packsaddle

OK, now I'm confused. Did this thread start in some other forum, and subsequently get moved to Issues and Politics? As if I need to write this, I agree with Lisabob's post.

I used to work closely with the outfit that has responsibility for studying and managing the hydrology of the river. The hydrologists, and hydraulic and civil engineers I worked with were alway quick to note that enough water will overcome any preventative measure. I am sympathetic with OGE's comment on flood plains. And to that I would also add beach developments and in light of sea level rise, coastal areas in general. Be advised, water flows downhill and then, once confined, rises. Duh! "How come in two weeks, you will never hear about the Illinois, Missouri and Iowa flooding ever again?" The New Orleans disaster has the distinction of being the first time it happened in modern times, in spite of our best efforts to prevent it. And the disaster response was, well, disastrous - demonstrating the grotesque ineffectiveness of incompetence and cronyism through all levels of government, yes, to the oval office. Edited Part: I think Lisabob's response to the political forces was just great. For a fair comparison wait 'til, say, 2011 and see how much devastation remains in those areas, in comparison to what remains in MS and LA today after the hurricanes.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Interesting topic. I see it as a quasi- (yes master) educational question. If the customer is paying for the best facts presented the best way for learning (as, ahem, students get in my classes) then accuracy is far more important than entertainment and should never be compromised. If, however, entertainment is a component (as in certain tours...ghost tours come to mind...) then I see all kinds of liberties taken as part of the show. I just hope people don't suddenly believe in ghosts as a result. So....old Ben and Betsy killed 69 children huh?

hops_scout, "Just remember--nobody's keeping you here." Which one of the points do you think this embodies? Helpful? Friendly? Courteous? Kind? Cheerful? Brave? As a moderator, you have been given power that the rest of us do not have. If you think that diminishes YOUR responsibility to live by the scout law, I strongly disagree. OGE, That was supposed to have one of those smiley things embedded somewhere, sorry. I was trying to make exactly the point you made in your response. As the Borg say, "Resemblance is futile"...or something along those lines. To the moderators in general, if I have a criticism of the moderation, I intend to bring it to public view if and when I think I need to. I see no need to hide your mistakes if I think I've detected such. You guys can respond in the scoutlike manner that I'm sure you will decide to.

jblake47, The little boy who was pointing at the naked emperor might not have been as effective (nor immortalized in the fable), if he had taken your advice to "...contact that moderator directly and keep it off the forum." I would expect similar effectiveness for your approach with, say, Pol Pot or perhaps Kim Jong Il (or his twin, Menta Lee Il)...also probably with Robert Mugabe, the leaders of Myanmar, etc. One thing anyone weilding absolute power wants to avoid is any public question about that power. As I have often remarked in these forums, if an idea has sufficient merit, it should be durable to free and open criticism. Attempts to stifle such criticism, to me, merely indicate potential weakness of the protected ideas. Edited part: Drat thsoe tpyos!(This message has been edited by packsaddle) One more Edit: I just peeked at the Federal Funds thread. Sigh.....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I share the affinity for the reused pop bottles. They're free, lightweight, and really rugged. I like to save the 1-liter size with wide mouths (and my wife just hates this - heh, heh, one more reason to do it). As far as chemical hygiene goes, they don't change much with re-use, perhaps leaching a bit fewer chemicals than when new. It does depend on what you have IN the bottle, though. And I try to make sure it doesn't stay there long (sitting new on a shelf for, say, a week, full of low pH soda seems worse - as opposed to a few hours in my pack, full of filtered spring water.) As far as survival food, I'll always savor a good cold, hard tootsie roll. Mmmmmmm. Pure energy.

OGE, as long as we're in the confessional, I admit it...it was me - I was in the kitchen with Dinah. BadenP, I am disappointed with the way you were just treated by other respondents in reply to what I think were your heartfelt thoughts. Given the origin of this thread, perhaps you might have expected their remarks to go unmoderated. I would like to respond differently. I have not called for FScouter to step down. I hope someone else has noticed this. I have refrained from such a call because although he may act unfairly, capriciously, and with great bias, this is less a problem with him than with the basic design behind the 'moderation' process. When I started the other thread, it was not about FScouter, although he certainly was the one who invited that thread to be created. I started the other topic because of a single event and my interest in understanding how and why a moderator can get it so wrong. The moderators are human. They bring to the forums all of their personality quirks (sorry OGE, it had to be said ) and those are sometimes reflected in the way they censor the rest of us. Let's be open about this. 'Moderation' is a PC term for 'censorship'. If you give an opinionated and biased person the absolute power to make the expressions of others disappear, how can anyone be surprised when such a person exercises this power, running roughshod over the expressions of others? To me this is an inevitability. Ironically, considering a common viewpoint I detect in these forums, it is the very thing so many seem to fear from any authority with absolute power...and yet we embrace it here. If FScouter hadn't precipitated the topic, it is likely that someone else would have. The old adage about absolute power seems to apply but the corruption is not so much a problem of the corrupt, but of the absolute power. The problem is not FScouter (although he could be part of the solution). No, the problem is how to censor any discourse in a manner that is fair, and without suppressing the free exchange of ideas. I am heartened by what I have recently read in another forum. In that thread, Gonzo1, Merlyn, and Rooster7 have actually come close to engaging in a real discussion of what it means to 'believe'. This, after literally years of unproductive verbal conflict. I actually look forward to the further development of that thread, even if it is somewhat off-topic. In that case they have 'moderated' themselves very nicely. (or course, by the time this is posted, I could be completely wrong about this. ) If the problem is how to fairly censor the respondents in these forums, the answer, I think, lies somewhere between one extreme of self-moderation at the moment of hitting the 'submit' button ...and the other extreme of having some petty tyrant exercising absolute power over expression, neither of which have been demonstrated to work well. (personally, I am OK with self-moderation, but I recognize that mine is a 'liberal' viewpoint and that the majority seems to embrace the 'tyrant' approach) The concept of applying the scout law is OK but how many times have we disagreed on what that means in application? If it is left to individual interpretation we're still left with self-moderation, in essence. And BadenP, I submit that unless I interpret your thoughts in error, you wish that the moderators would actually apply the points of the law during the moderation process. Am I wrong? You might be shocked to learn that they may actually think that they do. Perhaps the process can be 'tweaked' a bit to avoid the tyrranical approach. Nope, I fear that is unavoidable - a tyrant is always going to be a tyrant. However, I suggest that it would help, if during the process of censoring a post, the censor would make the action known to the forum, including his identity. Anonymously exercising absolute power to delete someone's expression is, of course, discourteous (5th point). But it is also an expression of cowardice (10th point). Of course, with absolute power, the censor need not worry about such frivolities (a whole bunch of other points). Another approach might be for the censor to first ask the person who originated the thread for his opinion, prior to the censorship. This would allow some modicum of additional guidance prior to the deed. The originator could then be part of the process, providing at least one additional potential light in the darkness. BadenP, I am still trying to think of other ways that this flawed approach can work better. But again, I consider FScouter to be symptomatic of the problem, rather than BEING the problem. To me the solution is an improved process. Without that, unfair censorship is likely merely to be repeated, if not by him then by some other censor.

Camp Trails was for years the old standby. They're still in business as well. I still have fond thoughts for my old Camp Trails Astral Cruiser frame with the Skyline or Horizon packs. My problem with the external frame was how the top posts would catch on low-hanging limbs. There were some trails that were pure torture because of that. It was bad enough to have to hike in a crouched stance. Having the frame catch on a limb about once per minute was much worse. At least with the internals, it's mostly just an annoying bump rather than a neck-jerking snag.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Acco40, just testing the 'off-topic' rule here. At least I know that YOU most likely won't be the one to delete it. But in reference to your training session on how to sharpen an axe, I think I sharpened my carving tool a bit too much recently. At camp I used the wheel to produce a mirror-finish edge, even sharper than a razor, I think. And then yesterday, sure enough - it slipped and penetrated the tip of my index finger, slicing through a portion of the fingernail and then past that and up underneath it right to the bone. It was so sharp that it didn't even hurt that much at first. Nothing like the time I accidentally jammed an ice pick under a thumbnail and out the other side of the thumb. Bled like everything, but a really neat, clean wound. It did remind me, however, of every slice of a finger I've ever felt from really sharp steel. It is a special sensation, almost electric, and savored even better when done slowly during an unexpected action like turning and resting a hand on a razor-sharp axe blade, perhaps skinning off the tip of a finger with an incredibly sharp knife, or sliding a hand over a freshly cut can lid. Mmmmmm.

FScouter, as I noted before, I am not addressing the general topic of forum moderation. Sorry if I put this in the wrong discussion area but I think it can be moved, can't it, to a better location? I was addressing a specific instance of forum modification. I do disagree with the action that was taken. I also think that if the respondents to these forums are to understand the ground rules, those rules, oops, 'guidelines' ought to be clear. Bob White, As you wish I will refrain from employing your post as the object of this discussion. I was not so concerned with defending your right as I was in using it as a way for everyone to understand the process. FScouter, the only difference between us is that Terry has given you the power to make communications disappear. What I have is the ability to question the use of that power. YOU also have the ability to use the PM feature. You didn't. You could have settled this matter easily and quickly. You didn't. And I am responding in the only manner I have available. I will end this now. I hope my point has been made...but if anyone else is confident of that, I hope you can share your reasons with me - I'm not.

Lisabob, I agree with you regarding the value I place on the free and open expression of ideas. The reason I am doing this is because when I asked for a moderator to explain the specific instance of 'moderation' for which I started this topic (AT FScouter's INVITATION), the moderator responded by deleting my requests. As far as I am concerned, that move was more heavy-handed, discourteous and more aggressive than any remarks that had been made during the previous (deleted) posts. FScouter's subsequent reluctance to answer my specific question led to this thread. For all practical purposes, he engaged in the passive-aggressive version of "Get Bent!" When I see a problem and when the responsible party shrinks from addressing it, I tend to bore in relentlessly, sorry. But I will drive a stake through the heart of something like this if I possibly can. BE CLEAR about this. FScouter precipitated this exchange by unfairly treating members of the forum. FScouter refused to respond to a simple question. He still hasn't really explained how Bob White's post crossed the line, only his personal impression of what the problem was. He hasn't even attempted to repeat the wording...expecting everyone to simply take his word for it. But FScouter has been in control of this from the beginning. He could have wielded a softer touch on that other thread. He could have been more responsive. He could have ended the whole matter quickly and simply...by providing the requested answers. He didn't. If you think that FScouter is contrite at this point, I will back off. I have seen no evidence to support that conclusion, have you?

FScouter, I think it was clear that you were the one. I just wanted to read your explicit admission because your previous posts were in 3rd person and made no specific attribution. Thing is, if you had just answered the question at the time I asked it, this whole thing probably would have fizzled right there. You didn't. I ask you now, do you think you chose wisely? For those of you who did not read the exchange that led to this topic, unless you had read that exchange or participated in it, short of FScouter resurrecting those posts, you have no basis to judge other than your own pre-existing notions. Sorry. Regarding the way the thread went, it made no more digression than many other threads that experience off-topic directions. Again, I note that 'off topic' is not listed in FScouter's own guidelines. Pointless chatter IS listed but the exchange certainly wasn't completely pointless or merely chatter. I do have to wonder what standard is applied to identify pointless chatter, though. Maybe I'll spin a new topic. Regarding the exchange itself, I too read the exchange and I disagree with FScouter's version. And because it IS on topic in this thread, it would be good for him to show us those posts that were deleted by him and explain his reasons for the way he characterized them? I'm open to real evidence so show it to me. I specifically singled out Bob White's post for a reason. He had made a statement about how we serve in the BSA house and that in order to remain in good standing we must abide by BSA rules. Gold Winger had just given a mild retort to the effect that if we disagree or otherwise do not abide by the rules, then we must not be the best kind of scout. Bob White then responded that in his opinion, anyone who does not abide by the rules is no kind of scout at all. One thing I've noticed about Bob White since he 'returned' is that he has made a serious effort to be courteous and objective (Thank you, Bob) and this was being displayed in his posts that FScouter deleted. Bob's posts were his personal opinions and Bob expressed them in his own well-known manner but in carefully-measured and non-personal terms. And they hardly violated any of the guidelines that FScouter elaborated in the other thread that he started just after I started this one. Bob White deserved better. So FScouter, for those three short posts, what was it about Bob White's posts that you judged in violation of the guidelines? Those three were continuous with the current tag end in that thread. There was no problem with continuity (whatever). The only option left is that Bob White must have crossed the line somehow. How? Again I disagree with his assessment of the exchange. Bring those posts back so we can all see them and judge for ourselves. I also don't buy the argument that because FScouter needed to delete someone's remark, he had to delete all the posts by other members who had engaged in the exchange. Essentially this argument is that he really needed to delete this one guy's post - and in order to help everyone else to follow the thread, he also needed to delete all of theirs as well. He needed to protect the thread from lack of continuity or something like that. Utter nonsense. I think that if FScouter had merely edited that one offending remark and added the "edited by moderator" wording, most of us are smart enough to understand what was going on without 'cleansing' the entire exchange. FScouter, if you read through any of the threads on contentious topics, I suspect you'll find scores of instances in which your unwritten 'guideline' of deletion would have nearly wiped out the entire thread. And again I note the absence of this guideline on your list. The further argument that my subsequent posts needed to be deleted because they were off topic also makes little sense. I could offer an alternative that you simply didn't want to face the issue and you already knew you could just make the whole thing go away. But if my alternative is wrong and if the 'off-topic' guideline exists, I am interested in learning how you choose which off-topic posts to delete. They are hardly rare occurrences. Seems to me that rules, oops, I mean 'guidelines' ought to be applied fairly...and that means to all off-topic posts. Anyone have any idea of what would be left?

While all that is nice to know, the questions resulting from the deletions remain unanswered. The topic on moderators that you invited is still waiting. Why are you avoiding this?

Eamonn, normally I am comfortable with the process of 'moderation' that I observe and, to my knowledge, up 'til now, unless I asked for a moderator to delete something I wrote, I've never received such an extreme form of censorship. However, in anticipation of getting deleted, I indeed DID save my posts and I can post them again here if anyone is interested in seeing them. I am quite certain they contain nothing in the way of personal attacks, etc. What they DO contain is questions for the moderator...who subsequently deleted my posts. But calling the moderation process on the carpet is not my intent. I am asking for the specific moderator who deleted those posts to: 1. take responsibility and identify himself explicitly 2. explain specifically what Bob White and I wrote that violated those 'guidelines' Under other circumstances I might pursue this through PM. The reason for doing this publicly is that FScouter invited this public forum and I intend to accommodate him. Now is the time for whomever that moderator is to step up and answer the questions. Bob White, heh, heh, I tend to agree. However, since YOU were fingered as one of the rowdies, perhaps you could give an opinion as to how YOUR posts violated those 'guidelines'. I know you don't like for others to speak for you and I respect that. So now you have the chance to explain what you think you did wrong...or perhaps how your post did NOT violate those 'guidelines'. Personally, having read the exchange, I didn't see your post as having crossed any lines of decorum whatsoever. Still waiting for the answers........come out, come out, whoever you are..... Edited part: Beavah, I guess we were writing at the same time. Great post. Ahem, I confess that when I read those 'guidelines' I too wondered about that 'accent' you have...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Acid Test, I really do understand the reaction you are having and believe me, I've had the same reaction to some as well, and I suspect some have reacted that way to me in the past. This just accentuates my point that either the moderation should be evenhanded and across the board, or it shouldn't happen. Selective and capricious application of edits and deletions are not productive, and I submit that they violate the very principles they are supposed to be promoting. Thing is, there's no oversight on the moderators that I can detect. The posts by Bob White and by me violated none of the so-called 'guidelines' that FScouter articulated. FScouter might have a different view but after he invited me to start this topic, he has failed to respond to my questions. They are fair questions. I will make an observation for ALL the moderators. Any anonymous deletion or edit, in my view, is contrary to the 10th point of the Scout Law. To me, and I apply this in my professional reviews, such anonymous acts are cowardly because they exploit both the position of power by the moderator (having such control) and the weakness of the recipient (being unable to know who did it or why). I'm open to your responses.

FScouter, please answer the questions in the other topic on this subject - the new topic that I started on YOUR suggestion.

I see that FScouter decided to start his own thread on this topic so here's an excerpt from what he posted: "Formal rules should not be needed if we can all remember two guidelines: 1. Keep It Scout-like Play fair. Treat other forum members with respect. Keep the tone civil. Dont disparage another person or use personal insults. Be careful about sounding condescending or patronizing. Have patience with others that dont understand your point of view. Make an effort to understand the points of view of others. Consider if your post adds to the value of the forums, or just wastes other folks time. Avoid pointless chatter. Keep your post readable. Give some attention to grammar, spelling, and basic sentence structure. Your post is going to be read by thousands of others and becomes a permanent part of the Scouter.com Scouting resource. Put some thoughtfulness in your message. 2. Keep It Honest Express your opinion, but explain WHY you hold the opinion. Dont fabricate data to support your position. Dont claim to speak for BSA, or another group, or the majority, unless based on fact. Support your statements of fact with a source. Dont rephrase or restate the position of another person in a way that could be misleading. When quoting another person or source of information, be careful what you quote is not taken out of context. Dont misstate your identity, your role in Scouting, or your background." FScouter, what part of the above guidelines does 'off topic' fall into that it qualifies for deletion? Moreover, are you going to be equally diligent at deleting ALL off-topic posts in the future? Furthermore, that first line about rules not being necessary implies that there ARE NO rules, only the guidelines. So if these are 'guidelines' and not 'rules', what is the difference if violation of a 'guideline' results in the deletion of a post? But back to the original question generated by the actual deletions (I'm assuming you were the one who deleted all those posts since you haven't answered my question...am I wrong?), what was it about Bob White's post that you found in violation of any of the above guidelines? Here's what I remember. I say 'remember' because contrary to what you describe above, his post is NOT part of the permanent record in the forums. It is completely erased from his record of posts...but here's what I remember about it: He wrote to the effect that BSA had its policies and that we exist in BSA's house. As such anyone who does not abide by BSA policies is no kind of a scout at all. I see no personal attacks here because he addressed no specific person, only as a hypothetical situation. Perhaps you have access to the actual text, if so please correct me. But I don't see how that post violated ANY of your guidelines. When Gold Winger questioned the definition of 'abide', I don't see how THAT violated any of the above guidelines. When I took you to task for deleting all those posts, which of the above guidelines did I violate? None, I surmise because you only mentioned 'off-topic' as your reason for deleting mine. Evmori, also as I remember, you have indeed made disparaging remarks about the ACLU, perhaps not in that thread but plenty of other times. Perhaps the forum moderator takes issue with your characterization. I offer this irony: I am, at this moment, performing exactly the function of the ACLU. As such, I am defending all of your rights as 'citizens' of these forums, to write posts in these forums. I am defending you against a (so-far unidentified) central authority who might, in fact, be censoring you in a manner that violates its own 'guidelines'. Are you 'getting' this? FScouter, how about it? You asked for this topic, please answer the questions. Edited part: Oops, corrected a grammatical error. Does 'bad grammar' qualify for deletion, really? Seems like in the past, there was at least a note that a post had been edited by a moderator and not completely 'cleansed' from the forums...but, then, how could anyone else know for sure how many of us have been cleansed? We just vanish and in time all is forgotten. But not just now, I'm still waiting for the answers.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hi Gern, My case is probably not a fair comparison because I knew there was about a 50% probability that my four posts would be deleted. But it succeeded in smoking out a moderator - which was my intent. The posts by Bob White, Gold Winger, and evmori were deleted for cause still unknown. But your point is taken, I think this is the first time I've ever been touched by the fickle finger of deletion. As to why you've been spared, there is no way to predict or understand the whims of the moderators, I suppose. I'm still waiting for answers. Edited part: I see FScouter was typing at the same time so I follow up with a question. FScouter, I read those posts so I ask with respect to Bob White, for example, what was it that he wrote that was as you describe? I detected no such thing. Bob White, I ask you the same question. What did you write that was a violation of forum decorum? It all seemed proper to me. Also, FScouter, you still haven't claimed responsibility. Did you delete those posts?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

In another thread, quite a few posts by Bob White, Gold Winger, and evmori simply vanished during one of their rather predictable exchanges. However, when I questioned the reasons for their removal (I didn't see the problem), my posts were also removed and FScouter asked for this new topic to be created. Here's what I asked: "5:11:07 I have to say that I didn't see a problem with those posts. Moderators, why did you remove those? Who was the person that Johnny Carson always noted would censor out his off-color remarks? Was that Sarah Goodbody? That stuff in this thread wasn't even off-color....hello, hello, is Sarah out there? What rule of censorship was violated? In whose opinion?" FScouter still has not claimed responsibility. Rather, as I surmised in a followup post, my question was deleted. So I ask it now. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the thread, it was about the demand by BSA for SSNs on applications for whatever reasons (ho hum). But Bob White's advocacy for the BSA policy and Gold Winger's response, not to mention the somewhat equivocal response by evmori (sorry Ed, you kind of took both sides) were all deleted. I detected no violation of decorum and so I asked who the moderator was and why they did it. Still unanswered. Instead, FScouter challenged anyone to start a new topic on moderators. Wecome to the topic! I'm still waiting for the answers. Edited part: corrections(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Since I see you took the fickle finger of deletion approach...your wish is my command. Edited part: New topic created, TTFN(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Because: the unit needed some continuity during a period of transition (still going on), the new leaders had no experience and needed help, the boys enjoy my leadership, I enjoy watching the boys grow, it's fun.

Welcome to the forums, dampcamper. I'd appreciate it if you'd send some of that dampness to North Georgia and NW South Carolina. We need it.

Between honest persons, yes a lie is a lie. There is an assumption of honesty and honor that we make as a society and once violated, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to regain that honor. However, I agree with the moral relativism that you seem to be promoting. If the goal of the interaction is to catch the criminal, then yes I agree that it is OK to withold information, and even lie - to the criminal in order to apprehend him and stop the criminal activities...short of entrapment.

Gold Winger, In that case it is explicitly a deception, by design, and an effective tactic. The police are contending with persons whose actions are profound deceptions and they make good use of deception during the apprehension. I was addressing the destructive mistakes that good persons sometimes make when they aren't thinking clearly. And then we sometimes try to excuse those mistakes with more deceptions, hence that tangled web we hear about so often. But you already knew what I meant, didn't you?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

It's possible that the boys, when confronted by the ASM, were stunned into silence. When I confront the boys in this unit about their misadventures, I sometimes get that stunned, 'deer-in-headlights' look. It isn't really lying or avoiding the issue, but rather a recognition of the truth of the matter combined with absence of an adaptive evolutionary response that's appropriate (and the deer get hit). As a matter of fact, I still sometimes experience this myself during interrogations by my wife (with full knowledge that the headlights actually are on an approaching freight train). This is an opportunity to teach the boys the practical truth of my newly-discovered rule for ethical behavior: "If you think you can get away with it, don't."