packsaddle

I agree with Eisely. Don't fudge anything, be honest. But he needs to include the hours of planning, etc. There is no minimum that I've heard of in this council - I guess that could change if Eisely is correct on that.

This is the other edge of a two-edged sword. In the past the first edge of the sword enabled persons with the authority to punish to make decisions to punish some rather than others...based on ethnicity, economic status, or how popular they were - decisions that exercised little if any of the wisdom we think would be exercised if there was greater latitude now. The result was that some 'got away' with infractions of the rules and others were given unreasonably harsh punishment. Zero-tolerance policies 'solved' this by removing the thought process from the decisions. And it introduced us to the other edge. Yes, this boy is being treated too harshly if the news reports are correct. Yes, I know that back when I was his age I probably would have fared poorly if zero-tolerance was in effect then. But these policies are doing exactly what we wanted them to do most of the time. Instead of wringing our hands over this or that example, we need to THINK about a better way to address school safety and school discipline. It was a problem worth our intelligent consideration before zero-tolerance policies...and it still is.

The area of health care automatically has a component of morality. Maybe, as scoutldr suggests, we can just depend on miracles. Personally, I have my doubts about faith healing but I admit...if everyone who objected to public health would just adopt that approach and reject everything else, I think the problem would be resolved fairly quickly.

"Only way to make it work is if yeh require everyone to pay in and thereby truly distribute the risk without any demographic skimming." Yes. This is a rational approach of shared risk and shared cost in a mutually-supportive community of people who care. An alternative of 'every man for himself' is also a rational approach. However, only one of those alternatives involves no further public debt or expense. To answer the question posed by TheScout, WE will not pay for the alternative that DOES involve public expense and debt. THAT payment will be deferred to young people and those yet unborn. Unfair, you say? Tough luck. If you don't like it vote for responsible government. Oops, you're too young to vote? Oh well, that's just tough luck then. The inevitable end of all this is that we are going to have an 'every-man-for-himself' approach to everything. Obama and his strategy can only delay this. Might as well learn to love it. Or to put this in a different light, I wonder what Jesus would do? AnniePoo, turn on your sarcasm filter right now. Shame on you for putting a personal face on the issue...for softening hardened hearts and enabling empathy and sympathy in others. How are we supposed to solve this problem if you innocent sick people keep getting in the way?

When it comes to food ethics, how do you tell the difference between raccoons and the boys? Answer: the raccoons are more clever. NWScouter, my wife and I were on Mt. LeConte in the Smokies one summer, having lunch by a spring. Suddenly my wife exclaimed that there was a bear approaching. I looked and sure enough a bear was headed toward us. We quickly gathered as much of our stuff as we could to leave the area but the bear charged us. So we took what we had packed and scrambled out of there and up the hill a ways. We had left behind some sampling gear: bottles of specimens from the spring, preservative, pipettes, etc. So after a couple of minutes I walked back to check to see if he was gone. He was, I could hear him leaving, snorting down the trail, so I picked up the remaining gear. The top of the preservative bottle kept leaking and I couldn't get it to seal. That's when I noticed the clean, neat hole on either side of the bottle. It contained a mixture of iodine, acetic acid, and formaldehyde. I suspect that bear thought twice before he went after another picnic.

dreaded double post...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

You might be READING them! At least they might be a bit more literate.

Eamonn, sorry guy but...ahem...who elected them?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks for confirming my instincts. My contribution to the thread: Go to a library, borrow a book for free, go home, start a fire in the fireplace, pop your own popcorn, and then spend the entire evening in a world of imagination and wonder. Cost: gas to the library and some obscenely-priced BSA popcorn. (still cheaper than at the theater) Edited Part: You know if everyone did this, we might not have to suffer through as many vapid political pronouncements by Hollywood types.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

These things are so simple and cheap that they're really not worth the trouble to repair. I'd recycle it and replace it with a new, much safer one.

Same here. Tell him 'congratulations' for me too. You have reason to be proud. On a side note: Are you guys still eating as well as you described in the past? For some reason, life for me revolves more and more around food.

eghiglie, I salute your level-headed response. Hopefully the other troop learned ALL the lessons that your example provided. You know, from all these stories...I'm beginning to wonder if we have a systemic problem of being unable to follow rules or something. Maybe need some improved reading skills?

This just came up recently. Maybe BSA should move its headquarters to, say, Raleigh, NC. Oops, it only applies to state employees. Oh well..... http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-100709-mw-fat-fee.1f31c6ec5.html

Merlyn LeRoy is OK but I am a bigger fan of Peabody. He even adopted a little boy, Sherman. Their view of history sometimes reminds me of things I've read in these threads.

I add that an atheist is not restricted from the study of any topic he chooses. If anything, an atheist might feel freer to choose topics of studies than someone who feels bound by their faith. An atheist might not WANT to study some topics but they are as free to do so as anyone else. This principle can be applied to any other way of thinking. For example, I absolutely reject creationism but I have studied those ideas thoroughly and carefully. It's the principal reason I reject them...because I have a very good understanding of them. For that matter, I suspect that there are some Catholics who are quite studied in Judaism or Islam.

Lisa, I can just imagine those eyes. I had a student once who rolled her eyes better than anyone I have ever seen before or since. Of course that meant I just provoked the response as often as possible. And she responded just the way I hoped every time. Ten years later she's married with children and we still correspond...and those eyes still roll just like always. As for 'socialism', I think you already know 'why' the term is being thrown around. OGE, maybe we need to modify Godwin's rule to include the invocation of 'socialism' as an automatic argument loser.

Just to let you all know I haven't abandoned this thread (indeed I've been watching with horrified fascination), in the spirit of multiculturalism I offer the following: http://www.davethefox.com/words/0112lutefisk.htm

Yep, the list that Beavah had covered all of ours and more. Not that these rules work all that well. Boys seem eventually to find a way...kind of like the Jurassic Park story.

I've always had good luck with nylon or dacron braided fishing line. I just keep the old used stuff spooled up after I take it off the reel. The other options are good too. I learned from my father using heavy flax thread waxed with beeswax. That worked pretty well too. Probably not that easy to find now, though.

Welcome to the forums ripmod! (care to explain that moniker?) You must have done some looking to resurrect this old thread. I enjoy reading these discussions but I confess that while I thought I understood some of these things back when I was trying my best to be a Presbyterian, I failed miserably. I leave it to others. But it was a nice walk down memory lane. Hi Vicki!

eghiglie, yeah I've heard of those kinds of rules here and there. Thing is, if a local leader wants to make that rule, and no one objects, he'll be able to make it and it might even become some kind of tradition. As long as the troop is doing well and the numbers stay good, BSA probably won't do anything. It's indicative of the risks that we have if BSA ever does officially move toward 'local option'.

Yes, I'm an Eagle, 1964. I sympathize with Shortridge's 'hinkiness' because I also feel uncomfortable with statements that imply group characteristics. To me every scout is an individual and must live up to his individual goals and expectations. And we can influence those through our actions and our own personal examples.

"It's no different then going to a foreign country and expecting the natives to conform to your standards." Man, you got THAT right! I've seen some dooozies.

All of them are states of being because scout spirit is not confined to just one rank or status. It just is. Or not. There is nothing in that post that suggests otherwise. There is no written requirement for any of what I wrote other than the scout spirit component to the advancement requirements. The other written requirements are a set of skills and tasks that BSA National feels are appropriate to qualify for their recognition. The spirit is what the boy feels and he is its sole author and owner. We can only describe and demonstrate scout spirit. No one else can bestow it on him or take it away. Only he can do that. Of course this is just my view. There's no way to codify this. If I'm wrong please explain.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

See: http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na