Merlyn_LeRoy

GaHillBilly writes: I can only plead that I was dismayed to find that a prolific and long-term poster here is not a Scouter at all, nor even friendly to Scouting in the least way. . . . But, if I find other non-Scouters here, posing implicitly as Scouters, GaHillBilly, there you go again, implying that I'm dishonest by "posing" as a scouter. And I'm sure you'll again refuse to back up your accusations by quoting anything I've written. I'm not responsible for your erroneous assumptions. If you jumped to that conclusion, that's YOUR problem. Moderators like OGE will tell you that being a member of the BSA is not a requirement to register on scouter.com or post in the forums.

GaHillBilly writes: Merlyn (AKA Brian of "Scouting for All"), I've answered you which is more than you deserve. You've answered, but you've repeatedly failed to post actual examples of anything I've written that's dishonest. All you've done is accuse me of dishonesty, but you can't seem to be bothered to scrape up even one example of something I've actually written that's dishonest; all that's left are your baseless accusations.

GaHillBilly writes: The earliest perception I can recall, regarding your dishonesty, was that you were insincere in your discussion. What I noted was that you never (or almost never?) acknowledged error or correction, your arguments were totally blown out of the water. So, you've gone from one vague accusation to another -- when, specifically, have my arguments been "blown out of the water"? This is the mark of someone who's not discussing sincerely, but is religiously committed to their opinion, no matter what the evidence. Tell me, what's your opinion of human evolution over the last 2 million years or so? even when you had nothing cogent or relevant to say, you would continue to argue against positions you disliked. That isn't dishonest. I'll agree I can be argumentative, but that's got nothing to do with being dishonest. Another feature of your dishonesty is your almost immediate resort to ad hominem arguments. And AGAIN, here's another vague, unsubstantiated statement that I've made ad hominem arguments. Quote, specifically, where I've made ad hominem arguments. All of these behaviors constitute dishonesty, though not overt lying. Sorry, you still haven't provided any SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of my dishonesty; you've CLAIMED that I've made dishonest statements, but you still have NOT QUOTED ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS I'VE MADE THAT ARE DISHONEST. So, until you do so, I'll consider you a liar.

GaHillBilly writes: My only question for you is, do you have the grit to acknowledge your error or are you turning into Merlyn LeRoy, Jr? I acknowledge my errors when they are shown to be errors. Merely asserting I've made an error isn't the same thing, of course.

Speaking of honesty, GaHillBilly, what you said earlier: But, Merlyn, my problem with you has been, almost from the start, your dishonesty. Then post something I have written, and state why you think I'm being dishonest. If you don't, I'll consider you a liar

GaHillBilly, an internet troll doesn't discuss issues, they just post outrageous things to get a rise out of people. I don't do that, I actually discuss issues. You seem to be confusing "troll" with "someone who holds opinions I disagree with, and who has the audacity to post their opinions where I can see them." But, Merlyn, my problem with you has been, almost from the start, your dishonesty. Then post something I have written, and state why you think I'm being dishonest. If you don't, I'll consider you a liar.

GaHillBilly writes: Regardless of that, your relationship to Scouting is 100% negative. As far as I can tell, you do not support anything that Scouting does, or is. Oh, sure I do. But that has nothing to do with the current BSA, which is dishonest and supports invidious discrimination. The only thing apparently that you actually SUPPORT is mandating a maximal presence of atheists and homosexuals among youth. "Maximal"? I suppose if the BSA excluded Jews and I advocated that the BSA stop excluding Jews, you would also characterize that as advocating a "maximal" presence of Jews among youth. If you win your campaign against Scouting, I suppose you'd simply turn to something else, like trying to force religious colleges hire gays or atheists. Well, the BSA can either stop discriminating or stop dishonestly chartering units to organizations that can't legally practice their discrimination, like law enforcement agencies. No comment on the BSA's dishonesty from you? You are here, not as a Scouter, but as a pro-gay, pro-atheist activist. Scouting is simply the particular realm on which you've focused your activism. Because the BSA has my own government illegally practicing discrimination against atheists. And yes, I do fight that, and I get results.

GaHillBilly writes: But, since he's made no great secret of it, I'll mention Merlyn Leroy's case. He -- Brian Westley -- is the Maryland director of "Scouting for All" No, Minnesota, though I have been checking into a Crew chartered by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, which, of course, can't charter a Crew. and according to his OWN bio information, that is his only association with Scouting. He has reported that he was once a Cub Scout. He also reports (not here!) that he has been actively involved in legal actions against Scouting. I've certainly reported that here before: http://www.scouter.com/Forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=88380 (bottom of first page) By the way, the BSA STILL isn't being honest. They still have about 350 "traditional" units chartered to law enforcement agencies and correctional institutions, and I can only estimate what fraction of ambiguously categorized units like "playgrounds & recreation centers" and "fire departments" are unlawful.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion about AGW, then why are you posting? Because of your seemingly-arbitrary distinction on what belongs under "consensus". I refuse to spend my time defending word usage. I've been pointing that out for a while now.

vol_scouter writes: I asked you factual information. You have asked me to defend word usage which I refuse to do. Well, you claim your usage is common usage, so you ought to be able to support that. You have not questioned the science but try to criticize my word usage as a reason to negate an argument. No, my ENTIRE ARGUMENT has been over your word usage. As I seem to have to keep pointing out, I'm not arguing about AGW per se at all. The ONLY argument I've been trying to "negate" is your "consensus" vs. "settled science" claimed distinction.

vol_scouter, when you ask me for sources, I give them. When I ask you for sources, all you do is hand out insults. Maybe next time you ask me to back up what I'm saying, I should just repeatedly tell you to stop embarrassing yourself by showing your ignorance, and refuse to support my arguments.

vol_scouter writes: As I recall, I used popular sources for the Cradle of Liberty Council and the city of Philadelphia dispute. That's mostly what I used, but I don't recall any legitimate news organization saying Philly was in violation of the terms of the agreement. When you pointed out that you had read the actual contract and that contract laid out a method to get out of the contract, I acceded to what you had to say. No, you asked me to support my claim, and I did: Merlyn, I did not know about the ability for either party to end the relationship unilaterally with a year's notice. If there are no other requirements to complicate the issue, then Philadelphia can terminate the relationship and has done nothing wrong. Do you happen to have a link to the agreement? I usually do not agree with you on these subjects but it sounds like the Cradle of Liberty Council must accept the decision. Some of us may not like the decision but it is not right to only enforce certain parts of a contract. Here's the resolution ending the agreement; I've never found a copy of the 1928 ordinance itself, but this cites it and the reason for ending it: http://webapps.phila.gov/council/attachments/3811.pdf I am certain that you cannot judge the science that I have discussed. And since I don't consider you a source of accurate information, I keep asking you to come up with some kind of supporting evidence (other than just your say-so), but you don't.

vol_scouter writes: You are not a Scouter and are impugning my veracity. I am not a scouter, but I have not impugned your veracity; you have written statements in this forum that are false and demonstrably false. I've already listed two (your statement about my nonexistent "parroting" of "ideologues", and your statement on how Philly violated the terms of the CofL agreement). Consequently, I won't take any statements of yours at face value. I have demonstrated my knowledge of science here which you cannot do. Correct, I certainly can't demonstrate that you have any knowledge of science.

vol_scouter, given some of your past remarks that were false (and fairly easily shown to be false), I have no reason to take anything you say at face value. Since you have no references of any kind outside your own insistence that you're right, that's simply won't convince me, which is why I keep asking for some kind of cite or link that I can check.

vol_scouter, you apparently have nothing you can cite for how you use terms, not even an example of someone else using the terms the same way you do. Given your ridiculous claim that I've been a "parrot to ideologues whose work you do not understand" when I've only quoted people in this thread and I haven't even taken any position on AGW in this thread, your tendency to just make up crap instead of actually reading what I write means your insistence on being right has zero weight with me, which is why I'm not going to accept just your word. Since you can't provide a shred of evidence, I'll lump that to be as accurate as your statement about my non-existent "parroting" of unnamed "ideologues." I'll just file that with your past incorrect, unsupported statements like your claim that Philadelphia actually violated their agreement with the Cradle of Liberty council, when in fact the city gave one year's notice as the agreement required.

vol_scouter writes: Any scientist understands my comments completely. Then why not include a cite or a link supporting your usage. I have stated facts and you wish to pick at word choices because you do not understand the process of science. No, I don't agree with what is, apparently, your arbitrary distinction between "consensus" science and "settled science." Whenever I ask about it, all you do is spew out more insults.] I am sure that you will be the last to post on this issue because all of the rest of us will tire of trying to educate someone who does not wish to learn but only to be a parrot to ideologues whose work you do not understand. vol_scouter, you may have not noticed that I HAVEN'T BEEN ARGUING ABOUT AGW PER SE AT ALL in this thread, so your bizarre comment that I'm only a "parrot to ideologues whose work you do not understand" is beyond ridiculous.

HICO_Eagle, you apparently haven't noticed that I haven't been arguing about AGW per se at all; I've been asking vol_scouter to justify his distinction between "consensus" and "settled science".

vol_scouter, you're the one not backing up what you claim. You do that quite often -- you'll make some claim, but never back it up.

So vol_scouter, that means you're completely unable to come up with a link or a cite of any scientist distinguishing between scientific consensus vs. "scientifically correct" (or "settled science" or whatever you claim it's called) in the way you claim they do? Yeah, color me not surprised.

vol_scouter writes: I do not have time to educate you. I'm not asking you to "educate" me, I'm asking you for some kind of cite or link supporting your assertions. Got any? It doesn't appear so. All you have so far are your keystrokes.

GaHillBilly writes: You and I disagree because you don't -- and apparently can't -- think about science in an educated manner. Uh, last I checked, you're the one who appeared to disbelieve in well-established science like evolution. vol_scouter, "consensus" means generally agreed upon, which is more applicable to what you're trying to repaint as "settled science" (which, of course, can still end up being wrong). Can you cite anyone who uses "consensus" and "settled science" (or "correct science" or whatever term you decide to use today) to categorize scientific theories the way you do?

vol_scouter, we don't agree because you are wrong. You've created some arbitrary "scientifically correct" criterion, apparently just so you can claim AGW doesn't meet it and only meets some lesser "consensus" standard. But science uses consensus for everything.

vol_scouter writes: As usual, I regret ever responding to you. The feeling is mutual. Now your statements aren't even consistent: Consensus in science is used when the correct scientific explanation has been elucidated. Consensus opinions in science and medicine are issued when the science is still not clear. "Elucidated" means made clear, so your first sentence says consensus is used when the science IS clear, and your second sentence says consensus is used when it's NOT clear. Oddly enough, I agree, because consensus is used in both cases. You seem to think there's some magic threshhold where consensus turns into "what science says is correct" or something like that. But that's just more consensus. It's "consensus" and not "correct" because "what science says is correct" can still turn out to be wrong, such as Newton's laws of motion. They're useful, they're quite close for most purposes, they were considered correct for a long time, but they aren't correct. The observed universe doesn't quite act the way classical mechanics describes. Even if it's "very close," it is not correct.

GaHillBilly writes: Neither quantum theory nor general relativity are a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). Quantum theory and the standard model work very, very well for the little stuff. And general relativity works well for the big stuff. Like you agree, there's no GUT yet. Both theories work well in certain areas. But they aren't completely compatible with each other. vol_scouter writes: General relativity and quantum mechanics are well verified theories. That still doesn't reconcile them. Or your silly statement that sciences shows "which side is correct." There isn't a GUT yet because QM and relativity haven't been reconciled.

vol_scouter, you're the one ignorant about science. Quantum mechanics and general relativity conflict, and haven't been reconciled. GR says the influence of an event can't go faster than the speed of light, while QM disagrees, for one problem. And classical mechanics is "correct" only if you don't care about the small errors you get by ignoring relativistic effects (or the larger errors you get for e.g. predicting Mercury's orbit). That is to say, it's wrong. It isn't correct, it's only approximate. That's fine in a lot of cases, but it's like using 32 ft/s^2 to calculate how long it takes an object to fall from the top of the Empire State building. You know that you're ignoring friction caused by air and the slight increase in gravitational force as the object falls.