packsaddle

That just made my day, Kudu. I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

In our area, if there is the slightest imperfection - a small hole or rip or similar thing - they would not pass an inspection by the local authorities. Faded, old, dirty whatever..is just fine as long as the PFD is fully functional. Kind of like people...I hope. When I take groups out on the water, before I allow them in the canoes or other watercraft, I require them to pass the online boat safety exam for this state. They often are surprised at how difficult it is to pass.

Yeah that goose thing....so I've done the work on this. Depending on what literature you survey, it takes from 3-7 geese to equal the fecal output of one human. When I give public talks I like to make them squirm by reminding them that on this basis, that for every 3-7 geese in that flock (gaggle) on their expansive lawns down to the lake shore, they should envision one of their neighbors, you know, doing the same thing. More than a few of them cast worried glances around the room...I guess maybe someone was making the calculation. I guess I should also remind those of us who forgot, fish mostly eliminate nitrogenous waste through the exchange of ammonia across their gills. And birds, well, they're different from mammals as well, more like reptiles (that evolution thing again). But around here one thing I hate to see is some farmer's cattle ambling down the badly eroded stream bank to do BOTH numbers in the water while they take a long cool drink...facing upstream of course. Anyone with my background will understand when I say that I filter AND boil the water.

In the Southeast I mostly use my lightweight synthetic fiber bag. For cold weather (subfreezing) I still use (believe it or not) my old Frostline down bag that I made from a kit back in the early '70s (I had to replace the down once though - that was a real pain in the butt, too.) I also have a cold weather synthetic bag but it's so heavy and bulky I mostly use it as a backup. There's just something about down....

I agree with Lisa. Read my first and only other post in this thread, the second response to the original and in response to Ned. Some of us, whether we intend it or not, are coming across as callous, uncaring, and willing to dismiss a mother's heartfelt expression by calling her a troll when we really have no evidence to support that dismissal. Edited: I see that I'm in agreement with 83Eagle and a few others as well. I need to type these things more quickly.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Bart, to modify an old joke, the difference between whirling disease and love is that whirling disease really IS forever. My wife smacks the back of my head when I tell that one, I just love it. But in real life, there are several different directions, none of them really a cure but rather ways to adjust to the new reality. This involves trying to breed resistant strains of desired fish species, trying to modify the habitat to inhibit tubificid worms, and things like this. But basically, unless the parasites just go away we're going to have to live with them. Boomerscout, I wish they all could be California gulls...

Oops, sorry, wrong thread. I thought this was going to be about shooting at something.

GAAAADDDD! Eutrophication is the process of enrichment of an aquatic system, usually the result of inorganic nutrients but also by urban runoff or combined sewer overflows or wastewater releases. It's sometimes referred to as 'cultural eutrophication' in order to distinguish it from the natural process that almost always occurs for lakes as they age and fill in with sediment from the watershed. Most of the time cultural eutrophication is due to human development in the watershed or around lakes into which nutrients in excess of what can be assimilated are supplied, resulting in loss of water clarity, algal growth, oxygen consumption by decaying organic material, or all of the above. Normally, as the lake becomes greener (from algal growth), it grows more and more fish biomass until at some time in its history oxygen is completely consumed by decomposing organic material in which case there can be a fish kill (think Lake Erie). The clear lakes of the Canadian Shield have plenty of oxygen unless they've undergone eutrophication in which case they're not really that clear in the first place. BTW, I have long advocated for a new brand of condom called, "Canadian Shields"...with a reservoir tip of course. Yes, off topic, sorry. So when the salmon adults have returned to the stream and spawned in the headwaters, their dead carcasses litter the stream and, guess what, their decomposition has been shown to be an important source of nutrients (especially nitrogen) to support the stream ecosystem, including their own offspring. JoeBob (aka, Devil's advocate) and SR540Beaver are on the right track after all. [JoeBob, you do know, don't you, 'the Devil' doesn't exist and is just a myth?] However, the comment about whirling disease is absolutely correct. If the stream is known to have the parasite, no part of the dead fish should be returned to any waterway. But you guys, except for blancmange (thanks), have ignored my perfect solution. Yum!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heck, I think we should just eat them. Problem solved.

Ned, you could use a reminder about the scout law, I think (courteous, kind, friendly, to name a few). This is a mother to a boy who was treated violently. A little understanding would help a lot. As it is, your sarcasm sadly serves to confirm some of what she wrote.

Acco40, you have failed to respond in a moral relativist manner. Tsk, tsk.

...wandering...straying... Well, if you've read enough threads on this topic you'll understand that the conversation always does that eventually. But I think there remains a common 'thread' in that those who oppose gay marriage do have a sense of moral offense when confronted with that idea. And believe it or not, I can see the link between the stated topic of this thread and the recent litany of moral offenses (such as "gritty mean street smart man -killer lesbians") and NJ's evident truancy from Hebrew school. Not that there's a causal link between those examples, at least not that I know of... But Nolesrule and NJ describe the roots of morality for some persons and NJ's note about the practical contradictions between what is written and what is today's practice are echoed in grmaerika's lament over the conflict between the view that there are moral absolutes and the moral relativist view (although with slightly less of a sense of humor). I don't dismiss grmaerika's concerns. I think grmaerika is struggling with the obvious conflict and I can only add to that conflict by saying that it is very easy to destroy the good feeling that someone feels when clinging to moral absolutes. One doesn't even need to invoke modern technology to do this. This is done by posing fairly simple choices in which the basis for those 'absolutes' either cannot provide the answer for which is the best choice or else provides an answer that contradicts its own values. This is the weakness of such 'absolutes'...they are not absolute at all but rather leave unthinking people unprepared to make those hard choices.

For the sake of humanity, I hope that each and every one of those is true.

I'm with Sherm, no way we've ever switched plans in mid-stream...whistling - looking to the side, shuffling feet nervously....

It's what I wear most often.

If that's Wesley's approach, then it's not only circular reasoning, it's facile circular reasoning and nothing at all like science. Wesley's statement is NOT something I would accept as profound. To me, one important difference between science and religion (which is relevant to this thread) is that we are likely to find peaceful solutions to scientific disagreements. Whereas the world is littered with graves resulting from religious differences, sadly continuing. I agree that ethics/morality are important concepts for science. I disagree that ethical or moral judgments must be based in scripture or originate in the supernatural. To return to Scoutfish's topic (and hopefully get it back on track), I'm not sure exactly what his argument was...evidently we were in more agreement than I thought. However, although it may seem this way reading the editorial page or in these threads (which is, perhaps, why he started this particular thread), I would not make a blanket claim that everything is simply a matter of opinion. It isn't. Scientists aren't immune from opinion. But they do have the means to self-correct for opinions that are unsupported or contradicted by evidence.

Your wording minimized what I wrote. You minimized it to be the freedom of a gay SM to kiss his partner in public without being kicked out of BSA. So my answer is 'no', that ISN'T "all" that I "really want". The quote from my message that you used in response IS. Also like I wrote, I could be wrong about atheists so I hope Merlyn will join in. However, I did ask a nearby avowed atheist and she said, "the laws of nature apply to everyone, even those persons who fantasize that laws, even different ones, come from supernatural beings." She went on to explain that many of the laws, moreover, are still being discovered or refined through rational investigation (my interpretation). Then I told her "thanks" but I didn't want to think about this stuff anymore. She seemed relieved.

Scoutfish, I do get you. You might enjoy this survey: http://people-press.org/report/528/ The first table has scientists ranked just below the military and teachers in public regard for their contribution to society. Scientists are ranked above doctors and engineers and others. Lawyers and business executives are ranked last. Guess which ones get paid the most? But my point in all this is that if one wishes to engage in science, there actually IS a way to find agreement that is not based simply on desire to believe. It is based on common experience and observation and evidence. Because this approach is available to anyone, I consider science a way to bring people together. This is unlike religion, the purpose of which isn't to bring people together according to TheScout. Over the years that I have been repeating this statement by TheScout, not a single respondent has ever disagreed. It's interesting...the things we agree on...

"All you, Acco, Pack really want is the freedom for a SM to give that affectionate kiss goodby to their partner of the same sex without the fear of being kicked out of scouting. Right?" Speaking for myself, the answer would be 'no'. Did you suddenly think you are clairvoyant? "Even an atheist understands one set of rules for everyone that never changes establishes a peaceful world." Merlyn, are you out there someplace? I suspect (but I could be wrong) that the 'atheist rules' would be somewhat different from yours. Could you be more specific about those 'consistent' moralities associated with your God?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

You actually went a step further than your own claims and contended something with no support whatsoever when you wrote, "Science used to absolutely declare the world was flat. Science! You can't argue science now can you?" Wrong on both counts. The flat earth myth does remain one of those vexing myths that for some reason, we can't seem to kill. But you should examine the logic of your contention (or rather, the lack of logic) because if what you claim is true, we'd still know absolutely that the earth is flat. It is because we CAN and DO argue science that such myths are discredited. It is because we don't actually know much of anything 'absolutely'. The Greeks had the spherical earth concept figured out long before the work of Copernicus. Nearly all medieval scholars were in accord with the spherical earth view, (OK, the Catholic Church doesn't qualify as scientific authority) long before Copernicus, because there just wasn't any evidence to cast doubt on the empirical observations on which the spherical earth was based. Religious scripture does not qualify as scientific evidence. Moreover, 'science' rarely declares anything as absolute. An example of something that IS considered settled truth is the second law of thermodynamics. But scientists would really like to see someone produce evidence to overturn that and other ideas which we 'think' right now. (Don't hold your breath) Remember, the purpose of an experiment IS to DISprove an idea thought to be correct. The second count is wrong in that in fact, anyone can argue with science. You supplied a splendid example of this yourself in the topic of global climate change. It seems that politicians whose grasp of the ideas is minimal or even persons who are completely ignorant of the topic feel just fine with questioning the scientific consensus. And that is OK. Just remember that in doing so, these arguments will receive the same brutal scrutiny that any other idea will receive if any scientist disagrees. So bring on those arguments. Just bring some evidence as well. As for the rest of your post, I concur that matters of opinion are simply that. If BSA can't write clearly or if BSA for some reason chooses to write unclearly, then there obviously will be conflicting opinions about interpretation. Kind of like those religious scriptures...."The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." FYI, the authority for that quote is TheScout.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eisely, if it turns out that we entered this action on the basis of a lie and as a result thousands of Americans die, I'll put Obama right alongside his predecessor. He's already there in some other ways.

Yep, you were REALLY charitable. SeattlePioneer, Beavah touched on some of the other aspects of your view on this. But you still haven't been specific about the criteria for determining who is uneducable and then as Beavah mentions, what to do about it. If the criteria are, as you say, only presence or absence of failing grades, do you propose to sweep all of the failing children out or would you distinguish between the children who wanted to learn but were LD or had other problems, perhaps as Beavah mentioned, and others whose distinctions I'll have to rely on you for description. I have to say that I feel like time has been rolled back several decades, maybe a century, reading your words...I'm from the South and I lived through some of the roughest of those times, but this, today, is just....wow.

Hello, hello, calling Rangoon....... SeattlePioneer, please answer the questions about 'uneducables', who they are, how we identify them, etc.

Eagledad, The transgender persons I know might reply with thanks that the technologies exist now so that they can finally be happy with who they REALLY are. But I would rather let them speak for themselves rather than rely on me to do it for them. Unfortunately, it seems that few people really listen to them. As for the transgender SM, how do you know there isn't one already? As long as people react in the manner that you react, they are unlikely to make themselves vulnerable to those prejudices. So what I ACTUALLY 'meant' was that I hope I live long enough to see the day when gays, transgenders, and others who are the object of prejudice based in fear and ignorance can be ACCEPTED in society, at least to the extent that they have rights equal to the rest of us. This obviously isn't the case now. The concept of 'normal', on the other hand, is a moving target for which each of us seems to have our own unique idea and even that often changes with time. In statistical terms, normal is something that never occurs in nature.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I remember very similar arguments applied in order to resist various aspects of racial integration. Wow, I guess things haven't changed as much as I had hoped. However, you're inconsistent. First you use a claim that there is no scientific consensus as if this supports your contention and then you claim that such a consensus, if it exists, doesn't necessarily make something correct....in which case, if consensus is unreliable, why do you use lack of consensus to support your own opinion in the first place? Moreover, by that logic, what YOU are saying is that simply because YOU and others say (as part of your consensus) that it's right, that doesn't necessarily make it right. And by extension of your logic then, just because it's current policy also doesn't necessarily make it right. Please try to clarify your thoughts for us.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)