packsaddle

Happy New Year, everyone. I'd like to apologize to Beavah for the personal comments. It was over the line and I owe him and the forums an apology. For my New Year's resolution I promise to try to do better than that. SSScout, as Oliver might have said to Stan if Stan was that Jesuit, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into."

Scoutfish, are you thinking along these lines, Polynesian tattoos? http://www.tahititatou.com/history.html I'm not sure they have religious significance though. If I were to indulge in fantasy, this is what I'd go for: http://cityrag.com/2006/10/tattooed_teache/

No tattos or piercings. My parents had me mutilated when I was a baby but I don't remember a thing. I suspect that at 80 years of age, other concerns will eclipse poorly chosen tattoos, almost a certainty for me.

Didn't want to start a new thread but it was just too interesting... http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/animal-rights-group-peta-seeks-roadside-markers-to-honor-cattle-killed-in-2-illinois-crashes/2011/12/30/gIQAFQE7QP_story.html

I like OGE's idea. And at least for the short ones (the 10-milers) why not just hike in the rain? It will keep you cool and hydration won't be much of a problem. And there will be glorious solitude on the trail. Oops, you may not get much rain...where are you?

H'mmm, I was finishing up work on my Eagle rank. Everything else is a bit foggy. Probably thinking about girls or something. But on the 29th...I was probably out hunting on that day, no, it was a Sunday. I was probably out on a hike in the woods somewhere, hoping school would never start again.

Acco40, I guess that's about, what, a 50% inflation rate? In one day? H'mm, sounds about right. There are a couple of ways to look at this. One way is sometimes to think of all this as a game of tag...not to be taken very seriously. Yes, Rooster and I used to mix it up but I actually liked the guy. For that matter I can't think, off hand, of anyone in these forums whom I held bad feelings toward, with the possible exception of that guy (who's name escapes me just now) who kept showing up as different personalities and was somewhat dishonest about things. I suspect Rooster didn't feel the same way toward me but I get that pretty often. I didn't agree with much of anything he thought but I believe he was sincere. And that goes a long way with me. But for me, the best way to view things is to ask a question: how can I learn from people with whom I am in agreement? The answer is that I tend to learn more (and faster) from people who are willing to attack my ideas and allow me to attack theirs. I need adversaries to do two things: 1) teach me things I don't know and 2) disagree with me so I can hone my ideas a little sharper. I dislike some ideas. But that doesn't mean I must also dislike the person holding the idea. How else do you think I could possibly survive in the South?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Funny..he probably thinks he knows far more than that, even. But it reminds me of the cubs when we were still doing scouting-for-food by hanging little bags on residence doors. My son and his buddy were doing their thing when a lady chased them off the property with a broom. She was elderly so they just laughed about it as they ran back to the car. But the lady immediately became legend. ALL the boys wanted that route next time. So to my son's disappointment, I spread the wealth and assigned two new ones. She didn't let them down on pickup day. When they returned with their chaperone and food, I was talking with all the other parents, loading the food into a truck. Eric announced that the lady had yelled at them again. Before I could stop myself I asked what she said and he repeated it loudly and accurately with all the accents on the correct syllables so I suspected he knew those words already. It was an impressive string of expletives but I recognized my mistake and endured it for what seemed like an eternity as he faithfully reproduced the whole thing. Then, after a few moments of nervous silence, we all started laughing. They're going to get it from somebody someplace somehow. Might as well accept that, maybe have a laugh if it's possible.

As a member of a family that was almost killed by a drunk driver, my decision would depend on the individual circumstances, which are still not completely clear for this situation. However, if I detected that a law was broken or that a DWI/DUI situation was about to occur, I would do whatever I could to prevent that DWU/DUI and failing that, I would notify law enforcement. I've never encountered a situation like this at a scouting event but I have taken this action in similar situations outside of scouting on more than one occasion.

Heck (am I allowed to say that?), for that matter I kind of miss Rooster7, Bob White (sorry NJ), and littlebillie. What happened to you littlebillie? Where did you go? Oh yeah, that professional lurker, Dave Steele...are you listening?

Beavah, "In this case, I just jumped in to support Tampa Turtle. Calling Jesus a "myth" to a Christian is roughly like calling a black American a monkey. It's demeaning and belittling." And since I was the one asking Tampa Turtle to answer some questions, I took this comment to refer to me. Congratulations, I took the bait. Happy? I merely responded accurately that I never said anything of the sort. If my deeply held belief that Satan and hell are myths causes other people who consider Satan and hell to be deeply felt objects of reverence to feel disrespected, the only way I can respond is, 'same to you'. As TheScout wrote a while back, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." By the way, I'd like you to stand on a street in pretty much any city where there is a sizable black population, Detroit would be a great place to do this, and alternately proclaim Jesus to be a myth and then call to the black people who are present to inform them that they are monkeys. You would benefit from the resulting lesson in the difference between those two claims. The other comment you made was to Merlyn in which "packsaddle and his ilk" were named as the object. In that comment you mentioned the possibility that there is an official creed that you don't know about. There is no personal slight in what I wrote as I am certain there wasn't in your reference. I merely observe that you don't know much about science if you can make the kinds of statements that you make about science. Even a dilettante would know better. By your own admission you don't know how it works or how to apply it. You are fond of advising other respondents in these forums (sometimes to Tea Party defenders) when discussing other topics, not to engage in arguments based on the shallow knowledge that comes from thinking that Wikipedia is all that is needed to understand something. Why do you then so casually ignore your own advice? You attempt to draw comparisons and your own personal conclusions about things (such as string theory) for which you are profoundly ignorant. It is as if you possess understanding of these things. Worse, you respond as if you possess truth. You seem to think you can hand advice to others while ignoring it for yourself. If you feel a personal slight in any responses, it is because you set yourself up for it. You make it all about you, Beavah. It isn't about epistemology or intelligent discussion. It's about you being right. I accept this part of your character when you're discussing topics about which I don't care or have little personal knowledge. But in this case I can't set aside the fact of your ignorance of the topic you claim to understand. Reading something in the science and technology section of a magazine is getting a popularized version written by a correspondent who likely did not himself actually interview the author or understand the primary literature. Perhaps an abstract and summary but probably not the details. In the case of string theory, I doubt that anyone writing such popularized articles has any better understanding than you do after reading their simplifications, at least that is what my former Eagle who is at CERN right now has told me. There are some people who, upon reading these simplifications, often using metaphorical examples, think they actually understand something. Most of the time, they don't. You don't. And at least with respect to string theory, I don't. The difference is that I admit it. I noted this difference a while back in another thread but I guess that went ignored...until somehow, someone got bent out of shape about the application of the term, 'myth' to something...anything. Again, as TheScout wrote, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." Happy New Year.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Show me where I claimed Jesus was a myth. As a matter of fact, a while back when Brent questioned me directly about this, I wrote that Jesus is not a myth. I accept that he really existed, not that I can support that in any objective way. In this thread as far as I know it has only been a discussion of the use of the term, 'myth', not about some particular instance of calling something a myth. If I'm wrong about this, someone please clarify. Beavah, to respond to one of your other statements, the answer is: you don't know much about science. You aren't even a dilettante with regard to science. You evidently don't know enough to even articulate the basics of how scientific tests are performed, much less apply those methods to your own ideas. Your discussions of science are only slightly more erudite than I read from Tea Party members, maybe not even. Your discussions of science are neither a credit to you nor to anyone who reads those discussions and think they've been subjected to erudition. The UUA faith is non-credal. It is non-Christian, at least in the sense that it rejects the Trinity. At least that is what I am told by the UUA. Personally, the idea of the Trinity has always been impenetrable to me, perhaps someone can explain it in a way that I can understand. There are persons who are members of the UUA who practice various personal faiths including Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. And there are persons who struggle with the idea of the existence of a deity of any kind. Trevorum or Kudu can probably give a better description. Or, believe it or not, there is a UUA.org website.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Tampa Turtle, While I can't make the objective claim that these forums are a representative cross-section of society (and probably aren't), I think most of us would agree that the members are of diverse backgrounds and ideas. [if someone disagrees with that, speak up] I have, on many occasions, had the opportunity to objectively test reactions in public settings. These forums only differ in the medium and the fact that none of us can observe facial expressions or hear the subtleties of spoken words. And we can't all speak at once. What I have observed in those settings, and I see no reason for it not to be true here as well, is that almost anything that is worth saying to the group is going to get different responses that can be categorized, loosely, into 'agreement', 'disagreement', 'laughter', 'anger', and 'offense'. Some of those categories obviously overlap. The only way that I have found for all people not to be offended by something someone thinks...is for them never to experience those thoughts. This, I believe, is one good explanation for the phrase, "ignorance is bliss". (Beavah, it isn't a deeply held religious belief but you're still free to label it a myth or whatever you like...I won't consider it disrespectful or offensive) So I respond to you. These are only ideas. They don't have mass, they don't occupy space, and they can't draw blood. If you are offended by an idea, YOU have decided that outcome, not the idea. And as the offended party, you actually CAN draw blood. But if you do this, even if only in a figurative sense, that is your responsibility and not the fault of the idea. The idea is just an idea. The decision to act and the acts are yours, even if only to take offense. Edit: Tampa Turtle, we crossed messages..one more difference between these forums and those other public venues. Yes, I would (and do) say these things. In my department, I am far more ruthless in my criticism of ideas. But I am also fair. If someone disagrees and can give me objective reasons so that I can understand how I am wrong about something, I as quickly discard an idea. And BTW, because we all 'trust' that our attacks are on the ideas and not the persons, this unit has a very cohesive and collaborative atmosphere. A sense of humor helps as well. Another Edit: OK, curiosity has the best of me again...so what did I write that offended you? I have no idea what you refer to. Please tell me it wasn't that thing about Santa Clause being dead.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

While we were arguing about a single word ('myth') in another thread, it reminded me of this old thread about entire ideas, not just single offending words. And when I revisited the thread, I realized that there is a perfect example of what Merlyn mentioned in his last response. I'll provide the link to a paper here in case anyone wants to read it. A good scientist, L.B. Slobodkin, long ago said and wrote some things that were demonstrably wrong. But they sounded good at the time and were seized on by the popular press and public almost as 'truths'. I still have to make corrections about these myths from time to time. But LBS quickly regretted the outcome and wrote this paper, not too long before he died. BTW, he was a good guy, had a great sense of humor, and made great contributions during his life. But even in this paper, he gets a few things wrong once in a while, IMHO. But the general cautionary tale is a good one. http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/courses/EEB302/EverthingInHereAsOfJan2006/SlobodkinGoodBadReified.pdf

You think it is respectful to claim that some group's deeply held belief system is not "authentic religion"? But to refer to those same beliefs as myths is disrespectful? You make no sense at all.

Fred, it's not exactly a secret, as Shortridge notes. I'll take care of the deletion in a few minutes. Edit: I've deleted that post. I'm noting this here in case anyone detects a discontinuity just before Shortridge's post.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, did you get 'stung' by a physicist when you were little? If you want to call dark energy a myth, me, I don't see the disrespect in that. How can there be disrespect, if it doesn't exist? There's nothing there to disrespect! You are attaching the term to an idea, not a person...or a group of people. Besides, if Merlyn holds dark energy as a "deeply held cultural/religious story" I'd have to say that on that basis he passes muster with 'respect' to the DRP. Look you can call my thoughts and beliefs anything you want. 'Respect' is not something I'd worry about in response. On the other hand, if you went around telling people that I am a myth...now THAT would make me proud. Besides, if I wanted to pay disrespect to something, I would summon something far stronger than calling it a 'myth'. So, was Father Reginald Foster disrespecting Christianity when he informed us that all those things (like the Christmas story and that "hell thing") were just "nice stories"? What I am getting from you and others is that I'm not allowed to use the term, 'myth'. Period. If I apply the term to my own deeply held beliefs, is that also disrespectful? Are you saying that the term 'myth', applied to the idea that crayfish caused a great flood...is disrespectful? Your answer so far is: YES. You have got to be kidding! What about the deeply held belief that young women must be subjected to genital mutilation? It seems to be fine to openly oppose this practice. But it would be disrespectful to attach the term 'myth' to beliefs associated with it? After all we wouldn't want to confer disrespect to that barbaric practice, would we? Good Grief! What you are advocating is abolition of use of the term, lest some kind of disrespect be paid to some belief, somewhere. I just don't buy this brand of PC. Sorry.

Eagledad, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If I told you that I never intend disrespect, how do you respond? An example: There is a story about a great flood. In my "crassly redacted" version (thanks qwazse, I liked that too) long ago when the animals could still speak, there was a disagreement and in response the crayfish burrowed so deeply into the soil that the water rose and flooded everything. It is written in a well-known book (ok, maybe not so well-known to some). But it was part of the cultural heritage for a group of people, at least until I left home in the 1960s, and for all I know it still is. Now, I say this is a myth. Is there anyone in these forums who disagrees with me? Anyone who disagrees, please explain how this is NOT a myth and if not, what is it? Otherwise, how does the concept of respect apply to my use of the term 'myth' for this story? Tampa Turtle, it's ok to just admit you don't know something. I do it all the time (see above). Also, am I detecting just a smidgeon of political correctness present in the forums?

What Trevorum said.

I'm one of those persons blessed by being unappetizing to insects. Or so it seems. I never use any kind of repellent and only get a few mosquito bites, even in the tropics. But then, I've never had to contend with blackflies. That might be a challenge. That said, if I'm ever in your area I hope I stick close to you. It sounds like you're great bug bait. Edit: I guess I need to mention that mayflies don't bite. They're kind of annoying when they're attached all over you but they don't do anything to cause injury.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

This is the first year in about 30 years I haven't passed through Bethlehem. Had lunch there many times...and didn't know until too late that OGE was nearby. Perhaps another time, OGE. "If not how can I tell the difference between respect and disrespect when calling something a myth?" That question (still unanswered) was to Tampa Turtle. But you didn't answer it either, Beavah. I, alone, already know what my intent is when I apply a term. That isn't in question. What is relevant is whether someone else attaches disrespect if I apply the term, 'myth'. I want to understand how I can know what the perception will be by someone else. And I'm hoping Tampa Turtle can educate me.

Merry Christmas to you too, Eamonn. I have no idea how to pronounce what you wrote.

Merry Christmas, Beavah. I hope you and yours are warm and well this holiday.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Tampa Turtle, I'm curious, please list things you call 'myths' which no one would consider disrespectful as a result. Alternatively answer this question: Is it inherently disrespectful to call something...anything, a myth? If not how can I tell the difference between respect and disrespect when calling something a myth?

The TRUTH? Santa was dead. And then not: http://www.rareexportsmovie.com/en