packsaddle

Viagra actually may be helping endangered species: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051010/full/news051010-1.html For this reason alone, I'd like to see generics flood the market. OK, it's off the subject, sort of, but JoeBob made me think about it.

Agree with Basementdweller. Just do it. No matter what you'll have a new track and the donor will have achieved his goal as well. Don't sweat it.

"Note, the USCG does not require Type IV PFD approved throwable flotation devices or signalling device. Your state may have different requirements, but I have not found this to be common." Here's the link to the regs for Maryland: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/boating/pdfs/recreationvessels.pdf Throwable devices are not required for Maryland (but are in this area). Audible signals ARE required in Maryland. Interestingly, visual signals are ALSO required on waters wider than 2 miles (I'm thinking 'the Bay'). I asked a buddy at UofM and he claimed that the 2-mile thing applies even if you're just skirting the shore (I think he may have had an experience with this technicality, lol). Another note: ALL boys of ages less than 13 must WEAR the pfd at all times in the watercraft. Just having it in the canoe isn't good enough. (BSA requires this for EVERYONE. Tsk, tsk, I often see troops in canoes on the lakes around here and none of them are wearing pfd's...why do we even have rules?) Edit: Even if you've done the BSA training, it's probably worth the time to take your state's boater safety course. As far as I can tell they're all offered online and usually there's a way to take the course for free, with payment only required for the certificate. The one offered by BoatUS is good but it takes a LOT of time.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I had to equip my fleet of 12 canoes and about as many assorted boats for college classes. All of my paddles have black plastic blades with aluminum shafts and plastic 'T' grips. This is a really common design and you can find them at WalMart and other places under different brands. Most of mine are made by Carlisle, I think, and have not had any problems over the last 4 years since their purchase. I think the blades are ABS plastic which is very durable. The oldest paddles I have (from previous classes) are close to 40 years old now and still in good condition. However, I can remember, long ago, how paddle blades would occasionally fall off the end of the paddle shaft and if the boys hit the water hard, slapping it like a beaver tail, the blades would sometimes break. The problem of breakage was true for wood as well. But the wood is not as durable, and sometimes not as strong, as the aluminum and plastic construction. I shopped around and found a good deal on paddles through Cabela's. But they didn't have enough inventory in stock for all I needed so I approached a local outfitter who matched the price and didn't even charge shipping. I can't remember how much I paid, though I think it was about $20 each. I do seem to remember that wood was about the same price, maybe a little cheaper. For your unit, you also need to consider the diverse heights of the boys and try to match that with a variety of paddle lengths. Also, make sure the paddles float. For PFD, I chose inexpensive life vests (type II) which meet USCG (and BSA) requirements. I elected not to use Type III because they are considered to be a 'flotation aid' - the wearer needs to be conscious and able to keep their face oriented upwards. Type II devices give a small additional margin of safety to the user. You can find inexpensive life vests packaged 4 or 5 at a time in carrying bags designed for them. This time of year you can find them sold from lots of vendors. Don't forget that you also need one throwable floatation device per watercraft and also an audible signaling device. I purchased inexpensive boat cushions which qualify under USCG regs and at a local variety store I found inexpensive metal whistles sold by the dozen (buy extras, they sink). Good luck, stay safe, and have fun!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Moosetracker, ...trying to get back to those two questions... I'm not sure that 'get over it' is going to provide resolution. While I'm sympathetic to the individualistic approach (that is to say focus on individual freedom) I also see that freedom being expressed in the form of trying to force views on others. So let me pose a different question. We all know the golden rule. How can it be applied in this situation? Could it be used as a key to finding a resolution? Or does it fail?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"Now, yeh claim that wasn't hyperbolic but my statements were." I never made any such claim about what I wrote and you know it. The difference is that I'm willing to admit it when I use hyperbole. Besides, what you just quoted from me IS A QUOTE of what I heard FROM A PULPIT and in other places back in the 1960s. I really do collect these things and then throw them in peoples' faces at times. It's good to remember these things. It's good to make others face those memories too, a nice reminder. But at least now I got you to provide some reasoned discussion. Thanks. And that is why I maintained near the beginning of this thread, that all government support should be removed to allow the market to work the way it should. That is still what I maintain. The Catholics (and others) can discriminate if they want as long as they're 'up front' about it. The market will take care of everything. Edit: take a glance over your shoulder back through the rear window. See that edge receding in the distance? We went over the cliff before this administration arrived. The ACLU and the Catholics are just a distraction. accelerating at 9.8(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Two hours!!!??? Trust me, it was with great affection. Now get some sleep. No, not that kind of affection...NOW get some sleep.

Beavah, Which of those two questions represented 'straw men'? They might not have been interesting to someone who wants to provoke. Anyway, you played the abortion hot button in response. And it was not necessary in order to discuss the principles involved. Here are some examples, "Yeh can have your religion in private, just don't let it affect how you behave in public or we will destroy you financially." or this one, ""Those people", yeh see, can't be allowed to run hospitals or be an OB/GYN. They should go live on a compound in the woods." Hyperbole. To answer your question even when you refuse to answer mine: Yes, they should have refused to engage in forced sterilizations. And then they should have played it out, however it went. They had a chance to bring the moral issue to the public arena and didn't. It was cowardly. Same for doctors in hospitals. They should 'put it on the line' if it is a matter of conscience. Same for pharmacies. As a matter of fact they don't need the ACLU action to push this point, they can do it right now if it's that important. Edit: Thanks Moosetracker. I'm still not clear about where the line is for you, though. What I'm hoping for is a 'way' to make the decision...more than a survey of 'where' the line is for different people. Seems like if we could figure out 'how' to draw the line, then where it ends up might be a little more rational to more people. But reflecting on this thread, I am probably wrong about this.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks, so how do the two sides manage to live together? I can understand how persons with your approach can probably manage not to directly affect others whose religious views are different. Should you be forced to allow the other side to directly affect you with theirs? Is there a resolution in principle?

Thanks Trev, Please explain what you mean by 'limits of their soma.' This is an unfamiliar concept.

On page 2 I asked the following questions: "The real question is for us as individuals: should our religious views trump everything else? And if not everything, then where do we draw the line?" You then ignored any reasonable response and instead hijacked the thread with hyperbole. No one, as far as I can find, even attempted to answer those questions. They were not hyperbole. They were not provocative. All they asked was for anyone to provide a good, reasonable, rational discussion. And you didn't. So I turn your question back to YOU, is there a rational discussion in there anywhere?

Beavah, Actually I agreed with quite a few, but you just go ahead and spin things the way you want. And in this thread, I am quite willing to defer to your hyperbolic abilities. I'm still taking lessons, I'm the student, you're the master. But let me get this straight, you're saying that the Taliban would NOT control someone's behavior or their access to services or anything, on the basis of a religious belief? Is that what you maintain? Yes? No? JoeBob, how can you possibly know what I think if I've never stated it? But in response to the rest of that paragraph: WOW! I think I'll just let you continue to speak for yourself. (but I did 'save' that comment in case someone tries to edit it away. Definitely goes into my collection.)

Trev, was it the comparison to Jesus or being accused of being pigheaded? OGE, wow, you took all the fun out of it. OK let me pose the question again in different form: Yes or NO, is it OK for businesses to deny services, on the basis of religious beliefs, to interracial couples? Keep in mind that the question is not asking whether it is legal or not but rather if it is OK in our individual minds. Also, it isn't asking for a general answer but about denial of services, specifically on the basis of religious beliefs...to interracial couples because they ARE an interracial couple. OR, someone could make an attempt on my earlier question which was NEVER addressed: "The real question is for us as individuals: should our religious views trump everything else? And if not everything, then where do we draw the line?" I suggest that in another place on this earth, the Taliban might answer that first part with 'yes'.

This has to be one of the most fractured threads ever. Just catching up on things I see Beavah start with the words "I don't understand..." and then pontificate endlessly as if he DID. Scoutfish with his unique, dare-I-say-it, 'woodsy' take on things. Poor Trevorum vainly attempting to insert words of kindness and reason, almost as if he was Jesus Christ himself (and then ignored by everyone as if he WAS). And, of course, all the rest of us, ALL of whom are pig-headed and unwilling to consider anything that we disagree with. What would one of these threads BE without labels being thrown around as substitutes for reasoning? And for what? It's because New Hampshire is trying to pass some legislation that many of us find incomprehensible. There's a reason for this, of course. It IS incomprehensible. Think about it. This is a state which, for its motto, poses a choice between the alternatives of living in freedom versus death. I mean if they can't even figure out which of THOSE two options is the best one, who COULD expect to comprehend their legislation? Me, I'm still waiting for someone to give me the yes or no answer to the question: Is it OK for a hospital to deny treatment, on the basis of religious beliefs, to interracial couples? JoeBob, I saw your hand raised a little while ago, yes or no.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Daisy and Crossman both have been used at special camporee events. I suppose those were at cub day camp as well. My son and I spent about an hour scavenging about a million (maybe that's an exaggeration) BBs off the ground cloth after one of these events. Kept him in business for over a year around our house.

Looks like the omen is for more winter ahead. Around these parts, we're still waiting for winter to arrive in the first place. Loved the movie even if it was kind of repetitious.

I have never burned a bridge when I left a job for a better position. And in the uncountable times I've been dumped by women, I've never offered anything but best wishes for them in the future. In some cases I even tried to affirm that they made a really good decision (and then they got mad, go figure). Sometimes it's best to just keep thoughts to self and move on.

I thought it had something to do with what happened on 9 January.

This is not related to scout communication but it was interesting to me: Had to do some legal things so I'm getting documents from different places around the country. The court people tell me that they will accept copies that have been faxed to me. I ask them if I can just print a pdf of the file and they say, "No. It can't be a scanned copy. It has to be a faxed copy." I ask them if they know how a fax machine works. They look at me like I was from another planet. In case anyone is wondering, I'm not.

Scoutfish, Personal experience, they freeze and dry out anyway. It is a fairly simple energetic process. One of my courses addresses this question in several ways. You are thinking about a concept that is often termed 'net energy analysis'. This examines the direct and indirect dissipation of energy that is associated with a product or process from start to finish (cradle to grave in industry lingo). Your clothesline example is actually a great example of this. The EPA, back in the early 1970s, actually did the analysis and applied the analysis to a product that I currently use in one of my lectures on this topic: baby diapers. More specifically, how to choose between disposables or cloth. It's one of my favorite lectures because not only does it provide a vivid (and I DO mean vivid) demonstration of the principles, it absolutely destroys any illusions students have that babies are clean, quiet, convenient, etc. ...and thus providing indirect incentive for avoiding pregnancy until they really think they're ready for it. (as an aside, Beavah once jumped on my case for destroying this illusion, go figure) Anyway, without going into all the details, the EPA showed that cloth wins if using the clothes line. Energetically, the clothes line wins over every alternative except where restrictive covenants do not allow 'unsightly' clotheslines (who wants to look at their neighbor's underwear?) However, if drying using an electric dryer, disposable diapers have a slight edge over cloth. With a gas dryer, cloth has a slight edge over disposables. Keep in mind that this analysis is decades old, now, so the edge may have moved a little. Of course none of this takes into account intangibles such as the smell coming from that diaper pail.... Edit to add: just thought of an eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not look at (view, covet?) they neighbor's underwear". Gotta work that one into lecture somehow.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

#1 Face to face, friend to friend, in a quiet, friendly setting, start with a question, "How are you?" and then ask about what they've been doing and thinking about lately. Express genuine interest in their life, you'll get genuine communication. Anyone that says this is not still a modern way to communicate is mistaken. #2 This is usually a distant second place: Phone call. Same approach. In some circumstances this is a close second with technology like Skype or similar technologies. A little boy's ability to see and speak to his father on the other side of the world is good...no other way to say it. #3 Written letter. Take the time to craft your thoughts carefully so as to correctly express your thoughts in a way that can be understood the same way you understand them. #4 Really distant fourth place, and I personally detest this substitute for a written letter even as I use the medium every day: email. Worst ways: #1 The silent treatment #2 Rumors, gossip # Tied for third: Facebook, tweets, text messages, blogs, scouter.com Just my off-the-cuff opinion

Before this thread is hijacked, starts 'chasing its tail' and rehashing another really old thread, anyone interested in the pros and cons of vouchers should first read through the following old thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=166911#id_167218 Beavah, that would be 'Pa' Kettle to you... As I respond to most people complaining about ACLU lawsuits, on the assumption the suit has legal merit, if they don't want the suit, STOP BREAKING THE LAW! On the other hand, and in keeping with my request for that reasoned argument, please explain how the ACLU suit lacks legal merit. I'm fairly certain you are qualified to explain that. As for the rest, the solution is easy. Remove all government support and subsidies. Period. Let the Catholics do whatever they want and same for everyone else. No government intrusion or influence. Let the free market work. If your reasoning has sufficient merit with other people, your view will prevail. There will be no need to gain special exemptions in order to force your views on other people...they'll freely accept them as sensible personal decisions. And, as I argued so long ago, those vouchers are a deception and just as unnecessary. Just remove ALL government support for education except cases of indigence. The market will take care of everything. That old thread was the origin of one of my favorite quotes from you, directed at me: "Yah, OK. You're goin' to make even me sound like a liberal." Beavah, There's a reason for that. You ARE.

I share your sadness, Lisa. I've had several wonderful students suffer similar tragedies in recent times and each time I grieve the tragedy. I offer my sympathy.

Moosetracker, I know you're trying to use reductio ad absurdum but in this area not too long ago, there were businesses which did exactly that. Some towns, too, had billboards at the edge of town advertising their 'sunset' laws. I only know of one of those businesses that is still in business and ALL of those signs are long gone as far as I can tell.

We almost always did it. What and how much depended on where we were and time of year. We waited until near the end of the den meeting. Pack meetings often had a 'pot luck' of some sort. The pack also set up a hot dog stand at Pinewood derby, etc.