packsaddle

"just what you want to be, you will be in the end." Moody Blues As in every product, as in education, as in life, we get the government that we ask for (deserve) in many ways, and are willing to pay for. This is more true for a country like ours than for any country in which the vote doesn't exist or is dishonest.

The enemy that struck on 11 September is still there. Bush vowed to accommodate their death wish and then he asked for them to "Bring it on." And then he failed miserably, no, he betrayed this country and this country's ideals. And despite the banner behind him, he didn't accomplish the mission. Bin Laden, the Taliban, they're all still there because we didn't do what we should have back when we had our best chance to do it. And now it is going to be really costly to do it...now that we wasted blood and treasure on nation building in another country. The enemy that attacked us is still there. What kind of message do we send to the world if we do not destroy that enemy? I agree that we shouldn't worry about nation building in Afghanistan. We should focus our attention on the enemy that will strike us again if we don't kill it. We should do whatever is necessary to destroy it...to kill it. Period. Anyone who aids or protects that enemy is not an ally. Leave them on the beach. Do it as quickly and as destructively and as violently as possible. Cauterize, obliterate the place if necessary. Feed the enemy's dismembered bodies to pigs. And I agree that the American people should sacrifice in order to pay for it. All of us. But we should not rest until that enemy is dead and in hell. (yeah, I know, I can dream)

Welcome to the forums, Scoutdad61. Normally, the harsh tones are expressed in the Politics and Religion threads. This forum normally is just a good resource for clarification of questions about advancement. I guess where there are differences of opinion, all of us at times have thin skin or maybe get a little too aggressive. I'm sorry you had a bad experience on your first visit. It really is a pretty good place most of the time. Hope you come back to try it again.

So....the guys sitting around the campfire are cracking jokes. If they are of a mind to crack jokes about minorities or ethnic groups we frown on them. If the next joke by those same guys is about gays we give them the benefit of the doubt. Do I have this right now?

Stosh, you wrote, "We have come a ways in the past generation or two but for the most part it's a process of cosmetic coverup to a deep concern." And while I agree there is still a fair amount of prejudice out there if you lift up the edge of society and take a peek, a huge amount of it has truly vanished. And I agree it has taken generations to do it (see the other thread about what does National mean?). I think your troop sounds wonderful with all those boys that you mentioned. The fact that in my 20's I could still encounter Klan rallies and horrible open prejudice around here - and now, for a couple of decades actually, inter-racial couples are hardly even noticed most places...this is one of the few reasons I can still feel optimism about some things. This progress is real.

I mostly teach juniors and seniors at a university. I am quick to note that most of our students are intellectually very good, outstanding actually. But somewhere along the way, perhaps a cultural thing, they have a tremendous knowledge of the here and now, and not a good understanding of what has gone before. So, they enter my classes expecting a textbook served up with facts and ideas to be mastered. If they pay attention, they get that plus how those were developed, when, why, and by whom. It IS so much fun to lift the veils for those minds, remove their illusions, and to see the lights go on, one by one. I can only imagine how rough those cobs must be in middle school. Edited to add, just for skeptic: I have a particularly fond memory of my own children, who, while I was explaining what my wife and I had been doing about 1 year before they were born, informed me condescendingly that they really didn't want to hear, right then, about the 'old days'. What a great memory!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Perhaps this is another example of 'local option' but in this council, the Eagle application does not have to be sent to the council prior to the 18th birthday. As long as all of the written requirements, including the entire service project and SM conference, are completed prior to the 18th birthday, the rest of the process may be completed during the 'grace' period. From reading some of the other posts, I'm liking our council more and more even if they might occasionally, you know, lose records or accidentally scramble the boys between troops. I mean...when they're that busy just trying to find their cheeks with both hands, maybe they're too busy to add requirements.

I did a mini-refresher in history for all of my classes today (10 minutes at the beginning of lecture while the stragglers arrived). Then this afternoon we celebrated with some cheese and wine (grape juice, actually, since alcohol is against U policy).

In our council, where a minister or similar person can't be used for whatever reason, a parent can act as the spiritual leader.

Browridges, they're called browridges! Joebob, do you claim to be a Sycophant Fox News-quoting neanderthal? Is that what you mean? Are you also bothered by Geico commercials? I had to reconsider the situation that kcs_hiker described. Youth group leaders, presumably white, sitting around the campfire telling jokes and stories about people of other races and about gay people. Evidently if someone is telling jokes about other races it is fair to consider them racist. I get that part. But if that same person is telling jokes about gay people,.....how are they to be considered? What kinds of descriptive terms can be applied to that situation that are not similar in tone to the label, 'racist'? In this setting, it's hard for me to imagine the guys cracking racist jokes but the same guys having a serious discussion of the gay lifestyle. Help me out here. Edited: oops, those are 'cavemen', sorry, and judging from their sensitivity, they must be quite liberal.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Brent, EXACTLY! So now we are back to using the actual application to make the contacts. Not the reference letter forms. I'm looking at the topic of this thread again. "Eagle Letters of Recommendation is NOT a requirement." If the council MUST contact the references, and they do this using the information on the actual application, not the reference letter forms, what the heck does anyone gain by also requiring reference letters...since the council has already CONTACTED the references from the information on the application itself? Please explain.

Brent, I'm just trying to find all your claims in that last sentence. You stated that the council MUST contact the references and that "A BOR can be denied or postponed if the references haven't been contacted. Read that last sentence in John's post again." And later " There is a big difference between the letters not being received and the references not being contacted." However, in that last sentence which states, "A Scout cannot have a board of review denied or postponed because the council office or council advancement committee does not receive the reference letter forms he delivered.", it is explicit that if the scout delivered the reference letter forms and that if somehow (Rosemary Woods accidentally reaches across the office and her little toe tips them into the dust bin) they weren't received by the council office or advancement committee, the BOR cannot be denied on that basis. (remember, you asked Ed to focus on the last sentence of John's post) If the forms are not received by the council office or advancement committee, to me it seems unlikely that they will be able to contact the references, they don't even know the references exist without those forms, right? This is all part of the same situation. How does it make sense that the BOR CAN be denied, as you claim, because of failure to contact the references on forms that it is perfectly OK not to have received in the first place? Catch-22? Let's go through it again. First the boy gets the reference letter forms. Then the forms are filled out. Then they are delivered to the council. Now Rosemary loses the forms but that's OK, the BOR can't be denied because of that. But because the council advancement committee didn't contact the references that they didn't know about in the first place, the BOR can be denied on that basis. Please explain.

Brent wrote: "A BOR can be denied or postponed if the references haven't been contacted. Read that last sentence in John's post again." I just read that last sentence in John's post again and I understand something completely different. Here's that last sentence again: "A Scout cannot have a board of review denied or postponed because the council office or council advancement committee does not receive the reference letter forms he delivered." The way I interpret that is that the scout CANNOT have a BOR denied or postponed because the council office or council advancement committee does not receive the reference letter forms he delivered. Hey, that's starting to sound like Deja vu all over again. Or am I reading a different last sentence? Hey, are those pesky forum moderators messin' with the posts again? That must be it...they've CHANGED the last sentence just to confuse me. Bad Dogs! Hey pack, if I was messing with the posts is woudl look like this, somehtng about the post being edited by a staff memeber OGE (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Gwd, I've served with snobs, I've known snobs, a snob was a friend of mine. Gwd, you're no snob. ...snicker..snicker

Oak Tree, I'm glad you understood that with the spirit that I intended it. Now, I would like for all sycophant, Fox News-quoting neanderthals to identify yourselves. I dare ya. Edited part: Oh heck, why not go for the brass ring? If there are any arrogant jerks, miserable slimeballs, nattering nabobs of negativity, pusillanimous pussyfooters, hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history, or effete impudent snobs out there, go ahead and identify yourselves too. You know, after recent years I'm almost nostalgic.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

So I had just finished a manuscript and was about to send it out when a new email notification popped into view...and there it was. NJCubScouter! Wow, welcome back! Where the heck have you and your sense of humor been? OK, got that out of my system. Oak Tree, give it up. On the basis of a completely unreliable, single observation (n=1) that I am completely unable to see anything from the viewpoint of a woman, I am concluding that ALL men are similarly incapable.

BadenP, I understand. Remember, the verses I committed to memory were done through the mind of a child. I haven't gone much beyond that since, just ask my wife. Sometimes I wish I could forget a lot of that stuff. When I read the words that you wrote, "...the fools that you are", I get something other than your opinion that Merlyn is playing us. From the "...that you are" part I understand that YOU are making the claim that we are fools. If you did not intend for us to interpret what you wrote in this way, the simple way out is for you to clarify that you didn't have that intent. For my part, I think that Merlyn is not playing anyone for a fool otherwise he'd give up even discussing anything. He is more accurate than many of us in describing the legal details, he has an in-depth knowledge of the history of the issue, and he is passionate about his ideas. And he disagrees with some of us, but not all. Why does agreement with him constitute evidence that he is playing someone as a fool? EDited part: Ed, your comment reminded me of one local guy. He is morbidly obese, unwashed, usually drunk and sitting in a chair on his porch, chewing tobacco and spitting with a deadly accurate aim. He sometimes swills down a beer in a single breath and states that God made him in His image, and then starts laughing, drooling tobacco juice out the corners of his mouth. I just love this image. I also wonder how can you swill beer like that with a chaw of tobacco clogging your jaw? A true God-given talent, to be sure.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree. That does not add to the requirements and it is good guidance to leaders who need to know each boy and be conscientious about advancement each step of the way. It addresses the problem for the future. I have to ask though, doesn't training and other resources address this already? The problem OGE was writing about, I thought, was when the above guidance has lapsed or been ignored and it is 'the mess' that you mentioned.

I agree with the others so far, especially what ntrog8r wrote about it just being wrong.

Ed, I know I don't understand much of it the way you or probably anyone else does, but I memorized a large portion of it back when I was trying to be a Presbyterian. That stuff and all the rape and incest and murder were burned into my childhood mind the way only true horror can do it. And that verse comes to mind every time I hear someone call another person a fool...which he did just a short time back. He called several of us in this thread, fools. Here's what he wrote, "So have fun and I will continue to watch you being played for the fools you are, and pack, yes I am making fun of all of you, ha ha." Did you get that part, "...the fools you are..."? So I dredged up this old saw from the bible ("...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.") as a warning of sorts for local climate change, warmer climes perhaps. Of course, it's just a myth. But HE's the one who called us fools and my use of the verse was relevant to it. By the way, here's another that I committed to memory: "Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died." This one gave me nightmares for years, fear that someone could sneak into my bedroom and nail my head to the ground. Nice. And we complain about TV.

I copied it directly from my KJV and included the entire verse. Oh well....what can one expect from the bible? I don't take it very seriously either...I guess you see the 'hell fire' thing as a myth too. I suppose I'll have to put my hands on the TV and be healed.... You do come across with a tone of anger though. I wouldn't want you to pop a vein or something. The use of name-calling hardly supports anyone's argument and, in fact, makes the opponent look better. It's better to try an actual logical approach without the hyperbole. That might even be persuasive.

BadenP, You are getting way too emotional about all this. I remind you: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this verse.

Calico, I agree. I'll repeat the challenge I made a while back: I'd like for someone to present to this forum the wording of the criteria that he would apply to all boys in order to make sure no boy created this conundrum in the future. Really, if someone out there can write a clear, unambiguous requirement that all boys can read and understand, a requirement that all boys would understand that they have to meet in order to gain approval, I'd really like to read it. Still waiting

I agree with Kahuna. The sadness and sorrow of a tragedy like that, so needless. I wonder how close Trevorum is to Fort Hood?

Ahem....careful now, some of us are scoring pretty high on the loathsome scale. For others of us the loathsome scale is that abomination on the floor of the bathroom that seems always to display big numbers when we step on it.