packsaddle

At least we now have some idea on how to get Fred fired up to write more often, heh, heh. While I am glad to bask in all this attention to my personal psyche (as completely pointless as the endeavor is), I remind everyone that what I did was to state some ideas and opinions. I don''t expect ideas and opinions to make all people feel good. I expect disagreement. And those who disagree must realize that...(and here you need to pay close attention)...I don''t care if you like me or not. Are you getting this? It''s really nice if we all like each other, and there''s not one person on these forums whom I dislike. But to me the IDEA is the important thing. Not people''s feelings, certainly not mine. You have noted that I am insensitive (at least I think that''s what you noted). And sometimes I am. So maybe I am insensitive, mean, self-loathing. So maybe I have some deep personality disorder. So what! It isn''t relevant to the problem. If you disagree with an idea, that''s good. Tell us your alternatives and your reasoning. I love to learn new things. I think everyone does (or should at least). Enlighten me. But so far, in this thread, the respondents are cluttering the discussion with ME, not the ideas. I invite you to enter into a debate on the ideas. Step over my carcass (give it a kick if you want) and get on with discussions on the topic. Hey, after all, I shouldn''t be the only one having fun around here. So back to the topic: One of the first lines asks a question, "Do boys have to be bored, fat and dumber than their sisters?" That, in case anyone didn''t notice, was the real shot across the bow of maleness. Actually it was a dead-center, down the stack, blow it out of the water, direct hit. The Hood meets the Bismark. The obvious answer, for rhetorical purposes, is NO. They don''t have to be. Followed by the question of whether there is much truth in the question''s premise. I responded with agreement and some possible explanations. If you think I was being mean, that''s OK. Stick out your lower lip and run to mommy about the mean old man, heh, heh. Maybe this thread was started to address a real problem or perhaps to discuss whether or not this problem is real. I took the approach that it is real, I gave some real observations, and some stimulating explanations. I may have been in error, and I now admit it. In fact this thread MIGHT have been started in order to allow respondents to engage in pointless hand-wringing and whining about all sorts of things that might provide rationalizations to justify (and acknowledge) the fact assumed by that first original question. If THAT was the reason for the thread, sorry I misunderstood. I don''t think I did misunderstand though, and I give the forum members more credit than that. Or am I wrong? Edited part: I almost forgot about that 'gender reassignment' comment. I have tried on several occasions to get some discussion on this topic to see how BSA would view the issues surrounding it. It is an interesting topic that's still unexplored....but I've already been under the knife enough times in my life, no thanks. H'mmmm...or did I just pass on a tantalizing proposition...? Wow, just imagine the possibilities...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

It isn''t slander if it applies. And whining about it won''t change anything. To those for whom it doesn''t apply, I apologize as I didn''t intend it for you in the first place. Maybe I didn''t express that clearly enough. However, the world has been and largely still IS male-dominated. That being the case, if males choose to waste their lives flobbering around in front of a video screen, then it is a fate largely of their own making. If my observation of that fact makes anyone uncomfortable, I''m hardly responsible for their behavior nor for their discomfort, - but rather I''m merely pointing out the obvious. The stuff I said about women is the result of direct observation and I''m not going to say bad things about women to balance this. I''ll say nicer things about the males when they perform in a competitive manner. They don''t. The y-chromosome thing is, you know, one of those pesky facts. If anyone doesn''t like my final characterization, then don''t do it. Seems a pretty simple solution to me. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you don''t like the fit or the look, get another pair. When did this forum get so PC anyway? Edited part: Oops, forgot: (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Thanks Gonzo1, I appreciate the good words...but you know me...playful game of tag and all that... Like I told you before, nothing said to me in these forums even comes close to even a tiny fraction of the wrath of my wife.

Eisely, I certainly agree with your reasoning. It is also reasoning that, for me, defined the most serious aspect of Bill Clinton''s illicit behavior with Monica, but I already described that in another thread. It is at the base of my ethical reasoning on the mentor/student relationship. However, I felt this way long before I ever clearly articulated the reasoning to myself. For this and other reasons, I think I disagree mildly with Gern on one of his points. I think that there IS an inherent sense of fairness that we, at least most of us, have hard-wired in our biology at birth. (and obviously some of us don''t) I think the basis for this innate tendency toward fairness (at least for most of us) is an innate empathy toward others...love for others, if you will. But as with all behavior questions, especially in humans, explanations are really difficult and always open to doubt.

YOU are presuming a fact that is not in evidence. I don''t hate men, you just think I do. I actually like most people...trying to think of someone I hate...and failing just now. Oops, just thought of a couple...but not very many. But I truly AM critical of the characteristics that I see in some men, characteristics that seem to be culturally inherited in some male offspring. So to answer your flawed question, I volunteer because I enjoy what I do. Isn''t that why nearly everyone volunteers for something? Enjoyment...for sake of mere pleasure, or recognition, or self-satisfaction, or something? I enjoy watching the boys learn and grow. I enjoy confronting them with opportunities that they might not have otherwise and observing their responses. I enjoy confronting them with questions that cause them to think about their prejudices and their fundamental assumptions. I enjoy getting them off their sedentary, diabetes-incipient patooties and outside where they can exercise their minds and imaginations as well as convert some of that adipose tissue into muscle. So far, they enjoy it too. And, who knows, maybe someday they''ll be able to compete effectively with the girls in academics. Have I answered your question?

Last night when I tried to submit that last post, I never could get the confirmation. So I was surprised to see it just now. But glad it made it. Gern, not bad. I think most of us grapple with these distinctions and the questions are hard to answer. Your explanation employs the situational approach and that works if you are willing to restate it for each type of situation. This is not a criticism because it is the best that most of us can muster. I do the same thing. If I try to explain the distinction I think in terms of interactions with other people. For example, I may have a student. There is nothing illegal about a romantic relationship between me and the student. If I am single, there may be nothing inherently immoral either. However, the academic/jprofessional relationship places, in my mind, an ethical barrier that I should not cross, although I realize that some people evidently don''t recognize such barriers. In those cases I don''t judge them harshly but I do, nevertheless, apply this ethical standard to myself because I know I will experience guilt and remorse if I violate it. However, I''m not sure what the source is for my ethical standards. I think I know but I''m just not certain about it. So, Gern, can you explain the ''deep pool''? Where is it, what is its origin?

Allow me to prime the pump a little by asking a couple of followup questions. Does all morality have a religious basis? OK, regardless of how you answered that, now answer the same question for ethics. Is the answer the same for both questions? Explain.

Heh, heh, oh those scars are nothing compared to marks put on me by my wife's wrath. Why would she treat me this way? Could be that I still actually HAVE that old homemade pack frame. And maybe a lot of other useless junk? Could be?

Could be that respondents might want to revisit the old thread that I tried to bring back to life on 'moral absolutes vs moral relativism'. Or not. So I now ask a rhetorical question: What's the difference between ethical behavior and moral behavior? Curious to read the responses.

John, In 1973 I spent a week in the backcountry of Yellowstone after they closed in September...with a tube tent. Lucky for me it never rained. My worst piece of gear was my 1960's vintage home-made soldered-together pack frame made from steel conduit. With rope shoulder straps. No hip belt. Brutal.

Heh, heh, you couldn't hear me chuckling the whole time, could you? No, if I hated males I wouldn't work with them as a volunteer. On the contrary, I deeply sympathize with the boys as I remember well my own mistakes and stumbles. I stand by my observations of women and their growing dominance in academia. I like women. I don't apologize for it. Heh, heh, the junk food quote was a logical explanation of one of the observations in the original post. I merely posed it as one possibility. But it was a good shot, wasn't it? The Y-chromosome thing is well-known in biology and has been for quite some time. I merely described the current state of our knowledge. On the other hand, I have contempt for sloth, ignorance, wanton waste, and a few other characteristics that you might have detected in my original post. In as much as some males seem to embrace these with pride, I direct my comments at them. The last statement was almost a lament. I'm actually sorry (for the women if nothing else) if it is true. But men, through their past dominance have largely been in control of their fate. If this path is our choice, so be it. Like I said, tough luck. Edited part: I guess I know the answer to my first question now, heh, heh. If Fred is the only one, maybe I need to try harder next time. And I really do hate television, at least when it becomes a dominant fixture in our lives.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Now THAT was interesting. I'll have to see if I can IL a copy of that dissertation. There is similar behavior, perhaps not as well described or as elaborate, in other mammals as well. While the 'gayness' of these animals can't truly be determined, the behavior is very clear. Absolutely fascinating.

"Transportin ammo cans and pod bags of poo on a river corridor naturally has the potential for an occasional catastrophic tale." Ooohhhh Yeaaaahhhh! Which is why, whenever someone falls into a lake or stream, as Pee Wee says, I scream real loud, "DON'T SWALLOW!"

Again, if any of us have personal objections to Craig or his personal life, that is sufficient reason not to vote for him if that is what we choose (and if we are residents of Idaho). I have no problem with that. However, in my view the guy may not be guilty of an actual crime. THAT question rightly belongs to the courts and he should be given the chance to fight it any way he sees fit. Let the government present the hard evidence and let him present his defence. And then let a jury decide. But keep all that separate from our personal voting preference. They are separate questions.

Working in water-related fields, this is one of my favorite topics for discussion. I just LOVE to watch the students squirm...MUHhahahahahahaha! My favorite exercise is entitled "All About Poop" and incorporates such gems as, "you are what you eat" and poop, of course. My most recent discovery is a wonderful passage in the recent book, "The Ghost Map" by Steven Johnson. It is the detailed account of the 1854 London cholera epidemic and the discovery of the cause. Here, I quote starting on page 114: "With few exceptions, the problems that the early Victorians wrestled with are still relevant more than a century later. ... It's true enough that the Victorians were grappling with heady issues like utilitarianism and class consciousness. But the finest minds of the era were also devoted to an equally pressing question: What are we going to do with all of this **** ?" See, he was right! We're still grappling with this problem. And for some reason we seem not to want to think about it. A few years ago, I was just pulling up to shore during some work on one of the big reservoirs. There was a TV crew on the bank and they rushed over to ask what I was doing and what I thought about the fact that, at that time, large boats could legally dump raw sewage into that lake. I was quite aware of the issue and wanted to give as candid an opinion as I could so I smiled and looked directly into the lens that had the red light on and said, "I think it's pretty s---ty." The light went off and the interview was over. Was it something I said? Hey, it wasn't even close to 15 minutes! And when you think about it, the indirect impact we have from food production (feed lots, mega swine farms, chicken ranches, etc.) is again magnified by our carnivorous diet. On many of our waterways, a swimmer literally swims in dilute poop. In many places we treat our water with filtration to remove the large pieces of poop and then disinfect the remainder to kill the remaining microscopic pieces of poop that we drink anyway. In our cities, the doggie doo, etc. dries and gets incorporated into the air. We literally breathe poop. Studies of particles transported by hurricanes going through the Caribbean have found particles of camel dung from North Africa. Breathtaking! This is so much fun I sometimes feel guilty for getting paid. But I take the money anyway. BON APPTIT! Edited part: Oooooh, I just noticed that the web site took my original word in the book quote and subsituted asterisks for the letters. It was a four letter word that started with an 's' and ended with a 't'. I guess quotes don't get any more slack than we do. Of course, now that I have noticed this...it takes on the aura of a challenge....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

thief of oxygen? Keep in mind, please, that oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis. That's right, we live in and breathe in...poop! OK, I know what you're thinking...don't blame me, you guys started this...

I guess levity is down the...oops, sorry...now you guys have ME doing it! I would like to play devil's advocate for the moment (DON'T SAY IT!) The major criticism I'm hearing from those of us who support gay rights is that Craig has lived a deception and he has been hypocritical. In this sense, he has been unfair to himself, his family, the public, and in particular...to persons who are gay. I would argue that because his alleged crime is not yet proven (and based on what I've heard so far I could not support a conviction if I was on the jury), and ignoring his plea to the lesser charge in order to shed the more serious charge, he deserves fair treatment even if he has been unfair to others. And I think our condemnation of his subsequent attempts to salvage what little is left of his political and personal lives might not be all that fair, if not to him, then to ourselves. We're better than that. Craig should be answerable only to the people who elected him, not the Republican Party, and not broader public opinion. In his personal life, while he may need to attain a level of honesty that he has not displayed before, there is no crime in his self-deception. We may not like it. We may think badly of the effect he has on others. But those are not crimes. Craig should be allowed to fight the charges and for his senate seat if he chooses to. Even if he is a jerk, we owe it to ourselves if nothing else, to give him this opportunity.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Beavah, Eisley, and others have done a great job of outlining the coverage and conditions. I used to wonder the same question you asked (nice name, by the way). I can only add that Beavah underestimated the price of an umbrella policy. It could be that there are regional or state-by-state differences but mine costs $300-400 each year through State Farm. There is an additional hidden cost in that in order to qualify for the umbrella, you must get your other liability coverage (including auto) up to the level that the insurance company requires, not the minimm required by the state. All-in-all I spend the better part of an extra $500-700 each year in order not to have to 'rely on the charity of strangers.' Sometimes I pinch myself to make sure.

et tu, Vicki? Y'er killin' me, all o' ya.

...groan...I suppose the turn this thread has taken was predictable.

Bad? Heck no, not in my book! Nothing wrong with moral relativism as far as I'm concerned. It allows us to adapt to new challenges. As a matter of fact I can remember (maybe you too) at least twice when I spoke of you in superlative terms (I'd have to search for the exact words but they were something along the lines of "ideal" or "perfect"). My view is that because change is inevitable, we might as well view change as good - and if we change our minds in response then, hey, that just makes good sense. Moreover it allows us to feel good, even if it might be an illusion. Fact is, with the things we've learned in science and the applications in technology today, we can't expect the Bible to be as relevant as it once was. Once it was established back in 325CE or so, it was a rigid document open only to differences of interpretation. No one could have foreseen the changes that have occurred since that time or the conditions that exist today. Hence, it becomes more and more metaphorical and the interpretations proliferate endlessly. Perhaps at some time, the fifteen - oops - ten commandments might become merely a quaint symbol that Merlyn and I would not object to in government buildings...as an ornament rather than a religious icon. As a moral relativist in relativistic times and society, I see this as happening quite easily.

Maybe it's time to bring another one back from the dead, heh, heh. Anyway, here's the original thread, at least I think it's the original one. It didn't get very far back in 2002 but maybe it is time to revisit the question if anyone is interested. For me, it was nice to see some old familiar names again. Some of them are still around (OGE - you still out there?) and some have evidently left the forums. In that case I miss them, even you Rooster7, if you're still lurking.

I actually know one unit that is also planning to go this December either right before or after Christmas. The highlights are nearly everything about the Smithsonian, some of the monuments (hard to predict reactions), the mint, the subway. Me, I enjoy visiting my relatives planted in Arlington. And I REALLY like the Reagan gargoyle on the national cathedral.

I could well argue that this outcome is, in fact, a logical and predictable outcome resulting from a male-dominate past and, for the time-being, present. In this sense, those lazy, tube-watching, bloated pustules of junk food are expressing precisely their nature...they are the pinnacle of maleness. Have I offended anyone yet? I for one am glad to see more women as school principals because it usually accompanies greater ambition, drive, and competence. And it usually makes a better overall school. So much for my bias...heh, heh. And from my vantage, near the end of the educational process, I'm delighted to see women take a commanding lead in nearly all aspects of academics (except engineering, if you call that an academic exercise). Women are brighter, quicker, more willing to explore alternatives, they have greater sense of direction and initiative, and they are less likely to engage in counterproductive or dangerous social activities. In short, for a mentor whose time is precious, women are a surer bet for successful degree completion. And when this mentor eventually gets replaced by a talented young woman, I will be quite secure in the knowledge that she will be even better than I was. That said, I am also reminded that the Y-chromosome only has about 27 of its original 1000 or so genes left and it is slowly shrinking. The clock may be ticking on maleness. Tough luck guys. So go ahead guys, sit on the couch eating potato chips and watching TV. Go ahead and let your minds as well as your cojones shrivel away. The time is bearing down on you like a locomotive and you're frozen in stunned stupification by the glare of those video screens. You're on the edge of superfluity, maybe even over it already, and deservedly so. Bye, bye.

I've been following this with interest. I tend to agree with Dan and Beavah. Without arguing over ADHD and AS, they're just names we attach to the symptoms anyway, this boy may just have a void in his life that he needs to fill but can't articulate his need other than through his behaviors. Scouting might not be the thing that can fill that void. We tend to comprehend others through our own life experiences and, like imaginary friends, that comprehension just doesn't quite cut it at times. Scouting, as much as we might think it offers something for all boys, obviously doesn't when you consider the number who have chosen not to be part of it. And it is possible that this is for the best for all of us. It is possible that there is another path for this boy that might serve him better than scouting. Scouting obviously can't be the cure-all for everyone and this boy might find something else more to his liking as well as to his benefit. For example, Eamonn actually touched on this a little, perhaps unintentionally. If the boy does not display symptoms of cruelty to others (and you haven't mentioned it so I assume he doesn't) then he might benefit from another program in your area in which he cares for animals, better if it involves babies as well as old, sick, or dying animals. 4-H comes to mind. Combined with a mentor, he may come to appreciate the presence and struggles of other lives, animals in this case, and be able to develop more awareness of the persons around him as well. Life itself is really what he and all the rest of us have to come to terms with, and to confront it in our own lives it sometimes helps to have the clarifying (or confusing) experience of really watching other creature silently accept or endure their paths. Raise a lamb or some baby chicks to maturity and then kill and prepare them for food. That is a humbling lesson in reality that gives one a pretty good benchmark for comparison. I've seen this really change a young person in the past. I'm watching it happen right now. Another possibility is to get him into something that requires, and ALLOWS, really concentrated focus on an activity of interest. This is a little riskier because it takes him out of wide social contact but it could involve things like a chess club, an archery club, or even an after-hours science club in which the kids can pursue their own interests. He would be among like-minded children and, who knows, may discover talentd he didn't know he had. Just a couple of suggestions from someone who has dealt with a few of these.