packsaddle

Thanks, for a long time after I returned to scouting and was doing all those ASM things with boys working their way to Eagle, some of them asked what my project had been and it stopped me 'cause for the life of me, I couldn't remember something that should have been really memorable. And then, much later, I realized that I wasn't going senile after all (don't say it!!!). I couldn't remember because I hadn't done one. Whew! I'm still wondering about why they added it to the requirements though? That's probably buried out there somewhere as well.

"Do I think BSA would love to lob this ball into the COs court, and be done with it, oh yea." Old Ox, why then, do you suppose they don't?

I asked this in another thread and never got an answer: when did we start requiring an Eagle project and why?

Since I'm in the South, I can only confirm BadenP's comment. I know that Eagle candidates HAVE been grilled on this. The last occurrence I know of was even BEFORE the boy was 18 for that matter. He was grilled by the District advancement guy when the District advancement guy realized the boy attended a church that the District advancement guy considers to be less-than-qualified for this aspect of Eagle advancement.

Calico, they're in fantasy land. The rapture already happened back in 1996, I already told you that. So look around, you can see the answer to your question. Other than someone copping a feel once in a while when you are trying to get on an aircraft, not much has changed.

We had stuff dribbling in a year after. How did you make contact? What was the form of your request?

Here's a really short list of just the very recent wrong predictions about 'doomsday'. http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/skeptic/predictions.shtml Me, I happen to know that the rapture already happened back in 1996. No biggie. We're all 'left behind' together..wooohooo! http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/06/doomsday-after-many-predictions-were-still-here/ check it out for even more fun! Edit: Wow!! there really IS a Church of the Subgenius! http://www.subgenius.com/ (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Flavor Aid, FLAVOR AID!!! Sheesh, you guys are killing me....how many times do I have to write this, Jim Jones did not give his followers Kool Aid, it was Flavor Aid!

Yeah, I liked that Grant quote too. In fact I've applied it here and there and it works if enough others apply it too. A lone person, however, will merely be the only person following the letter and the rule will remain nevertheless. This is how laws about the illegality of feather boas and spittoons in church get left on the books. They're ignored until everyone forgets and then one day many years later someone who needs to get a life is reading through the old statutes and all of a sudden there's a new 'law joke' in the newspaper for the rest of us to laugh at. But yes Vicki, I think we got the point....that or else the point hasn't been explained well enough.

"The worst action at this point: tell an 11 year old that he has to believe in God to be a scout and the scout say "Okay, I'll believe then..."" It's deja vu all over again...that's almost exactly the exchange I had with the nice scowling lady at the NC voter registrar after I had moved to a new town back in the 1970's. She REALLY wanted me to swear on a Bible and I decided I didn't feel like it. So she informed me that "in North Carolina you can't vote if you don't believe in God". So I said, "in that case, heck yeah, I'll believe in anything to able to vote." For some reason she proceeded to try to disqualify me from registering anyway, heh, heh, until I had a chat with her supervisor. Didn't help that scowl much either.

I've had this occur several times over the years...a boy or even boys deciding to do something foolish with extremely flammable materials. So far, no one has been hurt (there must be some wood around here somewhere....) In most of the cases the boys were from other units at camporees. I addressed the problem by asking them who their SPL was and then mentioning the facts to their SPL. In one case, because it involved the SPL, I woke the SM (and then left to get back to sleep myself). In this unit, once, the boy was having fun with the troop supply of charcoal lighter. As a result, the troop did NOT eat those steaks that we had hoped to grill. I really didn't have to say another word about it - the boys took care of everything. In other cases it depends on the specific incident. I try to keep in mind that flammable liquids don't mix well with testosterone and undeveloped brains...it's going to take repetition of lessons to make these things 'sink in' and sometimes it's to no avail...the adults can be susceptible too. So I just keep a watchful eye and stay ready to intervene...and sometimes lose a little sleep.

Welcome to the forums! I am sorry you are joining us with a situation like this. Hope you stick around for stuff that is actually FUN at time. I agree with evmori. (Ed you can pick yourself off the floor now) The "no alcohol" policy is clear. The only question is whether or not there is a technicality they can 'get by' on by leaving to go to the bar. Of course this is a rather lame deception on their part and it definitely violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the regulations. In this unit there is no second chance. They would have been dismissed by the CO at the very first infraction with no further discussion. The fact that after they had a chat, they decided they could 'get away' with it in this manner indicates they can't be trusted...probably for anything. Edited to add welcome(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

The original request was a simple one. You weren't up to it.

Scoutfish, at the risk of tripping over one of your pet peeves, I offer the following links to old threads: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=37251#id_37530 and http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=21712#id_40925 Might save some time.... I am now going to run away...fast.

You asked for a situation. I merely supplied one. If you think it's impossible to address then you obviously have a limited ability to address tough situations. Want me to make it simple? You think reality is simple? To begin with, it doesn't equate like that - exchanging a hand for 20,000 lives. (By the way there are 100 hands to cut off - you know...two per) And you haven't answered the questions except for the hand question. You would, in fact, cut the hands off dozens of innocent persons with the faint hope that the answer is 'yes' to two questions: 1) does one of the girls actually know something? and 2) will she tell you the truth either before or after you cut her hand(s) off? I guess the fingernails go without saying. But in the end, if either of those two questions is answered 'no' you are going to end up with a pile of severed hands and about a million dead Americans. What did the torture gain you? I'll untangle the neurons for you...the answer to that last question is 'nothing'...but a pile of severed hands from girls who were possibly all innocent. Congratulations. You say that you 'hope' and you 'assume' - but these girls were angry when they entered this school, they don't care a bit about you or your big lie about some imaginary bomb. You admit the uncertainty in all this. How does cutting off all those hands diminish that uncertainty? It doesn't. Some of them are going to say anything to keep their hands a little longer. This is going to cost you more time. BOOM!!! Moreover, even after torturing the first guy, do you really know anything more than the existence of the bomb? Or even that really? Do you really KNOW there is another person who can identify the bomber? Do you really know this person is a female or at this particular school? You are willing to mutilate dozens of young women based on a level of ignorance that has not diminished at all since you started your torture. But you ARE willing to do this. Would you pull one of the girls out and brutalize her in front of the others to try scare them? More than one? All of them? So I ask again...is ANYTHING off the table? To all of you advocates for torture, where do you draw the line?

"Degrees of coercion are entirely situational. What is at stake? Who are you questioning?" I asked for you to state where you thought treatment crossed a line. You responded by requesting ME to supply you with a situation. This indicates that you are just going to take them as they come and, in fact, you have no actual 'code' of conduct. Prove me wrong. Tell me what your 'code' is. OK as you requested, here's your hypothetical: There IS a 1 Mton nuke in an unknown large American city and it will kill maybe a million Americans in just a couple of hours. You have tortured a courier for a terrorist cell and he has revealed absolute evidence of the bomb's existence and that a young girl whose identity he doesn't know can identify the the perpetrator. You don't know who this girl is but the courier says that she attends an exclusive high school for troubled teen girls. The courier has died from your torture. Since the school only has less than 50 students, you have locked it down and are now preparing the interrogation. Two hours or less left to stop the bomb. All of the girls there are in various stages of oppositional defiant behavior and their inclination is for you to stick it to yourself. Do you torture all of them? Is there anything you will NOT do to these girls to find the ONE who knows the identity of the bomber, maybe even more information? You already mentioned your willingness to inflict pain...how much? In what manner? Pull the finger nails? Chop off fingers or hands? Would you sodomize the girls if you had to? Is ANYTHING off the table? Or you can reveal your code of conduct.

The early summer family campout. The trip to tour the Yorktown. The fishing trip to a local lake. The pool parties and cookouts.

JoeBob, I don't want to stomp in Beavah's puddle because he's doing a pretty good job so far. But it might help some of us to understand your argument if you would describe what conduct, if any, that you think would 'cross the line' in terms of acceptable ways to question prisoners. And then explain how we can understand your reasoning the same way you do. Keep in mind that the CIA has used the methods in question on some truly innocent persons as well. Edit: OK, same request to Brent.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"If, for example, someone was insisting they aren't breaking the "no atheists" rule by using very contorted arguments to justify allowing a kid who has very clearly stated he's an atheist, I'm not going to be very reassured if I ask him how stringently he observes, say, water safety rules or youth protection -- for all I know, he bends these rules beyond recognition, too. I'd feel a lot better if he admits up front that he's ignoring the "no atheists" rule, instead of demonstrating how "creatively" he can interpret it." Merlyn's point is a good one. But from what I have seen over the years is that various troops DO practice 'local' interpretations of the other rules as well or else in some cases simply ignore them. And...some units do admit lax application of the membership policies...quietly and not publicly. I guess they risk repercussions when perhaps someday The Empire Strikes Back.

Two gay females sure can...both at the same time if they want. They don't have to be married for that matter...gay or hetero is also irrelevant. As for the gay males, no difference there either for two unmarried gay males or two hetero males for that matter. Big deal. Like I said, pretty much the same biological realities for everyone, gay or not.

Cattle prods are great! Work wonders in crowds too! So we're on a long trip in the church bus. I notice people in cars pointing at us. Bad sign. I check what's going on. Two of the more 'creative' boys have a paper sign with some rude words on it...posting it in the window. So I confiscate the sign and ask the boys to think about their apology to their parents and the minister of the church...for the rest of the trip. It was almost a blessing...one of the best, least troublesome trips ever. And boy,oh,boy they did think about it too. Parents made them wash the bus and write letters of apology. That was many years ago. I saw one of them the other day and asked if he was in still in Advertising? We both laughed.

jrush, the point is that someone out there is always going to point at someone else's belief and think it's a myth. In that sense we're all united in that we all 'believe in' our own myths. I picked on Satan because I thought I could get away with it and didn't think anyone would defend him...boy was I wrong??!! But I'm glad I picked that one because it demonstrated that if I even 'examined' the idea that Satan does/doesn't exist, someone was going to get bent out of shape. And DID. The better option is NOT to examine anyone at all especially if they claim NOT to believe something. How in the heck do you examine the absence of something?...you can't really. What was that line that Jesus said, about casting the first stone or something along those lines? Edit: Scoutfish, about youth judging us, rest assured...they do.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Without making a value judgment, I'd advise taking a look first at the MB's which boys do most often, especially the ones required for Eagle. Then, consider that there may be planned changes which would require re-purchase soon. You might want to wait for the new versions. Other than those two things, you don't really have much choice because BSA sets the requirements and changes them when they want to... and only the current versions are going to be sold at the scout shops.

Ed, I didn't qualify the statement the way you did. But if you really want to 'see' this, I suggest that you can find a large assortment of online videos to provide graphic details. And by all means, feel free to use the computer at your workplace to do this.

I'll add to that. In one of my courses I cover a topic whose history is within my grasp but not the students'. I bring a series of drink bottles to class. Coke and others. I note that when I was younger (boy scout, actually) I made a decent amount of money picking these things up off the roads and shorelines and returning them for the deposit. Those bottles were collected, returned to the bottler, washed, and reused. For all practical purposes, that has ended. I show them the coke bottles with the town names embossed in the base so they know the bottling plant that originated them. I also note that very few of those names have bottling plants anymore. Nearly ALL of the tiny beverage companies who could compete locally but not with the centralized giants have gone away - along with them the jobs. I show them the progression from those heavy glass bottles to the steel cans to the aluminum cans to the thin glass bottles to the plastic bottles. You get the idea. At each step of the way more things were happening. Coca Cola and competitors like PepsiCo were centralizing their operations to achieve economies of scale in order to maximize profit. At the same time, different materials were being used and the shift led to greatly increased solid waste disposal because there was no longer reuse of the beverage containers. Moreover, the jobs at those smaller bottling plants were being lost, tax base diminished, etc. The key to all this was the ability to transport a product that was mostly water (fairly high density material) over long distances in order to become more centralized and to achieve those greater profits. And this could not be done unless the containers only went in one direction and were much lighter weight, thus keeping the energy costs of transportation and distribution down. The key piece of all this was (and is) the cost of the energy, not only in the fuel for transport but also in the non-reusable containers and supporting infrastructure such as increased landfills, etc. In the early 1970's there was growing interest in what are termed, 'bottle bills', or legislation that places a minimum deposit on those non-returnable containers. A few states actually adopted these and you can see their abbreviations on many containers. But an energy tax would provide the incentive to perhaps return to a more local (and less-centralized) production base for many things. Not only in the example above but also for many foods, things like tires (does anyone have a re-capped tire on their car anymore?) and many other examples. So, let's see...yes, increased costs. But also conserved fuel, materials, less waste, increased employment, local suppliers. Saves the environment, saves energy, saves us from pollution, saves the earth..it all sounds good to me.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)