledge in Scoutcraft! (tongue in cheek)

When I was in college I was that youth! I wished to stay active in OA and to do that I needed to be registered. The only option at that time for an 18 year old was to serve as an ASM so I found a unit in my college town that wanted my help. I was not an Eagle Scout but I possessed more scouting skills than most of those that I knew. Advancement was simply not my objective while a youth. Adventure was! I think units that pass on volunteers due to age alone sadly are cheapening their youths experience.

I see this as yet another change for the sake of change. Knots are simply another tool that can encourage adults to do the things that might lead to the result of better program. The needs of units change from year to year. I would much rather have two different knots than one knot and devices. I've several shirts and moving devices seems cumbersome. All my uniform shirts might be worn while wearing a back pack of one sort or another, devices simply do not work with shoulder straps.

Bnelon44 wrote:

"This is a noble sentiment however there is NO requirement for first class that reads "make sure you know enough so the Scoutmaster thinks you can take cae of yourself in the outdoors." Your reading much more into the rank than is there. You are adding requirements that are not there. For all ranks, you do what is in the requiements and you earn the rank. Period. Anything extra, is just that, extra to advancement.

Everyone must remember that advancement is just one of eight methods of delivering the promise and we can't cram more into them than are written. If you want your Scouts to do more, great, but do it outside advancement and don't hold up a Scout's advancing with preconceived notions of what a 1st Class Scout is or an Eagle Scout is."

B I'm thinking you are falling into a trap here. Such statements as you make in your first sentence usually come from folks that emphasize advancement over the other seven methods. It is important to understand where we came from as an organization and how early handbooks for leaders had a phrase in the front crediting the countless volunteers over the years who have "actual experience over a period of years." At one time it was common knowledge that a First Class Scout was a boy that possessed the skills to take care of himself and others in the out of doors without need for adult supervision. That is the 'common' meaning of First Class. You may choose to accept a lesser standard in your unit but I will not in mine. This new Guide to Advancement seems to support a units reasonable requirements in specific areas, perhaps it is not also a reach to assume that The Scout LEARNS 4.2.1.1 actually means that learning sufficient to teach the skill is the bar that must be reached. To that I would say that a First Class Scout having the ability to take care of himself in the outdoors is not a requirement but surely is a reasonably expected outcome. If your 1st class scouts do not meet that then you are not following the spirit of the program. One/once and done is not learning.

Not sure what part of town you live in but there once were a number of great troops in Spokane. Well at least back when I was a youth. I'm not sure I would return to that same troop either. It sounds to me more of a third year Webelos program. Sometimes you can find more quality in smaller troops.

Spokane Troop 1 SPL 1980-81

momof2cubs, yeah I'm not offended in any way. I'm simply perplexed how and if when the meaning of "geek" changed from the electron element to how it seems to be used today. "Gay" seems to have changed in meaning over time as well. Us adults simply can not keep up!

momof2cubs wrote "Plus there's the whole "geek" factor. If they have already have 4 years of cub scouting, they are more entrenched and less easily persuaded that scouting isn't "cool" "

I'm having a bit of a problem every time someone mentions that Scouts is "geek". I'll admit that I've never been at the forfront of teen slang, even when I was one, but http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=geek seems to agree with what I believe to be the definition of "geek". So exactly how is it that the outdoor program of Boy Scouting is anyway "geek". No wonder we have such an identity problem!

I may or may not have mentioned elsewhere but I tend to agree that the Cub Scout program costs us more boys than it gets us. As for the OP of this thread I imagine that without Cubs shortterm we'd have fewer people in the program, but longterm we might increase the number of Boy Scouts. Total number however I think would still be less. My question however is do we rather choose to make a difference in the lives of our members or are we simply going for numbers and hoping for the best. I submit that the older our youth members the greater the chances that they will adopt our values and keep them.

Scouter Terry can deny it all he wants, that does not make him correct. Once last week while on the forum my local machine was attacked by a malware virus scan of the type that was trying to get me to install a fake anti-virus program. I closed that tab and moved on which ended the attack.

FWIW internet forums are currently under siege by corp. spammers from India, Russia, and the far east and have been for the past several months. They are now successful in cracking human verification programs such as reCapthca and creating user accounts. In addition to scouting I also Admin a woodworking forum and see these attacks daily. Most of the time the attack is just harmless, but bothersome spam.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that the software package that this site runs on is proprietary hence I see it as rather unlikely that Scouter Terry is going to merge the site over to a proven stable software package such as vBulletin 3.8x.

Logical question is do we need BSA to even formulate guidelines for this? Seems to me there are much more important discussions they should be having, such as how do we provide better service to units. How do we attract and retain boys of Scout age to our program? How do we fund better pay for youth camp staff without making our camps cost prohibitive? How do we fund our councils so that they are sustainable because frankly FOS does not seem to be working?

Yessir, I just happen to fit both of those Shortridge. I'm a Scoutmaster as well as an OA Adviser. II'll not say it is often I need to PM or text a youth but there are times. I use whatever communication medium that seems to work and for some youth that is IM through Facebook, others it is texting. Another thing puzzling about these new guidelines is their source: the marketing folks!

BS-87, by your second paragraph I must wonder if you understand how IM works. We have moved far beyond email. With IM and texting simply carbon copying is not an option. Do you conference call whenever you phone a Scout?