Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mich632

patrol size

Recommended Posts

mich632

I know that I really ought to spin off. Please forgive me for not doing so.

Bob and Barry,

I could I suppose sent you both Private messages. I could I suppose move on and pretend that I never read both of the postings.

Please believe me when I say that I hold both of you in very high esteem and do respect you both.

I have not taken the time to look back over old or previous postings or threads. I am sure if I did I would find that most of the time I am in agreement with Bob. Sure the stuff that Bob posts is not warm and fuzzy, but when it comes to delivering the program to the Scouts Bob has to my mind been on the money. I have used a lot of the ideas that Bob has posted and a lot of what he has posted has defiantly got my little gray cells to go into over drive.

Barry,after me, you seem to have as much fun in this program as the Scouts and Cub Scouts do. What Bob may lack in the warm and fuzzy department you make up for. Again If I were to look back there have been times when the world is right and God is in his heaven and things have gone so well for me that I have used the "I Love this Scouting stuff." as a closing.

We do in these Forums have people who are very passionate about certain things or certain areas. Some get very worked up about First Aid, for others it's Religion or the plight of poor under privileged Scouts. For the most part even if we don't agree with what they are saying or posting, we or at least I can sit back and admire their passion.

Bob is very passionate about this program.While I love Scouts and Scouting, I do not come near having the same passion that Bob has.

Rarely if ever when Bob posts something is it wrong.

Sad to say, some in these Forums mistake this passion for smugness or arrogance. This leads to personal attacks on Bob Which are wrong.

People ask a question. He gives them the correct answer and it isn't what they wanted to see. So they attack.

Barry you know how much I enjoy your postings and your take on things. I hope you will continue to allow me to enjoy them.

Eamonn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that much of the angst could be avoided if everyone would discuss issues on the merits. If you disagree with something that Bob White says, explain why you disagree on the merits, rather than excoriating him as a by-the-book blind follower of BSA policy, and if you disagree with something Ed says, explain why you disagree on the merits, rather than excoriating him as a contrarian with a shrinking unit. Since we're on the Web, we can't really know the facts about each other anyway--for all I know, Bob and Ed are the same person, playing a bizarre trick on the rest of us--but I don't care. What I can do here is evaluate the merits of arguments and discussions. You like/dislike same age patrols? Tell us WHY. You think a patrol of 2 is too small? Tell us WHY.

Another distinction I would like to make--there are various different kinds of discussions here. In some cases, somebody wants to know what the rule is. Why not just tell them, and also refer them to the source? Similarly, if somebody wants to understand what BSA's program is, that can be explained and referenced. However, there is another kind of discussion, about whether the rules or the program are the only or best way to do things in the real world--that is a discussion that can be carried out on the merits, and should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eamonn,

 

I typed, erased, retyped, then erased again a response along the same line as yours. None of mine were as close to saying what I wanted to say as was yours.

 

I too agree that Bob is practically always right. sometimes, I don't like his answers - Sometimes I wish his answer was wrong, because it isn't what I want to hear. But he's almost always right. Always being right leads all but the most humble of people to being arrogant sometimes. I don't know if Bob is really arrogant or not. I don't know him personally. But often the tone that comes through in his typed word seems arrogant. I should only speak for myself, but I have been offended occasionally. It hasn't kept me from hearing the message, because I think I know from where Bob comes. I've asked Bob on more than one occasion to consider how his tone will be received as he types. I am doing so again, because I think Bob is one of the best resources on these forums. I have missed him when he has retreated, and hope he does not retreat again.

 

I find Barry, without a doubt, the most refreshing addition this board has seen, and I have corresponded with him directly telling him that. I wish Barry would post more. I get so much out of his posts. Both tangible and intangible. I have helped apply ideas Barry has discussed here to my Troop with tremendous success, and it is uncanny how when I am most down about Scouting because something isn't quite right, I've stumbled on one of Barry's posts and had my spririts lifted.

 

If I may, I'd like to dscribe how I see the differences between the two. In most every aspect of our lifes, there are two methods: Art and Science. In the manufacturing business for which I work, this is very true. We have some processes that are very technical and scientific. We use Statistical Process Control to assure that the process continues to make good parts. We use scientific methods to solve problems. Everything is run according to control plans and procedures. And we make the best damn parts of their kind anywhere in the world (you can't call this a commercial if I don't name the product, so there!). this is Science.

 

We have two products that just cannot be produced "scientifically". We have skilled craftsman that have developed techniques after decades of practice. They make things that are truly amazing. No SPC controlled process could ever duplicate the parts these guys make. It is truly artistic. And again, they are the best in the world. Art in manufacturing.

 

Bob the Scientist. Barry the Artist. I love 'em both. We need them both. Bob, you should try to be more sensitive to how your words will be received. Barry, you should try to be more thicked skinned. But I hope you both keep doing what you've always done.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Mark and Hunt for trying to bring this back on a rational level. I've learned different things from both of these guys, and think it's about time that we consider agreeing to disagree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

just a note to this comment:

 

" Second the BSA did not come to this country until 1912, so any lone scouts prior to that were not part of the BSA, just BP wannabes."

 

this isnt factual. there were numerous "Boy Scout Troops" prior to the "incorporation" of the Boy Scouts of America by W. Boyce. i wouldnt disrespect them by calling them, "BP wannabes"

 

many a Lad called himself a "Boy Scout" before such a corporation exisited. i personally would not exclude them as being "Boy Scouts" , despite the Seton vs. Beard vs. Boyce debate at the turn of the last century. one can look at old photos of the Lads and see their pride of wearing the "Boy Scout Uniform"

 

eSM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Eagle, incorporation of the BSA did not happen until 1916 not 1912. Yes there were groups like Beards groups Boy Pioneers etc.,who after hearing about BP in England modeled themselves after British Scouts, and by wearing old WWI uniforms, which were not Boy Scout uniforms. These early groups ,answering Bobs question to me, were not "officially" Boy Scouts. In spirit and enthusiasm they may been the early precursor to the BSA but not officially. "BP wannabes" was not meant as a putdown but as to what these groups were modeling themselves after. In addition many of these early units, prior to 1912, did not even wear uniforms, except what army surplus they could obtain. But as I said I am sure these boys felt like scouts in their hearts, and I commend them for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Bacpkr.:

 

i would have to disagree:

 

 

 

actually, Mr Backpacker, on Feb 8, 1910, Mr Boyce and a group of his fellow businessmen incorporated the "Boy Scouts of America".

 

that made us a corporation. Today, we celebrate that as "Scout Sunday"

 

 

in 1916 Congress protected the name "Boy Scouts of America" and our uniform, etc, under a Congressional "Charter" .

 

that gave us the right to the name "Boy Scout(of America)", and our uniforms.

 

 

eSM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure everyone, Bob White and I are NOT the same people.

 

Now back to your regular post!

 

A patrol of 8 is a good size. Not to large and large enough to still function without a few members.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean it's possible after this thread rambled for days, someone is actually going to provide input to the orgional question.

 

what a novel concept.

 

It seems that the opinion of the group is that less than 6 is too small and more than 10 is too big. Does that some up your feelings?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as Ed says, a Patrol of 6 is "too small", then is it the consensus of this forum that a patrol of 5 is unable to function as a Patrol?

 

If a Troop is a gathering of Patrols as the Scouting program says it is...what about a troop with only one patrol, is it really a troop or is it just one patrol?

 

What if that one patrol only has 5 boys in it, can it be a funtioning unit of any kind? I am curious as to the consensus on this as well.

 

B:)b White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as Ed says, a Patrol of 6 is "too small", then is it the consensus of this forum that a patrol of 5 is unable to function as a Patrol? If a Troop is a gathering of Patrols as the Scouting program says it is...what about a troop with only one patrol, is it really a troop or is it just one patrol?

What if that one patrol only has 5 boys in it, can it be a functioning unit of any kind? I am curious as to the consensus on this as well.

 

Where did I say a patrol of 6 is "too small"?

 

I don't think anyone has said a patrol of 5 is too small. I think we all have sort of agreed a patrol between 8-10 is a good size. And actually the discussion is about what we think the optimum patrol size is not what is too small or too large. If a Troop only has 5 or 6 Scouts they can function as a patrol and the Troop would only have one patrol.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One word Italian tirade, translated for your reading pleasure:

 

BASTA! (ENOUGH!)

 

Yes, a patrol of 5 can funtion. Yes, it can be both a troop and a patrol. I would argue that 6 to 8 makes it easier to fill out a duty roster and get the job done, but there is no minimum or maximum number and probably for a reason.

 

Scan the manuals all you want for a policy. It isn't there.

 

This post isn't directed at any one individual.

 

I fail to see how a simple discussion on optimal patrol size can lead to so much strife and for good people to get into fights (although cyber fights) with each other.

 

The bottom line is that we're all in the business of producing adults. Not boys. We're in this to produce adults who follow the Scout Oath and are Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent until their dying day.

 

In the end, patrol size, rank, badges, adult association, etc. are the means to that end:

 

Productive adults with Scout values.

 

Stepping off my soapbox now . . .

 

Unc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies to Ed, I sjould not have placed quotation marks or attributed that first premise to him.

 

Unc, ease up! You are reading way too much into this. I was making a point about patrol sizes. That's all.

 

So while a patrol of 6 to 10 is recommended. The important thimg is not the number, it is the ability of the patrol to function as a patrol. A ptrol of 5 boys aof similar ages and abilities will function better and last longer than a patrol of 10 of mixed ages and abilities.

 

My advice to mich is to focus on the purpose of the patrol method and the characteristics of the specific group of Scouts and structure a patrol that is based on what would be most successful for them, rather than on a specific number.

 

Unc buddy, relax, take a nap.:)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×