packsaddle

Scoutfish wrote, "Hey Pack, can you paste a link to support that statement? LOL!" I can't provide evidence for everyone else but for me, just before the internet became commonly available, my wife and I had children. Need I say more?

canetuck? I'm guessing Kentucky, right? Burley tobacco country and smooth bourbon. Anyway, I grew up in NC and tobacco was held in a position slightly below Jesus, slightly above the President (Eisenhower....and way above Kennedy), and I remember dreading the day that I was going to have to learn to smoke in order to join and be a regular member of society. Moreover, when that day came I tried and the reaction of my body revealed a weakness of character that made me give up the attempt. I never became a smoker. For a while I actually felt guilt...but now it looks like I'm going to outlive a whole bunch of my contemporaries. Nevertheless, I agree with NJ. I shake my head when I watch today's students, a significant number of them, outside the buildings smoking. They're supposed to be smart people! One more thing in that long list of things that I just don't 'get'.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

UCEagle72, my first canoe was an Old Town wood and canvas (Guide 18), vintage 1950's but I got it in the mid-60's. Still have it and love that beautiful classic design (need to rework the canvas though). FWIW, I also have a couple of those that are 25' long but in need of total reconstruction (retirement projects with the grandson someday, maybe).

Before I can make a judgment about the GA state park experience, I'd need to know if those were Grummans or something else like AlumiCraft. From your description of the beam I doubt it...sounds kind of narrow. As for sitting in the floor of the canoe, you can greatly improve stability and control by kneeling on the floor with feet slid under the seat and merely leaning with your butt against the front of the seat. This tends to cramp your legs after while but it lowers the center of gravity and gives you the ability to control the canoe with your knees. I put pads down to reduce abrasion. On my whitewater craft the pads are glued into place permanently. You're my height but about 50 pounds heavier. I'm going to guess that your weight is distributed higher than average, otherwise I can't see a big top-heavy problem in a well-designed canoe. I take scores of students out in a fleet of canoes every semester and I see lots of problems, but rarely this one...only once could I not fit a guy into a canoe (we finally resorted to a Boston Whaler, no pun intended). He was so big that a canoe was simply impossible. OK, without more info, my advice is to get some more rentals under your belt before you make the long-term investment. Go to some good outdoor equipment places and see what's available with the Old Town, Mad River, or We-no-nah label..and there are others as well - Grumman is still a great canoe. They'll probably have a better idea of what you really need as well. I think you're on the right track with the high gunwhales and wide beam. I also know that if you're interested in a decent lake canoe, the 18 footer is about the right length but We-no-nah makes a couple that are 19 or 20 feet and designed for three paddlers. There's a carrying weight tradeoff. They'll cost more too. I'm partial to Old Town, mostly because of the classic design but the canoe you need might cost a bit more than the WalMart option. If you're going to stay on lakes or other flat water, aluminum is really durable and a good option. Fiberglass is also good and there are plenty of designs in both materials that offer great flat-water tracking and stability. A good outfitter will know about all this. Plastic canoes are great if you're planning to hit rocks or trees a lot (whitewater) and they are very forgiving if designed well. I have no knowledge about the WalMart canoe so I really can't comment...But my personal first inclination is to keep looking in the right places. Get a better set of personal experiences under your belt and then reconsider your options.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

blackberry with vanilla....yummmmmmmmm! Edited to add: Acco, they don't BOTH have to be gay (but I understand you were making a point). Moreover, the gay female doesn't really HAVE to do the deed if artificial insemination is available. As for the actual mechanics, it's somewhere soon after this point that my students start indicating that I have given way more information than they wanted to hear...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Why does this whole discussion always resort to religion at its base? If this is the case, of course no one is going to agree on what it would take. That's because, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." I just love this quote. As for annoyed pigs, I guess I shouldn't have asked, me being a pig of the male chauvinist type - I should have known already. Besides, my nose ring didn't actually bother me that much when my wife installed it. I do kind of miss the rooting around though. Hi Vicki!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation." Edit: Vicki, I have puzzled over your dad's wall-hanging - how can we tell when a pig is annoyed, what are the signs?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

to the tune of 'Yesterday' by the Beatles: "...Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be, bits and pieces falling off of me, and all because of leprosy.." Guilty as charged. (my thanks and apologies to Helen Davies) Edited: Scoutfish, none of us know for sure what we'd do in a particular situation until we have actually faced it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"You don't torture people. Not the five year old girl, not the man." We may not agree on other things but we agree on this. Thinking...does this mean I can't sing to my students? "...the ants go marching two-by-two, hurrah, hurrah..."(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heh, heh, Trev, I think you found your torture advocates. Me, my definition of torture starts with having to listen to rap music (which, I suspect, wouldn't be very effective against Al Qaida, I could be wrong) On the other hand, I sometimes amuse myself and torture my students while they wait for lecture to start...by playing one of my own favorite torture songs. "How much is that doggie in the window? arf arf!" ...simple pleasures....could be worse, I could sing them myself.

His exact words were, "What irrefutable evidence is there that torture is wrong?" 'Proof' is something else entirely. But OK, I get the point. I accept your anecdote as evidence that torture might not be in human nature, at least not revealed by the age of your daughter. I can't remember how I responded the first time I heard the crucifixion story. However, I did, a few years ago, marvel at the strong positive reaction to the Mel Gibson film. I considered it to be a Christian snuff film. It was wildly popular around here. A few weeks ago, a white man killed a black man and dragged him behind his pickup truck for about 10 miles. The victim's head was essentially worn off. It reminded me of the Emmett Till case. Those same people who loved the Mel Gibson film just shrugged at this brutal crime. "Oh what a wonderful world"

OK, I think I see your argument with Trevorum now. Before I go on, I want to note that irrefutable evidence is not that hard to come by. To qualify as that, it just needs to be incapable of refutation, for whatever reason. Examples of this include observations that can never be made again. Often this kind of evidence is termed, 'anecdotal' and if it can't be subjected to examination, it is incapable of being refuted. It doesn't necessarily have to be strong evidence or even correct. And refutable or not, it is only evidence and not necessarily conclusive, few things are in science although pragmatically, we often make tentative conclusions until something better comes along. But I think you are using some confusing and perhaps conflicting ideas in your argument. In fact unless I read you wrong, you seem to be agreeing with Trevorum, although perhaps in an oblique way. Trev said, "...the only irrefutable objection to homosexuality is based in religion." Your argument is about irrefutable 'evidence'. You said, "I'm asking for irrefutable scientific evidence for anything else we collectively agree is morally repugnant." I wonder why anyone would ask this if we are all in agreement in the first place? It just doesn't make sense. A scientist would look for irrefutable evidence AGAINST it, and if none can be found, would tentatively accept the current idea, although he might continue to search for evidence against from other directions. For a scientist to look for evidence against something actually means he's looking for greater support for the idea, whatever it is. The more he tries to refute the idea, and fails, the more confidence there is in the idea. And if he does find evidence against it, the prize is having identified a weak or perhaps incorrect idea. Trev argues that objections to homosexuality on the basis of science are refutable on the basis of group selection. You argue that science can't serve as a moral basis in the first place. Trev argues that the only basis for objection to homosexuality is in religion - that since religious beliefs are incapable of refutation on a rational basis, religious objections to homosexuality ARE irrefutable. You argue that religion is the only basis for morality. I suspect you might also agree that the religious basis is irrefutable, I might be wrong. I have this mental image of the two of you, yelling at each other at each end of a bridge. Trouble is, you're on two separate bridges and while you can't actually see the other guy, you can hear him so you just imagine what you want at the other end of your own bridge. Either you two are both arguing straw men which neither of you understand and neither of which actually characterize the other's line of reasoning...or else you seem to be in agreement. Alternatively, you might just have me confused...a distinct possibility.

Beavah, Scientific advancements made possible and led to the technologies you mention but it was human desire working with the marketplace that gave us those deadly products. Moreover, their subsequent application is entirely a matter of human desire. As for the other things, you might want to ask Rumsfeld about torture. I'm sure he can provide so-called 'irrefutable evidence' that it IS good. Teen drug "use" might actually be good if it is applied to cure an illness (same as for other age groups, and it's not as if drug 'abuse' is good for anyone else, is it?). Stealing, like other forms of deception, serves to cause disorder in society. As if I needed to explain any of this to you. Missed one part: you seem to be saying that persons without religion cannot be moral or ethical? Am I getting this right?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Trevorum, I would note that the religious belief of geocentrism was addressed by science and some time later, say, over the next 300 or so years (1633 to 1992), that belief changed. And while 'evolution' was resisted for a while, the mainstream faiths seem to have mostly come to their senses (with holdouts prominent in these forums). More recently, in my own memory, the beliefs that supported racial discrimination have changed somewhat, although I grant that it has proceeded with about as much speed as it takes for generations to die and be replaced. Which might be as fast as is possible because basically I agree with you, religious beliefs, if sincerely held by individuals, are unassailable by reason. As Father Reginald Foster noted, "You have to live and die with the stupid ideas." I really like that guy.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I know several women who, having confessed to using birth control, were barred from communion by the church for decades. They were devastated. I wonder what term they would apply? I wonder why their husbands were not similarly barred?

I really don't know much about GSUSA but their policy must have changed recently because I know a man who WAS a unit leader for the duration of his daughter's tenure in the unit. His name wasn't 'Sue', either. Or maybe local option is alive and well in GSUSA.

Yeah, sticker shock. Last spring I took five of my students to a regional meeting (Assoc. of Southeastern Biologists) for one day of sessions and to make one presentation. I paid over $600 per head, non-members paid $50 more. But the students had a great time...it was their first scientific meeting and the paper went really well with lots of great feedback. It was a great way to end a long semester. OK, to connect this limb of the tree back to the trunk, the reason for this was a claim that some information with regard to the original topic of this thread is not really 'open' if it is presented at scientific meetings. Vol_scouter mentioned that these kinds of meetings are often closed to non-members. I and Trevorum both noted that hasn't been out experience. So I asked Vol_scouter for his experience. So far, he has not identified one of the 'closed' meetings that he originally mentioned. Here's his quote:"Over the years I have been to many professional meetings in medicine, physics, and nuclear engineering. It is my experience that only legitimate members of the professional organization are allowed in the scientific sessions. The meeting has a press area where selected research in presented to the press. The selection is based upon criteria made by the professional organization. So the 'studies' featured would likely have been the ones selected by the professional organization. Since we still have freedom of speech, attendees could be interviewed but from what I have seen that is frowned upon. I have no experience with the APA but merely providing what I know from many other professional meetings." This was in response to discussion of the potential influence of various media on the mental development of youth. Whether vol_scouter is right or wrong about his claim, it has little bearing on the discussion. I can't speak to his motives for making the claim but either way, it seems that the original questions remain. Hopefully, this will help get things back on track, with my apologies.

vol_scouter, I checked the meetings of the APS. While you must be a member to submit an abstract (this is not uncommon - a ploy to build memberships), there is no such requirement for attendance. You merely pay the registration fee which, as of yet, is undetermined for the next meeting. I happened to attend a meeting this evening and one of the people there was a friend from our Physics dept. I asked him about your claim and he laughed and said something like, "Are you kidding? We'll let any riffraff into the meeting if they pay the registration, who the hell said THAT?" I said that it was someone from Tennessee...the conversation moved on. When I went to the ANS, the winter meeting registration is already open. Members pay $730 for the full meeting registration. Non-members pay $880. While this is for sure expensive, the increment between member and non-member doesn't seem all that punitive. And, I note, there IS a non-member category. On to the Wilderness Medical Society - and I note that the meeting coming up in Hawaii looks kind of cushy for this kind of meeting. But again, the member price is $725 and the non-member price is $875, hardly an exclusionary increment. But...the meeting looks more like a congressional junket than something truly beneficial to wilderness medicine, I could be wrong. Lastly, the ACP and wadyaknow? The only registration fee visible to non-members is....the non-member fee which BTW is $819. Because I'm not a member I can only surmise that the member registration fee is some increment less than that. I think it's a reasonable speculation don't you? OK, I concede that around here, even the member registration fee for all of these societies could buy you a vehicle that might start and run for, say, five minutes. But the incremental difference between member and non-member is hardly a make or break increment and in all cases non-members can register and attend. Got any others?

About the island, not yet. Still working on the final details, but even then, those long tendrils of the internet reach to remote places too. But one thing caught my attention, "I think those making a 'not natural' argument are arguing from a position of natural law, which is a long, deep, rich philosphical and ethical tradition that underpins much of western thought and jurisprudence, both religious and secular." I am now reminded of that part of the underpinning you mention in which animals were literally dressed in suits and tried in regular courts...and executed for crimes under human law. Sometimes they were pardoned or in the case of wild animals caught, they sometimes were tried by church courts and excommunicated, literally, from the church. This bizarre history ranks way up there on my weird-xxxx-o-meter and it does indeed mark in my mind - the truth of your statement. "In France in the early 1500s, a lawyer named Bartholom Chassene was appointed to represent some rats that had eaten and destroyed some barley (a felony). Chassene used a series of clever legal maneuvers to delay the trial as long as possible. At one point he convinced the judge that it was too dangerous for his clients to come to court on the appointed day because of the many cats in the neighborhood. Chassene became famous throughout France for his excellent legal skills." The legal equivalent of Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. Such a deep, rich philosophical and ethical tradition indeed. Read more: The History of Human-Animal Interaction - The Medieval Period - Animals, Cats, Europe, Ages, Middle, and Church http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2149/History-Human-Animal-Interaction-MEDIEVAL-PERIOD.html#ixzz0wzxiHoHd

At least psychology has 'the truth' as its primary goal. But I do agree with Beavah on one thing...my professional organizations are definitely "unprofessional and clueless about PR & Communications." Nevertheless, the registration fees are never (even for the vendors) enough to buy a used car unless it's already been stripped at the junk yard. The point is that if the public really wants to attend, the meetings are open to them.

Gern beat me to it. The problem with this question is that it assumes we all agree on what 'natural' means or that it even exists, as opposed to 'unnatural'. Applied the way many people do, 'natural' means part of nature that has been unaltered or untouched by man, in essence that part that lies outside the human influence. In that case, ANYTHING people do would be unnatural. By definition.

vol_scouter, what were the specific organizations that excluded non-members from scientific presentations? I've attended many national meetings including: AAAS, AIBS, ESA, NALMS, L&O, BES, ASZ, AMS, and others and for all of them anyone with the price of registration was welcome. The only thing that would have been unwelcome would be disruptive behavior that might inhibit the communication from the speaker. The whole POINT of giving a presentation at one of those meetings is to tell people what you have to say. It is usually interesting only to colleagues but who knows, a reporter might find a nugget there somewhere to make news. So specifics please? Perhaps the medical types are different and I could conceive of an industry-based meeting that was closed to public. But I've never attended one. The only closed meetings I've attended were ones in which attendees were involved in ongoing litigation.

ScoutNut, you deserve an answer. Your 'eunuch' dog is stupid. Sorry, someone had to say it. Edited to add: Which makes it pretty much equivalent to all of dogdom.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I am sympathetic to the folks who lose their jobs as their underlying industry fails. I include the thousands of textile mills and millions of textile workers in the South and New England - empty storefronts, abandoned homes, etc throughout both regions. I include the huge numbers of family farmers who have been gobbled up by agribusiness. I include the aquaculture industries that have been outcompeted by cheap imports. I could go on with this list at some length but the point is that when 'life' for America is ruled by a domestic automobile, then 'life' for America has a problem. The rest of the country barely blinked an eye for all those other people, it is as if there's something 'sacred' about the auto industry. IT IS as if they think they're 'entitled'. I say to the auto workers the same thing I have said openly in community centers and citizen meetings in the South: if the workers don't have the wherewithal and the organizational resources to reconfigure their industry in order to compete, or the willingness to take lower pay in order to compete, then THEY have decided their own fate. If, when the curtain finally falls, their residual skills only qualify them to serve hamburgers, then so be it. That is the magic of the free market. It is the American way of self-determination and self-sufficiency. Again I am reminded of what I was told by my superiors when I was in the private sector, "We are paid according to what we contribute." The millions of other workers throughout the country who have long-ago lost their jobs are doing whatever they have to to survive - going back to school, retraining, or moving to some other place...or asking people if they would like to supersize their order. Life isn't great. Families suffer. They're barely hanging on in many cases. They're experiencing the unseen hand and savoring the magic. That's what should have happened for GM and Chrysler, and the crooked, sleazy banking industry, instead of stealing from future generations to take a handout and be supported on the public dole.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm not sure what the market has to do with patriotism. But given the direction of the discussion, Beavah mentioned, " I'd have let GM and Chrysler go down hard." and I would have as well. OGE, I'm the guy who buys your great used import cars, wheels that will last almost forever, and me staying out of debt in the process. Thanks. And while Columbia may be the gem of the ocean, that coffee comes from Colombia. Sometimes there just isn't much domestic stuff to buy at all, although if energy was priced according to its true value, the domestic goods and foods that we DO produce would probably be competitive with imports. But left alone, the market will eventually address all of that...it won't be much fun. To me it would have been patriotic to allow the market (our great American economic system, love it or leave it) to do what it was about to do and let the failed businesses and banks fail. I think people are slowly realizing (too late) that properties built using loans based in deception may never find resolution. And they shouldn't. Regarding the deficits, as I have written before, all the Bush - and now Obama - deficits are going to do is to steal wealth from future generations. I am saddened that Obama is following those Bush (and others before that) strategies. At least he didn't hit us with wage and price controls like Nixon did. NJ, I agree with your comments about corporations. I might add that while they have the same rights as citizens, their lifespans are without limit and they have immense influence, far more than most citizens. At the same time, they have no sense of conscience save for those of the leaders which are mercurial at best, but seem mostly to be driven by greed. I'd like to think that real citizens are better. Perhaps I'm wrong. In essence, we have given citizenship to machines with replaceable human brains, no conscience, limitless age, and enormous power. This is exactly where the market could help to 'level the playing field' but corporate and other political influence has perverted it with sweetheart deals (bailouts for example), subsidies, outright earmark funding, or just good-ol'-boy preferential treatment. So whenever I hear talk of patriotism being connected to what we buy as opposed to some things that were supposed to be far more important (you know like those so-called 'values' we think scouting is imparting to boys), I just roll my eyes and glance down the street to my neighbor who continues to fly the American flag in his front lawn - on the same staff and just underneath the confederate flag. He's a good ol' Southern home-grown ultra-fundamentalist-Christian-racist Tea-party patriot. But he drives an import. Boggles the mind.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)