packsaddle

Incomprehensible gobbledeegook! Me, I'll stick with science. John, here's a little something for you.

Yeah, this is the way the market is supposed to work. If there's a product you'd rather pay for elsewhere, go for it. It's your (troop's) decision and no one else's. Ignore the people who 'bank' on loyalty - in fact their failure to provide a competitive product may be evidence of THEIR disloyalty. Their concern is based more on a self-deception than on your decision to go elsewhere. Have a great trip.

Venividi, Gonzo1 certainly has his own view but I'm interested in yours. What religion is it that you think the enemy follows? The logical trap I laid is one that traps (in essence) when no one reponds to it. It just festers away with unanswered problems. Edited Part: Oops, I misspelled Venividi's name, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Vinividi, Here's the exact quote from Gonzo1, "I suppose some people think we could win by having tea and crumpets with these Godless, murderous bastards that want to kill all of us." If we distill this to its essence it means that we can't prevail against this enemy by being nice. However, while he does sprinkle some additional descriptions for emphasis, you must admit that he never, never, mentioned a religion. In fact, his assertion that the enemy is godless, well, implies no religion at all. If were to unfairly characterize your statement, I would note that your post asserts that those persons are Moslems and, to be unfair to you, I would note that your assertion implies a certain prejudice on YOUR part. 'nuff said. So...did anyone spot the trap I laid at the top of this page? I was hoping that someone would have 'called' me on this already.

In his defence, I know Gonzo1 and I know that although he may not have expressed himself perfectly, he is a fair person and does not automatically equate 'bad' with 'atheist'. I think he does understand that some people still do though and moreover, in some parts of the world atheists (and for that matter, people who shoot their mouths off like me) tend to die a little younger. That said I'm going to shoot some more...where does this number '72' come from? And about those virgins...who is it that came up with this crap? I'm astounded that there are people out there stupid enough to believe stuff like that. Oops, did I just say something naughty? I'm sleeping with my .45 tonight now for sure. And I'll probably blow a toe off by accident, h'mmm, ........maybe worse. Maybe I'll just keep it in its case after all.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Sounds like a need for some civil disobedience in order to protect some civil liberties. And then maybe a court case. Anyway, I say let freedom ring. If Ed Mori wants to parade down the street in a thong, so be it, although I can think of better persons for the exercise and I've never even seen Ed. But he should have that right. Hey, this could be a free speech thing for sure, what was that now-infamous banner..."Thongs fit for Ed"? Probably get shot down by the Supreme Court again though...dang that conservative judicial activism. OK, that said, wearing the hat backwards is stupid. You do have a right to do it but it's stupid. IMHO. Have a nice day.

Gern, there is no place on earth that can compare with the diversity of wonders you'll find there. But if you go at the wrong time, you will be left with a really bad taste for those road-choking masses of conspicuous consumption. My favorite time is May, right when snow melt has swollen the streams and the wildlife are probably the most active and concentrated of any time. I am going to take a chance and clip into this message a little essay I wrote a while back. You guys can play editor on me if you want but it captures just a little of the flavor of that time. My next favorite time is right around the time of closing for much of the park, around the first of September. One of my first treks there as a twenty-something was during that time of year. I walked about a hundred miles in the back-country and only met three people the whole time. Paradise. I got lucky and didn't get caught by an early snow, though. Might chance it again someday. But that time was great, there were almost no tourists still around and it was absolutely beautiful to watch a cloud go by in the distance, painting a white swath across the forest. BTW, I didn't mention the fishing. When I was really young you could catch your fill of cutthroat in just a few minutes. But someone illegally got lake trout started in Yellowstone Lake and they threaten to wipe out the cutthroats there. The only upside to this is...you can keep every lake trout you can catch out of the lake, no limit, actually it's illegal I think to put them back. Like they say in the card game, Go Fish. Here goes: When I arrived, the snow was still piled high and it was below freezing every night. During the many trips into the Beartooth Mountains and into Yellowstone, the wildlife seemed more abundant than at any other time of the year. Everything was active and starting the new season. This was the best time of year to be in the park. The morning sun was bright at this altitude and I was on the trail as early as possible. I would take the less traveled trails to gain access to areas that were rarely visited. Sometimes I left the trail completely and just climbed slopes that seemed endless, many new things could be discovered way away from the roads and trails. Crowds had not arrived so the animals were less concerned with humans. But when hiking off-trail I had to be careful because I, too, could be considered food. In the morning, mountain goats dotted the cliffs above, sometimes big horn sheep stood on hills opposite mine, and the river valleys were always teeming with bison, elk, deer, and pronghorn antelope. This is also the time of year for new life and the bison and elk, especially, were dropping their calves. Everywhere there were mothers and babies continuing their cycle of life. I spent each day watching this panorama. But this is also a time for the predators; black bears, grizzly bears, coyotes, and wolf packs. They had babies of their own. And they feasted on the other wildlife this time of year. I found bones of different ages nearly everywhere. Every place here is a killing ground. One evening as night approached, the Lamar Valley was still a place teeming with wildlife. In the lower flats on either side of the Lamar River, the snow was gone and there were so many animals that it was like a scene from Africa...except that we were at 7000 feet elevation and the slopes went up to 10,000 feet and were still covered with snow. The snow was melting and the rivers and streams were swollen with muddy, icy water. Some had flooded into the surrounding areas and all were rushing dangerously. This afternoon it was especially cold, dark, and rainy. An elk cow and her calf were on the other side of the Lamar River with many others. Bison were everywhere with their babies as well. The fog of their breath was visible in the cold, damp air. With every breath it blew away in the wind. A wolf pack had a kill a short distance down the valley and they could be heard as they feasted on their prey. Wolves and bears feast this time of year, especially on babies. They separate a mother from her baby and then move in to kill. Every place here is a killing ground. The elk cow wanted to cross the swollen river with her calf. It was cold, wet, and getting dark. She entered the river and was immediately swept away by the current. Her massive, powerful body was barely able to fight through the swift current but she eventually made it to the other side. She emerged exhausted. Then she called her baby. The calf called back and approached the river. The icy water was deep and swift. The rain was cold. The calf tried to enter and turned back after nearly being swept away. The cow called again, her eyes wild with alarm, and the calf responded with great distress and tried again. And again it failed. This continued for some time as the sky became darker and darker. The calf simply could not survive the river and it seemed to know this. But the elk cow could not seem to understand. They called to each other and then, inexplicably, the cow gave up calling and went on, as if driven by some other force. The calf had been abandoned. It called and called. It tried the river and could not cross. The wolves were moving again. Perhaps in the calf's mind a decision was made. It gave up trying to cross the river where it would certainly be killed. Instead, it kneeled on the bank and waited its fate. Darkness descended upon everything. In the dark, the only sounds were the rain, the river, and an occasional call from the calf for a mother that was no longer there...and the wolves. Eventually, wolves found the calf, its last cry recorded as it was devoured to make new life for baby wolves. The river was still icy, swift, and choked with mud. The wind was still strong and the rain was still cold. And the night was very, very dark.

We'll work with what you have then, no problem. West Yellowstone is fairly convenient as an entrance and the town itself is fun too. Traveling by bus will be slow and parking will limit your stops. You'll want to visit Mammoth but you probably won't spend much time there. It's a really interesting place but if you only see it once in a lifetime, it is less interesting than seeing the changes it goes through in time. The store has great coffee, ice cream, and souvenirs. Norris Basin is close to the West Yellowstone entrance and it's the hottest and most active area of the park. If the so-called 'super volcano' ever erupts it'll probably start in that area. There are many thermal features there so Norris is probably worth most of a morning or afternoon. The wildlife I mentioned will be more common up toward the Lamar River valley and elsewhere in that direction but you can see an amazing diversity other places by being carefully observant. From the West Entrance you can also get across to the Canyon area fairly easily. That's worth half a day by itself and probably the second most crowded area. And, of course there's always the Old Faithful (most crowded) area and others on the way to that area. That's probably a day. After you see the other thermal areas, the West Thumb area is going to be kind of tame. The Tower Falls area is worth a drive through and there are good opportunities to see wildlife at the thermal areas around there. Last spring we spotted big horn sheep, mountain goats, falcons, eagles, great grey owls, wolves, coyotes, black and grizzly bears (at great distance), as well as the really common stuff, buffalo, elk, deer, marmots, etc. all in one day. Take good binoculars. If you had the time, I'd point you out the NE entrance and up into the Beartooths. That's a great day too. There are great hikes to do almost anywhere in the park. Just stay together. You're still young and worth keeping around for a while. If you go back country, try to find a can of the high-strength bear spray to take with you. Don't play with it, it's really powerful and if you get a whiff you'll be in serious pain. Bears won't likely get anywhere near a group of scouts and all the noise you'll be making anyway. If one of you IS attacked be sure to wrap your hands around the back of your neck and pull your knees up tight to protect your stomach. You'll be in perfect position to kiss your butt goodbye. I always love that joke. Anyway, last spring I went solo (I'm old and expendable) off-trail in the backcountry and had a few great days. Found a grizzly kill and his(her?) bedding area nearby. Waited for a few hours but the bear never returned. Guess I smelled too bad. I found a great grey owl nest way up in a tree with one of them sitting on hatchlings. I found wonderful remote lakes with no evidence of human visitation whatsoever. Exquisite. You guys just pull up a chair anywhere and enjoy. The park is a wonderland.

Heck, I dish out punishment freely and often. I sing to them every opportunity. Sounds like things worked out as well as could be expected.

This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is essentially the same thing as the 'good old boy' system of operation. Money itself is not the problem. The problem is that people who have those kind of resources sometimes have an arrogance that is based on nothing more than spending power. That's not always the case, though, and if we all really did pay for our respective footprints (figuratively speaking) some of us would have a different perspective on things. The market approach is not all bad, it just needs to be applied honestly and consistently if at all. Seems a rare case though.

July is OK. The earlier you can get there, the better. If there was any way you could arrive in late May or early June, you might get to watch the wolves and grizzlies taking young elk or buffalo soon after calving. The streams will still be flowing full and you'll have more snow to play in. And you'll miss the really big crowds who arrive later in July (as well as those worst of all abominations, all those gargantuan motor homes). Any plans as to where to camp? Oops, I remember that cabin thing. Where did you reserve cabins?

I agree with Beavah. Be smart, be polite, be firm. Do the trip, without him if necessary. I have taken student groups to Yellowstone and can provide more ideas if you're interested. I've been in love with Yellowstone since my first trip in 1957. What time of year are you going and how long do you plan to be there?

BrotherhoodWWW, I credit you with bringing up some good topics for consideration as well as asking a few stimulating questions. I will only address a few of them...your supply was rather abundant. I guess I qualify as one of your 'experts' as in a previous career I was involved with several projects in your region, including the Columbia/Snake and Willamette systems, and others. It isn't the field of climatology but it does interact. And I suspect that people have wondered about the weather as long as they've been catching fish, that 'chicken/egg' comment would be hard to resolve. When I first completed my degree, working for industry, there were a few misguided administrative types who, let us say, miss-spoke by presenting me to the public as an 'expert'. I was flattered but I at the time I was nothing of the sort. It WAS an eye-opening experience for me to be thrust into that arena and left to fend on my own in the dog fight. And it is one of the reasons I don't automatically trust what industry says today. I matured with experience and healed wounds. In my next career in a government agency (when I did the work I mentioned above), I was again presented to the public as an 'expert'. Indeed, for many topics in my field, by that time I could be fairly characterized that way and the rest of the dogs and I were careful to gage our 'bites' when we entered into adversarial situations. To this day I cringe when someone refers to me as an 'expert'. I wonder, "Am I going to have to fight someone?" But today, partly because I did have decades of practical experience as well as formal education, I'm now on the education side...and loving it. Edison was an inventor who did use the scientific method. However, you do touch on an important distinction that many people don't grasp immediately. Scientific method is not creative. Groups of people (committees) are not creative. Individual people are creative. Edison was creative. However, the list of creative people who were, nevertheless, ineffective because of their lack of discipline would be a very long list indeed. The rigor of the process of science is what allows creative people to test their ideas and as efficiently-as-possible set aside the ones that don't, in fact, seem to work. I would suggest that this is ALWAYS the case, just more quickly for some than for others. On the lucky occasion that someone creates a wonderful, perfect idea first time around, THAT is something to be celebrated. It is rare. The oft repeated saying that genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration is probably close to the truth. The idea of cold fusion (again, my pet example) was created in the minds of two researchers who thought they had discovered a new breakthrough in electrochemistry. The rigor of the process of science has tempered that celebration just a bit and their career paths have been permanently altered. At least they weren't ruined by falsifying results...that brings a career to an absolute end. The best question for a dishonest scientist to practice is, "...would you like to supersize those fries?". Regarding your numerous comments regarding education there does emerge, I think not by design, a sort of triage situation in education. There are some people who, regardless of their instructors, will be self-directing and will aggressively seek academic and professional excellence, if necessary, by sweeping past some of the obstacles you note. I enjoy bringing new opportunities to these individuals and then standing aside to let them run, ready to help if they approach one of the numerous 'traps' that life offers to all of us. There are also a large number of young persons who, for a variety of reasons, will probably never achieve any significant educational status. I probably don't see many of these as they usually terminate prior to college or even the high school degree. Between these two groups are the majority of young people who need various levels of instruction and assistance. It is important to understand that while teaching is something often done in a group setting, 'learning' is something that is always done by the individual and all individuals are free to reject what they are being taught. I observe this frequently in spite of the selection process for acceptance to this institution. This occurs universally and all of us who successfully completed degrees remember numerous individuals who didn't make it. I wish them well but they made a choice to take a different path. I take the attitude that every last one of this middle group has the personal capability to join the first group that I described. And I make sure they have the opportunity to do so...if they choose to. Sometimes, I'm happy to report, the light does come on and they take the plunge. That's pretty cool. Some of the tough questions for educators include how to invest resources for the optimal results given these three groups. I've grossly oversimplified this, I hope you understand. What you observe is a reflection of these conflicting forces as they have been affected by the collective demands of your community. As I've noted in other threads, in this country and under this system, we have the opportunities and usually get what we demand. The flip side is, don't necessarily lay the responsibility for failure on someone else. That responsibility usually goes to the individual as well.

Yeah, I've been reading that other thread. I'm not clear about what you just meant in your reply though. If you are saying that it is better to examine ideas than to attack persons holding the ideas, you must know by now that I agree with you. If you are saying that some of us employ terms like 'bigot' in a way that detracts from discussion of ideas, I also agree with you. I wish we would refrain from using labels as a means of dismissing ideas without actually addressing the ideas. However, the term 'bigot' exists and as long as it is available, I think it would be nice to employ it correctly...and you seemed to be confused about this. Or am I wrong?

LongHaul, The exercise won't work if you use redundant or circular situations. The criminal categories that you mentioned are, by definition, bad - at least in this society. That being the case, it is hardly bigoted to correctly apply the descriptor that follows from the definition. Is this really not clear to you? A rapist is, by definition, a bad person. A criminal is, by definition, a bad person (or at least someone who did something bad enough to be convicted of a crime). It's like saying that a bad guy is 'bad'. Accurate application of a description based on the definition is neither a prejudiced nor a bigoted act. However, if a person applies a pejorative to a group that is not defined in those terms, then either the application of the pejorative must be based on some kind of evidence or else it might be prejudice. If evidence to the contrary does not change a prejudicial characterization (obstinately held) then bigotry could be invoked. C'mon, this is not that difficult.

I have often been aware of the development of contempt after familiarity. But I wonder sometimes...is it possible that a person will use an interaction that seems like contempt (or rudeness) in order to appear familiar in a new situation? I think so. It is a way to compensate for a personal feeling of some kind of insecurity. In this case, you must make your own best judgement and, as you said, he's done with his eagle...only thing left is to figure out what really happened. You (and we) may never know for sure. And chances are, by the time you think you really have figured it out, he'll have grown into a different person, possibly a better one, because you tolerated him and thereby gave him that opportunity. I'd just shrug and turn my attention to the rest of the troop.

Brent, I think I saw some of those same films but at a later age. I'm not sure who made them but as I mentioned in another thread about education, local schools can indeed adopt materials and methods that reflect the interests of the local parents and electorate. You'll enjoy this one...the Gore movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", is available for free to teachers or at least it was recently. The caveat was something along the lines that it must be made part of the curriculum or something like that...I've probably bungled the details but it's something along those lines. As I understand it, there has been a cool reception by educators to this 'freebie'. The most common reason I've heard is the time investment that would take away from more needed, basic topics. I quite agree. On the other hand, while it is fair for you to ask the question, I note that for you to CONCLUDE that there is no human influence on global climate change suffers from the very same softness of evidence for which you criticize those with the opposite view. I hope that you are susceptible to good solid evidence that might change your mind, if such comes along. But in order to detect that, I ask you, what evidence would you require to cause you to change your view on global climate change? But back to the bogus 911 claims...yes I've heard about these claims too. I find them less entertaining than the alien resistance force literature that I enjoyed in Roswell, NM. Peer review might imply that such review is done by scientific friends that we know and who agree with us. I am sure that this does in fact happen from time to time. But this associate editor for a scientific journal - (and the others I know) - tries to pick reviewers that are inclined to criticize and find flaws and errors in submitted papers. Ideally, we want to detect flaws or mistakes BEFORE we embarrass everyone involved by putting it all in print. That's why I so often refer to the cold fusion episode. The guys who did that were real scientists who honestly thought they had some real results. There are still a small number of real scientists who still think there's something to the idea. Most scientists don't. Nevertheless, every last one of us would like to see it work. And every last one of us would like to see a definitive experiment that supports the idea. But we'll blow the ideas out of the water with experimental evidence if we can. Same for the 911 claims. If the people promoting those ideas can bring sufficiently good evidence to the table, they will get a fair hearing. They HAVE gotten a fair hearing so far and, as a result, most critical reviewers reject the claims. It has been my experience that conspiracy theorists (and I've grown up with and known hundreds) are highly dependent on blind faith, once they've established their view. Such ideas are crafted to be inherently resistant to contrary evidence. Science is not as clean and clear as it is taught in high school, or college for that matter. We tend to teach the successes and forget the dead ends and failures that, in fact, are also important. There is a good book out now that would make an entertaining read along these lines if anyone is interested, "The Ghost Map". It is the story of several days in London and a cholera epidemic...and the way the cause was discovered. If you do read it, my advice is to pretend that the book ends on page 228 because after that it is rather senseless and the author goes way out of his area of expertise. But before that it is a fun read and it will tell you a lot about how ideas were treated back in the mid-19th century. Plus it's a reasonably good mystery. Bon appetite.

This week as a matter of fact. Their car had a flat and the owner didn't know how to change it. I've done this or similar things quite a few times over the years. But there's usually quite a few others stopping to help as well - it might be a regional thing. Had just a few occasions to help people at automobile collisions, some of them really bad (Brent, Gonzo1, you reading this? One was at mile 137 northbound on I85...that one was to write about). Fortunately the ones I've been in had no injuries...whew!

I could be wrong but I suspect that Gunny2862 is not a scientist, at least not one who knows how science is supposed to work. I can't speak for persons who attempted to find rational explanations for observable phenomena during the first century or the first half of the second. However, since Copernicus, Galileo and some others who contributed to modern scientific method...and especially since Popper, Kuhn, Kant and a few others, science does not strive to make anyone believe anything. In fact, a scientist engaged in a good experiment is trying to make observations that provide evidence that can allow him(her) to REJECT an idea. If he fails to find such evidence and if previous evidence supports the idea, then it is tentatively accepted pending further examination. Gunny2862's assertion that scientists gather in order somehow to find a way to agree is incorrect if his assertion assumes the scientists are willing to set aside evidence to the contrary. "My problem with peer review is that any group of ninnies can get together and vouch for the accuracy of the groups findings, and when challenged fall back on their accumulated aggregate credentials and attack the challenger on the basis of not knowing enough to understand what the experts are really talking about." The above characterization is an incredibly ignorant view of the scientific process and I challenge Gunny2862 to provide a detailed account for one such example. In fact most scientists tend to argue, sometimes bitterly, over minute details that most of the rest of us would just shrug at. This is one reason that attorneys don't particularly like to put scientists on the witness stand. At the same time, those contentious scientists ARE quite happy to subject all the other ideas to the same level of critical scrutiny (some of which have been mentioned in this thread) and if the preponderance of evidence is against those ideas, then the ideas sometimes become a target for criticism or ridicule. And where ideas are not available to rational or objective observation, they are sometimes merely ridiculed as such (this may be one source of resentment for some persons of faith). Anyone who attempts to publish something that is even remotely controversial in a scientific journal is opening themselves to a withering attack by anonymous reviewers itching to carve another notch on their rejection lists. It isn't a perfect system but it tends to self-correct for any mistakes that a scientist might make along the way (I submit the sad story of cold fusion as an example). It isn't perfect but it is the system that has brought us the technologies that we take for granted today...yes, and many of the associated problems. Every last one of us is free to reject it all and put their lives purely and completely in the hands of faith alone. Not many of us choose that path...for good rational reasons.

LongHaul, I was fishing from a pier many years ago. A guy down the way caught an eel. No one else was catching anything so we all gathered around. I was a young biology student so I wanted to hold the animal and see it more closely. The guy who caught it didn't mind but then he started telling everyone that eels were pretty much like snakes, only in the ocean. I started to correct him and he got mad at me. So I tried to explain the differences between a fish and a reptile and it just made him angrier. I am convinced he was ready to commit a violent act to defend his strongly held view. And even though he was completely wrong in his assertion, I decided that the whole crowd was free to live in ignorance if the price of their enlightenment was pain and suffering for me. I slithered back to my place on the pier. I see your point. For the life of me I can't view the guy as a bigot. However, if he had been standing in front of a black child (and I did have this experience later in life as well) explaining how this child was inherently inferior because of some false ideas about human physiology, for example, I would have quickly and easily applied the term, bigot, to him. I think I follow what Gern wrote in that prejudice is something that can be set aside if we are available to knowledge and reasoning. If we reject knowledge and reasoning in order to sustain or protect our prejudices, then we just might fit the definition of 'bigot'. The snake/fish thing still gets my goat to this day. So does the experience with the redneck and the black child.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

C'mon Longhaul, are you really confused? Do you really think that advocating freedom for all people is bigoted under any definition? If so, please explain.

If you read my posts, you will know that I agree with TJ's comment about labels. But Merlyn caused me to remember something to add: While I am familiar with the authors to whom Merlyn refers, care should be taken in the interpretation. They do not conclude that reluctance to critically examine ideas based on religious belief is a form of political correctness although it might seem that way to some of us - and although political correctness certainly seems to have caused some politicians to modify their public views in matters of faith. It isn't the same thing. Rather, these authors advocate that ALL ideas (religious or otherwise) be equally available to open, critical examination without fear of recriminations or worse. As it happens, we, as a society do seem to give matters of faith special treatment in comparison, say, to matters of economics, or other controversial aspects of society. Why do we do that? My answer to them is, "Grow UP!" They obviously already have the freedom that they advocate because they ARE openly, critically examining religious faith and they're still alive. We ALL have that freedom. So what if people call them mean names. OK, Rushdie's days might be numbered...h'mmm maybe they have a point. But what I wish is that EVERYONE personally engaged in the same freedom that they enjoy. Better to have the David Dukes and Fred Phelps out there in the open than have them meeting in secret to hatch who-knows-what plots. Plus, it's really entertaining to watch. "Always look on the bright side of life...." Just a glass-half-full kind of guy, I guess.

H'mmm. Perhaps Merriam-Webster is a secret component of a vast 'left-wing conspiracy'. Hey man, I didn't 'invent' the definition, I just quoted it for everyone. If you think the result is that religious believers are thereby defined as bigots, that's your interpretation - but I admit it IS an interesting interpretation.

So why not just quote him accurately? Instead of 'inventing' something that isn't a direct quote? Anyway, I am still trying to decipher part of your post... "Words mean things, something that the liberal in our society fail to understand." OK, which liberal? Does he have a name? And well, DUH! Of course words mean things. This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, the bald ego, "Words have meaning" - DUH! again. Words are symbols and as such they are typographical conveniences for ideas. But when words are spoken or written, why change them when a direct quote is so much more accurate? But now that you mention it, I'm curious. Please supply me with some examples when persons on 'the right' (whatever that means) have mis-spoken and were subsequently misquoted. I'd like to see the list. Or is that what you meant?

mtm25653, 1. There are gay leaders in boy scouts. 2. You don't know who they are. 3. There's nothing you can do about it. 4. It's not a big deal, don't worry, be happy. The BSA policy, more and more as suggested above, is becoming irrelevant to all except those for whom the policy makes them comfortable with their prejudices.