Eagle Project benefits a business - sort of

[Noah 10]

Hi John,

 

"It's arguable whether a profit focused "school" is a business. I can see how people would accept this project - I wouldn't. "

 

How would you argue that a school organized as a C or S corporation or even owned directly by an individual is not a business?

 

On what grounds would you deny the project? Because it is a business or because you feel that the installation of a flag pole does not allow ample opportunity to demonstrate leadership?

 

-Noah

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

I think I am now beginning to understand what the word Rant means.

 

It is the enjoyment of an argument no matter what the topic happens to be or the size of it.

 

It is the enjoyment of listening to the same arguments repeated endlessly. It is like being on a Merry-go- Round, throwing up your arms and holding on by your feet.

 

It is based on the assumption that argument can change a person's perspective and/or belief system. (Note: This is the best one of all.)

 

Just wanted to share a few rambling thoughts.

 

Good Morning,

 

FB

 

[boleta 10]

The reason so many CURRENT Boy Scout Requirement books are sold each year, is because they are the OFFICIAL requirements for all ranks and merit badges for that year.

 

All members of the Forum who are participating in this discussion should get a copy of the current book (2004) and read the inside cover where this is clearly explained. My post is the exact quote of the requirement and is the wording that should be used for completion of the Leadership project.

 

The Workbook is to be followed in the form of the presentation of the project. This is so the reviewers of the project- Scoutmaster, Troop Committee, and District Advancement Chair have a standardized way to evaluate each project. It is also used to see if the Scout can follow directions. Many Scouts are sent back to redo the presentation for an excellent leadership project because it is not in the proper form.

 

This is not that difficult guys. Get the 2004 Requirement book and read it. It supercedes all other requirement sources including the Boy Scout Handbook. The only major exception is a merit badge that is started before changes in the current year. The old requirements can be used.

 

You can do it any way you want to. Doesn't mean it is right. I am simply telling you what the Requirement book states.

 

Now I will sit back and listen to the incorrect arguments about why I am wrong about this. These are just rationalizations to justify the way you are doing things even in the face of a straightforward presentation of the facts. I guess that is what makes the world go around in such an interesting way.(This message has been edited by boleta)

[johndaigler 10]

boleta, and all you rule book readers,

 

First, let's give each other credit for being able to read. Disagreeing with each other and judging each other don't have to be the same thing.

 

We seem to have strayed from Noah's original question and into a debate over whether the "Requirements" should be read with Fundamentalist eyes.

 

I'm not gonna try to prove you wrong about your reading of the rules. But, I do believe you're wrong if you think this, or any other, rulebook has no room for interpretation. If this organization's foundation is a rule book, than how do we account for, and celebrate Scouting's Spirit? How do we write into a "Requirement" that we hope, want, and indeed, expect Scouts to "Do Their Best"? How do we write into the "Requirements" that we demand The Best of ourselves?

 

"Obedient" is only one piece of the Law. Can you imagine the Forum if we start judging which of the 12 should supercede the others?

 

The rulebook is fine. Though it's written in black ink, I see lots of gray in there. For example, going back to Noah's situation, the book is gray because it forces us to decide what the "Requirements" mean when they say "Must Use the ESPLSW", and we know the ESPLSW clearly expands upon the meaning of the Requirement and establishes additional Limitations on the Scout's Project.

 

Again, I'm comfortable with you choosing to read the rules the way you do. But, just because you're right, it doesn't make me wrong. I know I'm doing my best, for myself and my Scouts, if I keep thinking even after the period ends the "Requirement".

 

If one MUST supercede the other, than I'll choose the Spirit of Scouting over the Rules of Scouting. Wrong? No. Different? I can live with that.

 

jd(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[Bob White 20]

John,

I absolutely agree that the the purpose of the advancement program is to help achieve the spirit of scouting. Where we differ is in our personal vision of what the "spirit" of scouting is.

 

It is apparent in this thread that some see the need to create hurdles for the scout to overcome as a tool to help him grow, while others see the spirit as opening doors to allow him to grow.

 

Personally, I feel the "doors" approach is more in keeping with the spirit of Scouting.

 

The policies of advancement exist to control adults who try to misuse the program to punish or hinder scouts, not to be barriers to the Scout himself. You accuse some of us of following the books to rigidly when in fact we are using the most liberal of interpretation possible to give the scout the most benefit of the doubt and the greatest opportunity. We are the ones saying "go for it".

[SR540Beaver 116]

Fuzzy,

 

If you really want to understand the definition of the word rant, listen to the endless hours of political talk radio. It is the pure essence of ranting.

 

John,

 

Logic should replace interpretation when you see a gray area between the black and white. Logic is a lost art in today's society.

[johndaigler 10]

BW - like I said I don't think there's right or wrong here and the difference between your "door" and my "hurdle" is, in the end, probably unnoticeable to a Scout who has made the journey all the way up to the Eagle project. A hurdle isn't a barrier, it's just a door at the top of the stairs. What I've intended all along is that we assess each Scout and each Project so as to set the door(hurdle) at the appropriate height to allow the Scout to meet the expectation of doing his best. The open door metaphor is perfect. I'm just not in favor of opening the door AND carrying the boy through.

 

Maybe because I see myself as a reasonable man (and professionally trained advocate for teenagers), that I wouldn't focus on the need to "...control adults who try to misuse the program to punish or hinder scouts..." I'm not a man who will raise barriers in front of a boy -- but, I guess, I am one who will work with a boy to set, AND THEN MEET, challenges that require doing their best.

 

I guess the Spirit of Scouting is as gray as the rule book! We can help the boys grow using different methods and see the changes in many different aspects of their lives. Different boys experiencing the same thing still grow different amounts in different ways. Gained experience, I agree, can be said to equal growth - that's certainly an admirable goal, and worthy of the name "success". Challenging a boy to increase that experience seems admirable to me, as well.

 

"Accuse" seems more negative to me than what I thought I was writing. Perhaps my agitation at being told to read the rulebook was more apparent than I thought. OR perhaps, it was being told that disagreeing with the wise and wonderful OZ made any thoughts I had "incorrect arguments . . . just rationalizations to justify the way you are doing things even in the face of a straightforward presentation of the facts."

 

My intent was to say there's more to every question and every answer than, "The rulebook says..." In fact, there's more to every rule than, "The rulebook says..."

 

What's the old saying? Instead of applying the rulebook to the child, we need to apply the child to the rulebook.

 

jd

 

 

[boleta 10]

My original post on this thread used the 2004 Requirement book to explain why the proposed Eagle project was acceptable and was within the guidelines of the requirement.

 

John, you start your reply "boleta, and all you rule book readers". I am sorry, I don't get it. If you don't believe in the BSA program as defined by BSA, why follow the program at all? There has to be some basis for the requirements. Why not use the most up to date, official, and correct version of the requirements as found in the 2004 Requirement book? Do you just want to make up your own program? Honestly! If you don't have the book, or haven't looked at it at your Scout Store, then do so. Then accept it! These are the requirements for 2004. Not any others. This will only clarify the requirements for the Scouts so everyone is on the same page.

 

[Bob White 20]

Not sure what all the OZ stuff is about. I thought we looking for reasons to tell a scout yes. There seems to be a lot of energy being used researching how to be able to say "no".

 

 

[johndaigler 10]

b-

 

You need to get over yourself.

 

I'll put ten talented, qualified, knowledgeable Scout Leaders of any position into a room with any one of the Requirements and still come out with a minimum of 5 different understandings. The book is a tool. You don't get to say, "I read it this way and the rest of you are wrong." What qualifies as appropriate to any given Scout doesn't depend on the rule. It depends on the boy, the problem to be solved and the adults helping solve that problem.

 

How dare you say to me or to any other Scouter that because I see the situation differently than you do or that if I disagree with the BSA over a single policy that I need to leave the Boleta Clubhouse and find somewhere else to play. Were you a bully on the playground, too? You find it inappropriate for me to participate in the conversation because I don't genuflect when you pronounce judgement? -- Not even if your initials were BP!

 

You're not even as true to the rulebook as you say we should all be. Your quoting of the rule is only half complete, and then you INTERPRET just how much the Scout should pay attention to the Workbook he's told he must use. Make up your mind! Or do you just want to follow some of the rules and interpret others??

 

It's simple for me. I never insulted you. I disagreed with you. For some people it's difficult to do one without the other. I'm disappointed that that's how you've dealt with me.

 

Again, you being right doesn't make me wrong. You're behavior and displayed attitude toward others and their thoughts makes you wrong!

 

jd

[Bob White 20]

"I'll put ten talented, qualified, knowledgeable Scout Leaders of any position into a room with any one of the Requirements and still come out with a minimum of 5 different understandings."

 

I am sure you can although I'm not sure what that would prove. Depending on who the 10 are they could very well all be wrong. If Eamonn was there at least one would be right.

 

"How dare you say to me or to any other Scouter that because I see the situation differently than you do or that if I disagree with the BSA over a single policy that I need to leave the Boleta Clubhouse and find somewhere else to play."

 

Where in the world did you get that from? I never said or even implied such a thing.

 

"You find it inappropriate for me to participate in the conversation because I don't genuflect when you pronounce judgement?"

 

I give you credit for a vivid imagination. Again, nothing of the kind was ever said or implied in any of my posts.

 

"Again, you being right doesn't make me wrong."

 

I have never approached these conversations from an 'I'm right, your wrong'. I have always posted from a view of the Scouting program is right, and we as leaders have a responsibility to deliver the best possible program to the scouts. I approach all grey areas from the vantage point of 'what has the program told the scout'. In the case of advancement, the primary guide is the Boy Scout Handbook.

 

The greatest flaw in the arguement about what is in the Eagle Scout Packet is evident in the post quoting its text. Where it says "as stated in the Boy Scout Handbook..."it goes on to misquote the Boy Scout Handbook. I agree that the misquote creates confusion. but I think it is one easily remidied by putting the Scout first. He has a project which appears to meet all the requirements presented in the Handbook. AS a leader I am comfortable saying yes to him because of that, and would not take the time to look for a reason to say no. I see nothing contrary to the spirit or purpose of the advancement method or the aims of the program, or in the rules of the program,in doing so.

 

I invite you to go back and read each of my posts in this thread and find where any individual was attacked in any way, or criticized for not agreeing with me. I said nothing in the way of a personal attack at you or anyone else. Can you say the same?

 

I am not the bully on the playground Mr. Daigler. I have, and will continue to discuss these topics based on the content of the post, not on my opinion of the character of the poster. You would do well to do the same.

 

Happy Scouting,

BW

 

 

[johndaigler 10]

bobwhite (and everyone else who has tired of this),

 

My sincere apologies that you think I was speaking to you. My frustration is with boleta. I hope you can see that my earlier post directed to you was composed with the same respect and good faith that you shared with me. I heard what you said earlier and I'm very willing, eager in fact, to learn from people who are capable of discussion and sharing of differing ideas in the hopes of better helping the boys with whom we work.

 

If you re-read my last post, realizing that it was in response to Boleta's words and not BobWhite's, I hope you'll see that it makes more sense. Though, perhaps, it's less than appropriate in the end, anyway.

 

It's obvious that it's well past time for this thread to end. Again, my apologies for carrying my end of it too long, and perhaps too far. I want to be a positive part of these discussions, but I won't just sit back and be insulted and dismissed because I disagree with boleta or any of you.

 

I think, perhaps, I'll "see" some of you elsewhere in the future, but for here and now, it's TAPS for me.

 

jd

 

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

JD,

 

 

Friendly.

 

 

I think that is the top one.

 

 

FB

[boleta 10]

So much for a conversation. Pretty thin skinned and sensitive JD. I will accept the reply of BobWhite's as a satisfactory response to your concerns.

 

You are correct that I did not quote the entire requirement for the Leadership project. But I did quote the part that was relevant to this thread.

 

I did not mean to insult you or anyone who disagrees with me in my posts and apologize if it was taken that way. But you have yet to confirm looking at the current Requirement book which is all that I have asked. I hope I am not being too redundant in saying that the front cover of the book states that these are the OFFICIAL requirements for the BSA program for 2004.

 

 

 

[Hunt 11]

This forum often addresses questions about what BSA's rules allow and don't allow. Often, the rules are crystal clear (although some people still may not accept it). In other cases, the rules aren't clear. Putting all the invective aside, what we have here is a case in which two authoritative documents appear to be inconsistent. If these were legal documents, and people were in a court debating their meaning, the approach the court would take would be to read them together and try to determine the intent of the drafters. The court would have to balance two principles embodied in the rules: (1) schools are appropriate project beneficiaries and (2) businesses are not appropriate project beneficiaries. Some suggest that a third principle should be used as well--interpreting the rules liberally to avoid setting up barriers to scouts. I have to tell you that if I were the judge, I would rule that the rules in the Workbook are the more detailed and complete requirements, and that a clearly indicated limitation there would trump a general statement in the requirements book. I guess I don't have trouble with the principle of "not setting up barriers," which might lead to a different result, but I think if you use that argument, you should do so consistently (ie, when discussing whether sleeping in an igloo counts for camping, and any one of a zillion other discussions I've read here).