acco40

Of course the Scoutmaster talks to the other Scouts. Just like the principal in an elementary schools converses with students. But, a principal should not step into a classroom and overshadow the teacher and begin teaching subject matter. Same goes for a Scoutmaster, he should be concentrating on training, advising, etc. the SPL. Now, one thing I noticed on troop outings is the dynamics and sleep habits of high school (i.e. SPL types) and middle school age boys. One of the biggest dilemmas I witnessed was the older boys, usually in leadership positions, liked to stay up late and get up late. They younger ones, went to bed earlier and awoke earlier. My style was to let the boys select the "lights out" time and set the agenda for the outing. However, I did expect them to follow whatever agenda they set. Many times, I'd witness two thirds of the troop up in the morning and the ones who were still asleep were the SPL, ASPL, PLs, etc. It was then that I would sort of overstep my bounds and do some one on one cooking tutoring (if needed).

Ideally, the Scoutmaster interacts with one and only one Scout - the SPL. Yes, the SM may perform Scoutmaster conferences for all boys, act as a merit badge counselor, etc. but the SM should not be the trainer for all the youth leadership. Kudu & others, for a troop with more than one patrol, how do you suggest the the SM interact with the Scouts with no SPL?

An SPL is needed for any troop with more than one patrol. I think many of you are confusing the roles and responsibilities of an SPL with those of the Scoutmaster.

Adults abusing children for their own purient interests or for monetary gain should be criminal. Two sixteen year-old's practicing their "night moves" should be a concern for their respective parents, not the legal system.

As a Scoutmaster, I've witnessed: 1) A knife thrown at another Scout in anger 2) A Scout "Malice Greened" with a large flashlight 3) Mooning of SAs by Scouts (from one car to another no less!) 4) Locking someone in an outhouse 5) Scouts slipping a camera down their pants (instant camera with flash) 6) Rough housing that got carried away 7) Urination on a fellow Scouts tent 8) Throw stick at passing cars I don't condone any of that behavior but call law enforcement? On a backpacking trip, the Scouts went off one evening and on the trail was an old horse barn. They went in and looked around and it just so happened that park authorities wanted to charge them with "breaking and entering." Boys at this age need guidance. Their frontal cortex is not developed and coupled with raging hormones some strange behavior can manifest itself! I'm not making light of the situation but as adult leaders we should set high expectations for the boys and help them to meet them. Calling the police at every infraction doesn't help in that area IMHO.

Review "patrol outing" in The Scoutmaster Handbook. What you had was not a patrol outing.

The key, I believe, is in what capacity is the SPL attending? The outing should be led by the Patrol Leader (either the PL or APL in the PLs absence). The SPL should not be acting as the leader. Also, on a Patrol outing, it works best if adults are not present or at a minimum, far, far away from the action.

I enjoy watching basketball on television and am always amused so many of the black players have tattoos with black ink. If they really wanted to show off their "artwork" they would use white ink.

Merlyn, Mother Theresa doubted God at times, yet she remained a nun. Becoming a member of the BSA while not believing in God is no worse. I understand if you do not want to support such and organization but sometimes one has to weight the "good" and "bad" and make a judgment call.

Yeah, every time I bend over to take off or put on my socks and my arthritic hips make it a struggle I can't believe I'm quickly leaving the ranks of "middle aged" and slipping into "elderly." I think half of my junk mail is AARP these days.

My son has a scar on his arm - a branding of sorts. A bunch of his friends took a hot lighter and burned themselves. Kids at 17/18 do not have fully developed cognitive faculties - more proof. It is hard for a parent to see their offspring purposely mutilate their bodies. I wouldn't be surprised if parents are brought to court for getting their infant daughters ears pierced. I enjoy art but don't want a Monet tattooed on my face. I don't want my daughter (or wife) to get breast augmentation surgery. However, if they really would get some sort of psychological benefit from something like that, I would understand. Same goes with tats. Something like circumcision I could go either way with. Some in the medical field believe it has advantages, some feel it is just a cruel custom. Others feel it has religious significance. C'est la vie.

Rooster - you've mellowed. Things do get better with age.

Some folks like to draw attention to themselves and thus get tattoos, pierce their bodies with jewelry (or worse). When my daughter was in middle school, she was asking me to allow her to get her ears pierced. I kept emailing her pictures of women with nose rings, elongated necks, stuffed lips, men with beer cans in their ear lobes, etc. She argued with me for about five years or so but now at 17, she has actually thanked me for not allowing her to mutilate her body. For me, it was simply a case of not wanting anyone to poke holes in my children. As for tattoos, my father, a USN veteran (as was my mother) had an anchor/rope tattoo on his hand. He had it removed before I was born and it was difficult to see but I could see some scarring where it had been. I could sense his regret and although he never pushed me not to get a tattoo, I've never really had the desire. Why would one want to deface oneself with what is essentially human graffiti? I've always been really liberal with myself an my children with things like hair styles, facial hair, etc. but not with permanent decisions like piercings and tattoos.

It is easy to fall in love with some of "Dr. No's" quips - e.g. It is easy to spend other peoples money. I'd like to see more Ron Pauls in congress but not as a national leader. As a nation, we do look to the government to act as a surrogate parent - bailing us out when natural disasters strike, feeling access to medical care is a "right", etc. Keep in mind that as a Texan he is not just a "less government" type politician but a "less federal government" more "state government" type of politician.

There is no such thing as advancing "too fast."

When working, the Scout should be working. If a Scout knows he will be working, why can't he notify his troop SM in advance and take care of paperwork in advance?

Rounded corners - Beavah, you should know that there are three types of patents. Look up a design patent. You are just thinking of utility patents.

Obama is well spoken - as was Reagan. That, more than their policies helped them along. Any republican who has been accused of being too liberal, like Romney, get's my attention. Under Obama, in the year of the election, the economy is very slowly improving and the country is drawing down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden, Kim Jong II and Gaddafi were eliminated during his tenure. Now was any of this due to Obama's actions? That is debatable but I feel it will influence the election. But eight months is a long time. About the only difference you will find between Obama and the way Romney has governed is that when Romney signed executive legislation as Governor he was white and Obama is Black. Has Romney changed color? What makes Obama black? Could someone enlighten me on what makes up a "white" or "black" person.(This message has been edited by acco40)

In our society we give money to crack addicts, welfare to single mothers, have no-fault insurance (at least where I live) and a host of other laws that take from my pocket when other individuals act irresponsibly. Thus we get proposed laws to test welfare recipients for drugs (idiotic in my view, we don't test folks who receive tax write-offs for their mortgage for drugs), mandate seat-belt laws, tax so called vices (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) and other "behavior enhancer" type mandates. Where does it stop? I don't want a complete libertarian society nor do I want a 1984 society so I try to remain a somewhat engaged citizen, vote and try to keep the political pendulum somewhat centered. I feel as if I'm failing in that regard.

I had an SA who did not wear Scout pants on an outing once. We went canoeing and the night after, I noticed one of the Scouts got out of his tent and seemed disoriented (I'm a very light sleeper). I got out and soon the Scout was vomiting - turns out he drank some river water and had a mild case of "food poisoning" - but at the time I was worried that the whole camp may have an issue with "real" food poisoning (they did not it was an isolated incident). Well after I calmed him down I woke up his dad, who was sawing logs. We re-arranged some of the sleeping arrangements after that - put dad in with Scout, move other Scout to another tent, etc. We stayed up for about an additional hour to make sure none of the other scouts got sick and it was then that we noticed "dad" wasn't wearing Scout pants (nor any other pants, just his "tighty whities") and thus earned the nick name of Sponge Bob No Pants. Parents who don't attend our camp-outs always wonder what goes on at our outings. Bottom line, encourage the Scouts and Scouters to wear as complete a uniform as possible but don't sweat the small stuff. I was disheartened that our troop committee felt there was absolutely no reason to wear a uniform but they made damn sure the Scouts did during a BOR! Like I stated earlier, the boys are great at smelling out hypocrisy! The company line is as follows: The uniform makes the Scout troop visible as a force for good and creates a positive youth image in the community. Boy Scouting is an action program, and wearing the uniform is an action that shows each Scout's commitment to the aims and purposes of Scouting. The uniform gives the Scout identity in a world brotherhood of youth who believe in the same ideals. The uniform is practical attire for Boy Scout activities and provides a way for Boy Scouts to wear the badges that show what they have accomplished. The uniform is rarely required (Jambo lone exception - for PR reasons!). Even for an Eagle Scout Board of Review, the uniform "should" be worn but is not required to be worn: The Scout should be neat in appearance and his uniform should be as correct as possible... Board of Review(This message has been edited by acco40)

Oh my God! A teenage boy has an interest in viewing pornography! Stop the presses! When I served as a Scoutmaster, I viewed what the boys discussed with me during Scoutmaster Conferences as privileged information - not "keeping secrets." I've overheard boys tell sexual jokes that were very inappropriate in my view, curse (not at someone but just out of frustration), and other such behavior. Usually, my reaction was to tell them that I didn't approve of such behavior and didn't take it much further than that. My guess is that parents, who spend much more time with their boys than I do, are more aware of their behavior. Heck, the boys may just be emulating their parents. I think if we treat the boys with respect, have high expectations and treat them fairly we get better results than continually relaying information back to parents. Also, at this age, the boys have a fantastic hypocrisy radar. Think of it this way, let's say you are an SM and one of your SAs tells an off-color joke away from the boys. Do you tell his parents? What feedback do you give the SA? Now, what if by chance, unknown to you, your 16 yr old SPL overheard and witnessed that behavior.

Generally good advice. Unfortunately, those that complain the most usually are the ones who do the least to understand the program so they may not expose themselves to such advice.

A phone call is no more interrupting than an email or text message. When my phone rings, it is my option to answer or not - same as with any other mode of communication.

Letters are a tangible thing. Not the best communication vehicle for "what time is dinner" but for serious subject matter. Letters make the writer think and the reader to "listen." Something all to rare in modern communication these days.

The first time I attended DIBC in London, my oldest was about 11. He had a slightly more than average fear of heights. Well, he climbed up the "telephone pole" - at least 50 ft high - and traversed across a wire bridge. He pride in himself was immense after that feat. Another adult (Canadian?), someone neither he nor I knew, coached him along and got him past his fear barrier. That summer (DIBC is always in the May weekend of Mothers' Day), he completed the "high" COPE course at summer camp and the next year, did the COPE and zip lines at Philmont. Yes, we as parents, shelter our children too much (my opinion) in the good ole US of A.