acco40

Where I go to church, the tall, big, pointy hats are all the rage! Heck, it use to be considered ill-mannered if women did not cover their heads in church. Seriously, I wear my head gear at COHs that are held inside in the church basement. Yes, I get frequent comments that proper etiquette tells us to take our hats off "in church" but my view is that if it is part of a uniform, wear it. Technically, it is in everyones etiquette book NOT to comment to others about etiquette faux pas in public!

I have an SA in our troop who earned the AOL as a youth and I would like to get him (officially) the "Christmas" knot for his uniform. If I ask the Council to look into his youth records (without the individuals permission) will they do it for me or will confidentiality prevent it? I'd like to surprise the individual at our next COH. As a backup, I could just purchase the knot, give it to him and have him do an official "registration" at a later date but I would like to get everything taken care of up front. Comments?

Uniforms are not required, however, why not wear the uniform in question for the position you are at the time. I own multiple uniforms because I hold multiple positions. I won't get into the Commissioner & Unit Leader dilema.

Please check out: http://www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/desk.html

How many birthdays are you willing to admit? - All of them. I was only born once. May I suspect that some of our more conservative brethren may claim of being born twice? If you are interested in how many times I and others have celebrated my birthday, it is 47. By the way, they seem to come around much more frequently than they did in the past.

Weeblos - related to weevils? (Best bumper sticker I ever saw, an entomologist friend of mine had it - "I fear no weevil.") Weblos - what is that? Come on people, it is Webelos! Sorry, that is one of my pet peeves. People are always butchering that rank, Webelo, Weblos, Weeblos, etc. It isn't that difficult is it? Now for the question at hand, you meet on the same night but is it a joint meeting? If so, it should not be. Nothing wrong with reciting the Law of the Pack, Cub Socut Promise, etc. to help the Webelos feel included. But their efforts should be on learning the Scout Oath and Promise.

From the SM Handbook: "... he appears before a board of review composed of three to six members of the troop committee. The membership of the board of review for an Eagle Scout candidate is determined by local council policy. An Eagle Scout board of review is often made up of members of the troop committee joined by a representative from the district or courcil or the board bmay be fully composed of district or council personnel." From the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures: "... board of review is made of of at least three and not more than six members of the troop committee. One member serves as chairman, usually the committee member responsible for advancement. (Following in bold print) Unit leaders, assistant unit leaders, relatives, or guardians may not serve as members of a Scout's board of review (end of bold print). Now to answer some of the "rules" debate, the ACP&P also states, "The Scout should be neat in his appearance and his uniform should be as correct as possible, with badges worn properly. The review is not an examination. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement." It also states that after a Scout has satifactorily completed his BOR, he cannot be recognized until that action is reported to the council service center on an Advancement Report. From the Troop Committee Guidebook: " ... a board of reveiw composed of at least three and not more than six committee members." So, in effect, I screwed up in my previous post. Alas, BW is right again! (and has no need to feel sorry). For an Eagle Board of Review, non-Scouters who have knowledge of the Scouting program may sit on the Eagle BOR but not for BORs for all ranks below Eagle.

I don't think a judge has the legal right to place a religious (or any other multi-ton statuary) on public property, in the middle of the night, for the express purpose promoting religion as he sees it.

Very briefly, the SM and SAs work with the boys. The CC and CMs work with each other to to support the program (the boys). Not BSA literature talks about votes. Now with a shortage of leaders or with a very small troop, many unofficially serve "double duty" so to speak. As for BORs, non-scouters (parents, community members, teachers, etc.) may serve on BORs but they should have a good knowledge of the Scouting program itself. Because one of the functions of the BOR is to gather information about how the BSA experience is working for the boys (one facet is the interaction with the SM and SAs), it is discouraged (although not outrighted banned I believe) for the SM or SAs to serve on BORs.

I always like how the Canadian and Bristish Scout units attached "places" to their units. I'd like to see BSA do the same. My condolences.

Got to admit, FOG got that one right. I got a girl she lives cross town, She's the one that really gets down. When she boogie, She do the tube snake boogie. Well now boogie little baby, Boogie woogie all night long. I got a girl she lives on the block, She kinda funky with her pink and black socks. She likes to boogie, She do the tube snake boogie. Well now boogie woogie baby, Boogie woogie all night long. I got a girl, she lives on the hill. She won't do it but her sister will, When she boogie, She do the tube snake boogie. Well now boogie little baby, Boogie woogie all night long. Blow your top blow your top blow your top.

I always get a kick out of what is "donated." This year we received a bottle of wine, a twelve pack of beer (Sharp's NA Beer), a can of pineapple that looked like it was ready to explode (expiration date of June 1990), etc. The SFF sponsors don't accept glass containers so I took home about ten boxes of foodstuffs in glass jars. My wife went through them all and we threw out about thirty jars of stuff whose expiration date was all pre-2000. (The rest we took to a local food shelter, except I kept the wine! At least I'm honest.)

"Work involving council property or other BSA activity is not permitted...." What the heck does that mean? I must be missing something. Logic tells me that if working on a BSA activity is not permitted and Eagle projects by definition are a BSA activity, and that the completion of an Eagle project is a requirement for the Eagle rank that obtaining the Eagle rank is impossible.

Ed, The boys (and adults) almost always ask me if they "have to" wear their uniforms to (pick one), the PLC, Scouting for Food, at Camp-o-rees, etc. My standard answer is "It is a Scouting function and as Scouts, we should wear our uniform and I will be wearing mine." Then they sometimes ask, "But do I have to wear my uniform?" My answer then is, "No. The BSA does not require us to wear our uniforms for any particular event." Some then decide to wear their field uniform, some their activity uniform (few) and some their "civies" (fewer still). My idea of a rule is that if not followed it has readily identifiable and consistent consequences. For example, we encourage the boys to wear their uniform when traveling to and from an outing. However, I don't call it a rule because if the Scouts do not, we still allow participation and don't inflict any type of punishment. A gray area would be the uniform rule the Troop Committee has for BORs. Some BOR members will politely tell a Scout who is not if their field uniform to come back at a later date when they are uniformed properly (all in the troop can afford and own a field uniform). So, I guess it is a rule if that particular committee member is on the BOR. However, I have seen Scouts pass the BOR (that CM member not being present) missing a neckerchief or without his official Scout pants. C'est la vie. Some troops may impose a rule to wear their field uniform or they may not participate in an activity or event. That would be a rule and it would be (IMO) a violation of BSA policy.

"beat to death" - euphemism, to discuss ad nauseum "beaten to death" - past tense of beat to death, has been discussed repeatedly in the past and no progress has been made, nothing accomplished "beatened to death" - really, really past tense of beat to death, has been discussed so much grammar is thrown out the window!

In the book "Scouts Honor" the author wrote about a boy's Eagle project which was researching the history of his troop. One could argue that the project did not benefit the troop. I like the idea of a research project and not "build something" like 90% of all other Eagle projects. Comments?

How's the weather in St. Louis (hey, close enough huh?). We just got done with SFF last Saturday. Our troop manned one of the drop off trailers. We collected about 10% more than last year. I've noticed that in times of crisis we tend to collect more. Right after 9/11/01, we collected more food (and sold more popcorn) that we ever had. With the ongoing conflict in Iraq and Afganistan, I believe people feel patriotic by donating food and buying popcorn to support Scouting. The economic situation (i.e. job market) tended to temper that somewhat, especially here in Michigan that has a higher (and steady) unemployment number than most.(This message has been edited by acco40)

FOG, look at where you put your quotation marks and where I put mine. I was an "avowed" heterosexual while still a virgin. My behavior did not define my sexuality. It is my understanding that BSA rule regarding sexuality does not distinguish between behavior and thought. If one recognizes their sexuality and happens to share that with others (as I just shared my sexuality with you, i.e. I'm heterosexual), one risks ouster by the BSA if it is not the "proper" one.

Look at the different parenting styles that abound. Many are very rule laden. Many are not. I believe that the culture one was raised in greatly influences how they view rules. I continuously argue (very politely I might add!) with the SAs about what to do if the boys ... (stay up too late, don't get up early enough, don't clean up on time, etc.). Some take the position that "you can't just let them ...". My position is yes we can let them ... The best way for them to learn is by witnessing the consequences of their actions. Take the running in camp rule or no rule. Where our troop attends summer camp, many tree roots protrude up from the ground along many of the foot paths making ones footing precarious. Should I (as SM) make a rule of "no running in camp"? Should the camp staff? Should we let the campers experience first hand what happens when they run in camp? If a rule is stated, should it have a firm consequence (i.e. if caught running in camp, no candy)? Rules that try to monitor risky behavior are tricky. Yes, one may run in camp and not get hurt. Yes, one may swim alone and not drown. Our summer camp has rules of no running in camp, no swimming without a buddy, no riding your bike too fast yet held a triathelon (well supervised mind you) that violated all of those rules! A Scout is courteous. Now, in my mind, using a cell phone on a plane, train or automobile is a discourteous act. Many disagree. Should society make a rule/law? It is not so black and white. What I think Bob White, Eamonn and others feel is that too many Scouters make rules that are really their own personal desires (no electronics) that part of the learning process for the boys is to determine what is right or wrong, not to blindly follow a set of rules. For our troop we have a few "leftover" rules from previous "administrations" that seem to have been ingrained in some of the members. Examples are no pop (soda or "Coke" to some), no personal stereos except in your tent, etc. I could care less if those rules stay or are removed. What is important is that the boys know why some feel why the rules are important. For example, one of my sons would wear his headphones (ear buds really) and carry his CD player around. When addressed by an adult he (usually) would turn the CD player off or pause it but not remove the headphones. As most boys his age are prone to do, he always looks like his attention is on other things. I explained to him that when an adult is talking to him, remove the headphones. While your music may be off, the adult does not know this and by taking them off you assure the adult that you have given them your attention. Kids at this age are still very self centered (psychologicly, not necessarily selfish). Now, is it required to have a rule of no personal stereos? While maybe easier on the adults, the kids may just view the rule as exerting control or simply as being mean.(This message has been edited by acco40)

This is only written partially in jest. I tend to agree that many troops, Councils and individuals put up rules that are really not needed. The Scout Law & Oath should sufficed 99% of the time. One example of a rule that I don't think is necessary has something to do with "avowed" behavior. {Actually not necessarily behavior per se.)(This message has been edited by acco40)

The touch, the feel of cotton, the fabric of our lives (yes, Madison Avenue does pollute our brains). Yes, FOG, cotton rocks! I'll have to investigate the 100% cotton option. I'm happy with the BSA attire for the most part (my shirt collars "pill" up in a few months my biggest complaint) just as long as they don't come up with a BSA Speedo design I'll remain happy.

My view, wear the uniform. I can't seem to get our Troop Committee to wear a uniform. I believe it would set a good example for the boys.

In our District, COs that charter both Packs and Troops usually use the same number (P123, T123). Crews are the exception.

New, Junior, Member, Senior, I spend way to much time on the net, Geek.

I wouldn't quite say "thinking of taking" because I believe it is by invite only and I was invited for only one course. I don't recall the specific name right now but it essentially was Scoutmaster training (Strictly for Scoutmasters?).