GernBlansten

Today, AGW is not real. Its warmer today than yesterday. But yesterday was colder than the day before, so it wasn't real then. The MSM forecast (if you believe in that stuff, you know how scientists are) says it will be warmer tomorrow. I'll hold judgement until then, but I believe AGW will not be real. There is certainly not enough evidence that tommorrow will be warmer and I've done some research to find a scientist that says tomorrow will be colder. I'll wait until then before I decide what to wear.

For GaHillbilly's education, I'm a former scout, brother of an Eagle scout, father of an Eagle scout, former ASM, current Venture CA and troop committee member, been to Philmont and two Canadian BSA Norther Tier treks, current OKPIK instructor. Do I qualify to post on this forum GAHillBilly?

A Scout is Trustworthy. A Scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him. GaHillbilly, you said you would quit. Can't you be trustworthy?

"I wish I knew how to quit you." Jack Twist, Brokeback Mountain

GAHillbilly, I thought you were quitting us? Oh well. Word of advise, don't put GaHillBilly in the Google and click its suggested correction. Definitely not for scouts.

Snow is not soft. Yes powder is, but the rocks under it are pretty hard. So are the trees. Think Sonny Bono. Just this past weekend, I cracked my helmet. Caught a heel edge on my snowboard and rag dolled. (think picking up a rag doll by the feet and slamming it on the table) If I didn't have a helmet, I would have ridden the sled to the morgue or critical care unit. Wasn't going fast either. Just happened. Helmet clearly saved me. Neck hurt, had a head ache, but no concussion or cracked skull. Lets not mention the other idiots out there that can take you out.

That's one of the more honest posts I've read from you. At least you acknowledge that you "try" to keep your biases from influencing your science. And I agree, everyone has biases. They invade all our thoughts and decisions. One of the toughest things in science is to belay those biases as best we can. However, our previous discussion on miracles indicates to me that you are more than willing to accept a divine cause than just leave things as unknown as most scientists would be more than willing to do. This really makes me think you are able to set aside your scientific analysis when it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Any scientist who is willing to do that, would in my mind also allow his political stances to corrupt his analysis too.

Perhaps then I can offer you some constructive advice. When lecturing forum members on their lack of understanding of the scientific process, you shouldn't comment on your dedication to the scientific process when you are willing to set it aside for convenient reasons.

"In my example, the SM relates a story that I, as a physician, cannot explain by known medicine. So the incidence was either not told in a factual manner or it was a miraculous event." Ah, but when I questioned the accuracy of the SMs tale, you said I must be calling the SM a liar. You seem to fall to the side of miraculous event and not to Occam's razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). So, it seems to me that you are able to set aside your scientific analysis when your faith contradicts it. Is it safe to say that you also set aside your scientific analysis when your political views are challenged too?

So here I thought the ban on gays was to stop this exact situation from happening. I have been told (on this forum) that all homosexuals are pedophiles and if we allow them, this type of thing will be common place. However, in this case, it seems the man was married with children. That indicates heterosexual. So the ban didn't protect our children. Nor has it for any case I've seen in the press when adults prey on scouts. Seems we are banning the wrong guys/gals, eh? Or could it be that pedophiles aren't homosexual or heterosexuals, they are just pedophiles. That makes much more sense to me. And a ban on pedophiles makes much more sense too. Yes, I would support that.

Vol, In a thread a while back, we debated the existance of miracles. You specifically chastised me for not believing the story you told of a Scoutmaster who miraculously regained vision to return scouts safely to their home. In fact, you said I must be calling the Scoutmaster a liar, since I didn't accept his story. So, tell me. How do you balance believing in miracles with your superior experience and knowledge of the scientific method?

"top police officer in the Missouri town" Dollars to donuts he is a married, church going man with a family. Do you still think the ban of gays keeps our children safe from guys like this, the real threat?

Thank you Kay. I'm very interested in the responses from those who think you are unworthy to deliver the BSA promise to our boys.

A friendship to me is someone who I trust. Usually outside my family. Someone I can confide a problem with, who I expect them to work it with me, confidentially. Hopefully your spouse is your best friend. This differs from being friendly. That implies a common courtesy. A laurel and hardy handshake. But no trust. A welcome neighbor greeting. Friendships may follow.

The reason you don't see pro-gay marriage voter referendum's is that they are not necessary since the original state constitutions don't specifically ban them. Its the anti-gay marriage folks who must float these measures to alter their constitutions to block such unions.

If they weren't afraid of the homosexual influence in their unit, why would they ban them?

Vol, If there was a local option, I don't see why it wouldn't transcend race or creed. This would allow freedom of the unit to decide who they want. It would also come with a price. If a unit wanted to ban Jews, a local option would allow it. They would however be known in their district as the anti-semitic troop. If a unit wanted to ban blacks, a local option would allow it. They would however be known in their district as the racist troop. If a unit wanted to ban gays, a local option would allow it. They would however be known in their district as the homo-phobic troop.

In the business, we call it Back Hoe Fade.

Baden, I fully understand your position. Sometimes, you have to pull the fetid bandage off the wound to heal the body. Sure it will hurt and will take some good flesh with it, but it will allow us to cleanse the wound and allow new, healthy tissue to fill the void.

I'm curious to hear from those who favor the ban on gays, if they also support a ban on gays in other venues. Housing: Do you support the rights of a landlord to not rent his apartment to a gay couple? Employment: Do you support the rights of an employer to reject employment of a gay individual because of his sexual orientation? Education: Do you support a ban on any gay in any student contact position in the public education system? Gun ownership: Do you support a ban on any gay to own a firearm? Voting rights: Do you support a ban on any gay to be allowed to vote? Land ownership: Do you support a ban on any gay to be allowed to own land? Access to public services? The right to a trial by peers? The right of association? The right of religious expression? Sorry, this is rhetorical. I already know your answer. Carry on.

UnderArmor is nice stuff. But its expensive and there's good cheaper options out there. for a base layer, you want it close fitting, but not constricting. Close to the skin allows it to wick away moisture but doesn't cool the skin. Loose fitting will chill the skin as the moisture evaporates. Too tight, and it constricts the blood flow. Mid layer, I'd go looser, something like a polyprop or wool. Then the outer layer is a shell really for just wind and water/snow. Those three basic thin layers really keeps one warm in all but the most extreme conditions. And you don't look like the kids in A Christmas Story. Early explorers had it right. They used silk as a base layer, wool for mid and a canvas duck for the outter. We have synthetics that are much more reasonable. Abolutely no cotton and wool doesn't feel good against the skin.

So having and using a one man tent is the same as promoting the homosexual agenda. God I love this place!

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." The BSA mission statement. That's gonna get boys to join eh? Might get their parents excited, but the boys? And y'all wonder why outsiders think we are click of geeks.

GaHillBilly, y'all got a boy on boy sex problem done in Georgia? Sounds like it.

Pack, not only are there people who believe man walked with dinosaurs, they even built a museum. http://creationmuseum.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creation_Museum_10.png "The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Edens Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings."