packsaddle

I vote 'firearm' as well. 'Shooting sports' is good too. When I was growing up, most of the guns around me squirted grease, caulk, or paint. Today the place is awash in firearms. When I was growing up, owning a .22 rifle was a big deal. Today some of us only feel complete with personal arsenals. South Carolina is now considering a law to allow concealed weapons in schools. As I read it, this will include sports events like football games, etc. Teachers may want to be extra careful what they say during lecture ...Things have certainly changed.

Back from paradise, I'm afraid, good things rarely last forever. BSA is, and always has been, in control of this. BSA chose to make and enforce (however sloppily, Ed) a membership policy that is also of BSA's choice. The potential consequences were obvious and BSA did it anyway. BadenP notes these tragic consequences and I submit that they are tragic mostly for the boys who will not be able to participate...and it has already been tragic for boys who were excluded because of the policy. But BSA made its bed and now BSA will suffer whatever consequences arise. The real tragedy is that BSA could change the policy as easily as BSA created it in the first place...but they won't. In this respect, BSA is - by its own decisions - responsible for the tragic situation. The solution is so easy...a stroke of a pen and then some time to heal the wounds and repair the public view. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not in a hotel in Philly but rather in the midst of paradise on Dominica. Mangos are ripe everywhere, the fish are straight from the sea, and the people are all friendly and welcoming. And for some reason, I visited scouter.com and found two troubling things that I hadn't noticed before: 1) denigration of leeches (at least using them in a pejorative manner) and, 2) denigration of Philadelphia. OK, I know it'll be tough to defend leeches but I have to say I like Philadelphia. I always enjoy their little Little Italy and Cheng's Szechuan was the best Chinese restaurant I've ever been to (sadly, it is reputed to have closed). And then there's the Academy of Natural Sciences, Jimmy's Milan, the Bartram Home, the arboretum, Longwood Gardens, and much, much more. And....dare I mention it...if you stand in the right spot and look at Franklin's statue in just the right profile...... Anyway, it's good to see things haven't changed much in the forums. Maybe someday I'll come back, but today I'm off to swim in one more idyllic pool below a waterfall in paradise. See ya 'round.

We have them. Hot water too (I'm always there at around 0530). And flush toilets that only seem to clog once a day. They're recent upgrades to the camp, though, I think mandated by local codes or something.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

There are several ways to address this, starting with a friendly reminder of the way the program and methods work. I surmise that this, however, has been ineffective...a fairly common result if the person is opinionated. I think you were right to take it easy. Going head-to-head is likely to merely drive a strongly opinionated person deeper into their wrong-thinking. One way to circumvent this problem in the future without a direct confrontation is to combine the numerous camping skills necessary for this kind of campout into a patrol contest. If the scoring is structured such that the patrol loses points for each member who doesn't demonstrate the skills then peer pressure might provide the constructive force you need. Mom will be overuled by her son. A more direct way to address the problem is through the committee. Every member of the committee as well as the troop leadership should receive training. If the training is effective this will convey the message regarding 'boy led', etc. The committee at present evidently doesn't understand the program or the method and they lack the knowledge needed to identify the problem, much less address it. By itself, however, training will not outweigh strong, opinionated personalities especially if they are in a parent of one of the boys. To reinforce the message, we once invited a couple of leaders from a very successful program to visit and offer pointers and comments. If you prompt them ahead of time regarding the problems they can provide 'independent' comments that provide the needed reinforcement. If the committee as a whole understands the program and the method, then the committee will be better able to address this particular problem. But it will take some care to change her mind without conflict.

One solution is to cut back on the driving and discover the wonderful features many of us have right here at home. And if we need more, we get to work on making the features we have better. For the long trips we use the method Oak Tree describes. I think the price will have to pass $5 to $7 per gallon before we seriously start to modify our behaviors. To me, that bicycle doesn't look so much like a toy anymore. May be time to pull that motorcycle out of mothballs as well?

Wow Zahnada, and I thought I could convey a negative outlook... I guess we can always hope for a few of us to be whisked away during some future rapture or something.

Believe me, anything the little guys do for this commemoration will be viewed in a positive light. Go for it!

Thankfully, I have never been tested in this manner. However, Eamonn, as others have already written, you did what you needed to do and acted properly. I would only add that the fact that you feel this way, worrying about doing the right thing in retrospect, is further evidence of the intensity that you sincerely care for young people and try to provide for their guidance and nurture. It only raises you further in my already high estimation.

Beavah, I think you're correct about the way to view these things. My concern is that the ability of the public to make such an objective assessment is diminished by scientific illiteracy. I enjoy these occasional threads because they give me a snapshot into this status for the public. Scientific literacy doesn't have to mean that everyone understands the technical details of all these issues. What it does require is that the public understands the importance of honestly questioning the ideas that are presented to them, including those they already hold. This, I have observed, is rare and it seems even rarer now than it has been. Case in point: "The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated (see below graph where data used in the averaging is highlighted). This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend." This quote from the previously cited article is so loaded with problems that I may use it in an exercise for one of my classes. For example, the method of measuring the average CO2 content is not really described in enough detail to know whether or not it is a good method. Where do you take the measurements? When? Which direct chemical methods? Were they all the same? If not what bias do the differences introduce? I could go on with this but you get the idea. I question if the respondents in this thread can even name one of the several methods of analysis without resorting to a web search, much less understand how it works. The statement about 'cherry-picking' the data is so completely unprofessional that it defies explanation. No evidence is given for even a single example of 'cherry-picking' except that the results do not fit the views of the authors. The reader can conclude nothing from what they say but a person whose scientific literacy is limited might be tempted to nod knowingly and agree. The ability to ask penetrating questions and understand how to pick these problems apart requires a discipline in which the person is willing to apply that critical view to their own ideas as well. I think you would agree this is exceedingly rare. My concern about scientific literacy is really a concern for the future of our country and our children. I see highly qualified students in college science classes who can barely perform calculations using algebra. At the same time I learn that in China, the goal is for all high school students to learn calculus. My institution, with a strong engineering school, is concerned that a certain subset of incoming students, having graduated with high school degrees, are nevertheless woefully unprepared for college-level science and engineering. These students are almost exclusively home-schooled. At the same time I read that Reverend Page is hoping that the Southern Baptists can establish a separate Christian public school system in order to, "to expand greatly opportunities for all children to receive a Christian education". Exodus Mandate, a smaller subset of Baptists, goes even further in its promotion of home schooling "to encourage and assist Christian families to leave government schools for the Promised Land of Christian schools or home schooling." While I recognize that there is no reason these children cannot become scientifically literate in these settings, I wonder how likely these settings will be to provide that kind of instruction. I have some doubts that the young person who graduates from these programs will have the skills to criticize, for example, the statement that spitting is somehow equivalent to burning coal. I could be wrong and I hope that I am, but if my doubts are correct, compared to global competition for intellectual, economic, and natural resources, future global climate change will hardly be the top concern for many of us in this country. But I guess that goes without saying already.

I also share your concern. This parent's imagination pictures an envious boy trying some of this stuff on a later date after he sneaks out to the park with daddy's pistol... That said, the council, I think, takes all of the responsiblity here. If they have approved this demonstration then BSA must back it all the way. If I'm wrong about this I hope someone corrects me.

Kudu was not a clear as he might have been regarding his first statement. I read it again and my take on it was that BSA felt it necessary first to respect the rights of those 'fringe' religious persons and their practices - and then to disclaim any responsibility if something tragic occurs as a result. This may be legally correct, perhaps, but not exactly a courageous approach IMHO.

Just finished, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution" and Dawkins', "The God Delusion". Starting, "The Evolution of Morality" and "Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved". Also taking a look at a very old book, "The Human Mind and the Behavior of Man" by Wells, Huxley, and Wells. I'm rereading "Water From Heaven" as a senior seminar topic source. A note off topic. While sitting for graduation, I was able to identify some of my (now much older) cub scouts who have attained degrees in their chosen fields. It is nice to see boys who start well as scouts and then continue to start well as professionals. This is the true reward for mentorship.

Back from a really nice, somewhat drier, backpacking trip. Gonzo1, weather makes a lot of difference. But the route we took is one you should consider for the next time out. While I'm there, I need to note that I think I agree with Gonzo1 regarding planetary destruction. Evolutionary history is filled with events that affect the entire planet and I could make an argument that the proliferation of our species already has affected the entire planet...in numbers of people if nothing else. But as for destruction, even total nuclear holocaust - and I mean every warhead on the planet strategically placed in order to do the maximum harm - would not destroy the planet or even the biosphere. We might not recognize it but it would still be there. My opinion, given the way so many of us survive under wretched conditions, is that even our species would survive in some form (although certainly not under conditions that any of us would choose). Brent, I think, is correct with respect to the nature of the arguments and impacts. We are mostly concerned with effects on people, and mostly in terms of money and politics. Brent, if you have seen enough evidence to firm up your opinion, that is your choice. I hope you are susceptible to reason if further evidence comes to light that might cause you to reconsider. Trevorum, it was Rooster7. Fscouter, the CO2 does go into carbohydrates. This eventually is metabolized (or burned, oxidized) forming CO2 and H2O. Some of that H2O may be later split during photosynthesis to release O2. There is a cycle but it isn't as tightly coupled as many might think. Dan Kroh, I think you're partially right. It's going to be interesting and we eventually ARE going to see the results. I suspect, however, that some of us will continue to engage in self-deceptions and believe a wide variety of things, despite evidence to the contrary. Oak Tree, I agree. The only thing that will ultimately limit our extraction and combustion of carbon is its price. The proposed measures to limit the expected impact are going to be minimal in comparison. It will be interesting.

Brent, Oops, sorry about that subscription thing. Those sites automatically recognize me so I tend to forget that detail. I'll clip a little of it below so you at least get the 'feeling' of the cutting edge. >title and abstract< I think you can get this without subscription: Nature 412, 523-527 (2 August 2001) | doi:10.1038/35087544; Received 7 February 2001; Accepted 19 June 2001 Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction Kurt M. Cuffey1 and Franoise Vimeux2 Department of Geography, and Department of Earth and Planetary Science, 507 McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-4740, USA Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS 1572, CEA Saclay, Batiment 709, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France Correspondence to: Kurt M. Cuffey1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to K.M.C. (e-mail: Email: kcuffey@socrates.berkeley.edu). Abstract: Ice-core measurements of carbon dioxide and the deuterium palaeothermometer reveal significant covariation of temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the climate cycles of the past ice ages. This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an important forcing factor for climate. But this interpretation is challenged by some substantial mismatches of the CO2 and deuterium records, especially during the onset of the last glaciation, about 120 kyr ago. Here we incorporate measurements of deuterium excess from Vostok in the temperature reconstruction and show that much of the mismatch is an artefact caused by variations of climate in the water vapour source regions. Using a model that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate for the covariation of CO2 and temperature, of r2 = 0.89 for the past 150 kyr and r2 = 0.84 for the period 350150 kyr ago. Given the complexity of the biogeochemical systems involved, this close relationship strongly supports the importance of carbon dioxide as a forcing factor of climate. Our results also suggest that the mechanisms responsible for the drawdown of CO2 may be more responsive to temperature than previously thought. >Back to me, I'm afraid. Sorry, even with the html formatter I can't seem to get the equations to show up in this post. One alternative would be to actually go to the library and look it up. Better yet, write the author at his email address and he'll send you a legit copy, courtesy of the author. Brent, you might also engage him in a dialogue regarding your suspicions about scientific honesty. Then share his reponse with me, I'm curious to know how he responds. However, in the abstract you will notice that they claim to have found the reason for the apparent mismatch between CO2 and temperature. The body of the paper explains their reasoning. I'm afraid that after searching for a while for a free version of this, I have failed to locate one so you'll have to get it on your own. Anyone who wants to ascertain the truth about this needs to understand the scientific basis for these predictions. Failing that, you are left with conflicting opinions that are embarrassingly shallow...on both sides. I too cringe when I think about Al Gore's movie. It has, at least, caused people to think about the issue whether they agree or not. And 'thinking' is something that I 'think' Americans should do more of. Lately they don't seem very good at it. Brent, I am very sympathetic to your mistrust of money and politics as motivations for action. However, the term 'fact' is being used by both sides to support their personal prejudices. On the proponent side, I hear the term used to try to support actions that they think are prudent. On the nay-sayer side the term is again used, almost as a pejorative, to attack the proponents. I view both approaches as intellectually bankrupt. You speak of data and yet you yourself have produced none whatsoever. Instead you argue about why someone applied a certain name to an island. This is not science. You suspect the motivation or support for the core research, yet you have the ability to determine who did it and through what support...online. Go ahead...investigate it. You are not alone. Comparisons between Mercury, Venus, and Mars are incomprehensible. Mercury has no atmosphere at all and both Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost totally CO2. There is nothing comparable to Earth, in fact our ideas about those other planets are based largely on physical processes and relationships that we first discovered and applied on Earth! As for some of the rest of these responses, folks, this is embarrassing...the oxygen produced by plants does NOT come from CO2. It is produced during photosynthesis when water molecules are split in photosystem II. This is middle school science, folks. I think there is a television show that compares adults to 5th graders or something like that. My observation so far is that the adults have a steep hill to climb if they are going to win. But good luck anyway.

Heh, heh. OK just for fun: I challenge all members of the forum to read this paper and offer a thoughtful summary and critical analysis. "Go ahead, make my day"...where did I hear that before? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html" If you didn't just gobble that up, here's one that is a little tamer: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ Entitled, "The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gores got it right.)" This paper, written by actual climatologists, explains the real and not-real lags and why this stuff makes sense...and in terms that are a little easier to grasp. However, I caution everyone...if you couldn't digest that first paper, the second one is not cutting edge science but rather an attempt to take cutting edge science and make it accessible to non-scientists. There is a limit to every translation and science is no exception. Bon appetite!

Brent, I doubt that Reid Bryson is dismissed as a "denier". At least I don't. He fashions his ideas carefully and then puts them on the table for criticism same as other scientists. I wish I had lots of students with his skeptical eye in my courses. But he is subject to the same failings that all of us are and as fun as it is to listen to him debate his critics, the evidence remains. He is not denying the CO2 increases. He is not denying changes in climate. He is merely saying, as I mentioned before, there is some question as to the sources of the CO2 and the predicted effect. Everyone who has ever run a large-scale, complex environmental model knows there is tremendous uncertainty in some of the predictions. No one denies that. As a scientist he remains susceptible to reason and objective evidence. In fact this is the major reason he isn't dismissed as merely a person with some selfish agenda. I agree with you regarding money and politics. The scientists in the trenches, at least the ones I know, are not in the business for either reason. In fact, we tend to cringe at the thought because politically-motivated funding is notoriously undependable. I have seen this personally. A congressman puts an earmark in some spending bill...a lab ramps up to address a real problem...good people are hired to do good work...and then another political whim kills the project through malice or neglect, often before it has been completed. It is indeed a waste. However, with regard to global climate change, I suspect that most of the naysayers have their money-driven political agendas as well. Do you disagree? It seems to be the American way. Sorry about the negative vibes, but my personal feeling is that 1) if this IS a global problem, in the end we're going to do nothing about it and 2) Even if we arrogantly tried to do something about it, we'd flub that as well. We're going to be subject to evolutionarly forces and under the wrong conditions THAT can be a real gas! (pun intended) I think that if we live long enough we'll get to see the answer to some of these questions for better or worse. And I, for one, am not optimistic. However, I do rather enjoy the idea of alligators and piranhas and other exotics (maybe even that nasty Candiru fish) in our temperate lakes...and extending the ranges of cottonmouths, malaria, dengue fever, various schistosomes, etc. (Dogs, swimmers, skiers, and children, BEWARE!) It brings new meaning to the exclamation, COOL!

LisaBob, I agree completely. Eamonn, Betty Ford is a far greater human being than her detractor, the very small man at Bob Jones University. He can't dance either (you know...that religion thing). Cross-pollenating from another thread regarding letters of recommendation, this council doesn't ask for letters and asks not to receive them if they are supplied anyway. But it seems to me that the questions we were pressing on Ed could just as fairly be pressed on the reference letter that started this. How does the reference know this to be true? What is the evidence? Etc, etc. If a reference sends a letter containing very negative, personal information of a very private nature, I have some bad feelings about a BSA program being used as the vehicle to spread this among even more people, especially if any of the claims are open to question. Moreover, in this particular case, a young woman presumably will also have her private life exposed via the BSA program. I have to admit I would find that to be far more reprehensible than what Bob Jones said about Betty Ford. If I am asked to write a letter of reference, I always, ALWAYS, tell the person immediately whether or not I can do it in a manner that supports their goal. If I can't write a good letter, I decline to write it at all and I tell them why. It would be dishonest for me to agree to write a letter and then use the opportunity to 'stab them in the back' with a bad letter. I consider anyone who did something like that to be a small man (woman). If the person acting as a reference had merely declined, this would not be an issue for the EBOR or BSA. And the young people who are allegedly involved could face their alleged responsibilities in private.

Hey Gonzo1, someone I admire once said something along the lines, "a bad day on the trail is better than a good day in the office" or something like that. Do you remember how that goes? Anyway, I enjoyed it thoroughly. (In my best Bogart impersonation) 'It's the stuff that dreams are made of...' I just regret that the weather got in the way of some of the things we wanted to do...oh well, next trip! Fishsqueezer is correct. Science never really proves anything absolutely. Everything that we think is a fact is always open for criticism and reconsideration based on objective evidence, should someone produce such evidence. This is the principal difference between science-based and faith-based 'knowledge'. The good scientist takes pleasure in unmasking falsehoods. Our acceptance of so-called facts is always tentative. Or as a good scientist I knew a long time ago often said, "A fact is something that is not currently under investigation". Beavah, I tend to agree with your characterization of the 'facts not consensus' approach as possibly being untrustworthy. I am willing to allow that some of them are merely undisciplined in critical thinking. But we are all subject to prejudice and self-deceptions. The beauty of science is that as a community we have a self-correcting mechanism to weed out these deceptions. And we don't have to kill anyone because they don't think like we do. I think it is a superior approach to ideas...anyone disagree?

Eamonn, Your post reminded me how often I have also heard young persons refer to any particular young woman as a 'slut'. This invokes a strong reaction in me, mostly because of the most famous occasion I ever heard in which Dr. Bob Jones of Bob Jones University called first lady Betty Ford a slut. My estimation of anyone who does something like that is very low. It's the price they pay for their bad choices and my long memory. Ed, I'm still waiting as well. I second LisaBob's estimation that you're not a bad guy. But either you have not thought this through and should admit it if that's the case, or else you have-in which case we all would greatly benefit from your solution so you should share it with us.

ED-ucate me Ed. I asked, "How do you know there is any truth to this in the first place?" You replied, "In answer to all your questions, packsaddle, you need to make sure what you have heard is true." DUH! and then, "A little investigation can resolve that. Once you are sure you have the facts, you handle the situation appropriately." Well DUUHH AGAIN! I'm asking for the details, Ed. How are you going to accomplish this 'investigation'? How are you going to establish the truth in the first place? You say you're not poking your nose into someone else's business. On what basis do you think this is YOUR business? Come on, it either IS your business or it is NOT your business. Which is it?

You forgot to mention use of the left hand only and to make sure the fingernails were clipped at least on the finger of choice...and I mean really, really close. REALLY close.

Ed, since you seem to advocate poking your nose into their business, I'm interested in learning how you propose to do it. Start from the point where you learn about the situation in the first place. How did you learn this? Gossip? Rumor? The young woman? How do you know there is any truth to this in the first place? How do you learn the details without confronting the principal parties? And on what authority do you confront them? Perhaps she's withholding important information (like the true identity of the father). How do you propose to learn that? Are you going to confront the parents? If not, why not? If so, how are you going to do this? On what authority? These are just a few questions before you even get started on your quest to teach them a lesson in morality. Answer these first and then we can go on to the inquisition.

I guess I have an unusual perspective since I teach this stuff. (Trevorum, I also get to dabble with evolution from time to time, great fun BTW!) But reading this thread presents a reasonably good cross-section of views that I have encountered with the exception of a view that is equivalent to the belief that the sun and all other celestial objects revolve around the earth or that the universe is only a few thousand years old. That extreme equivalent would be that there is no such thing as global climate change. In case someone with that extreme view is out there somewhere, unless you are a young-earther, the global climate has always been in a process of change since the formation of the planet. What's the big problem? Also, note that the catch-phrase, 'global warming' is erroneous in that it implies that the effect is actually 'warming' of the entire earth. 'Global climate change' more accurately expresses the problem although that catch-phrase also leaves much to be desired, namely the evidence and processes and observations. Here's one link for a reasonable summary: http://oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm SMDaveAZ also mentioned ozone depletion as if it was a fad. If he meant it was a fad with the popular press, I think he was correct. But with the ozone 'hole', more accurately 'depletion' problem, a real laboratory chemical reaction was hypothesized to occur in the atmosphere. Field tests and measurements confirmed that the reaction does indeed take place and the 'hole' that develops over the Antarctic and the depletion that occurs elsewhere is clearly a result of chlorofluorocarbon gases that we released...there has never been another source. Even with the decreased release of those gases, the effect will linger for decades because of the 'clearing time' necessary for the removal from the atmosphere. Another round of skin cancer for everyone! There is no doubt about some objective evidence for CO2 increases and climate change. Loss of glaciers is one (thanks for noting that, Beavah). Another is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount of effect is more difficult but the major arguments revolve around the question of what is the cause? It is human or natural? It seems that even the Bush administration has recently learned to read although I doubt that they will ever agree with Kyoto. Not that it matters to me. I heard one of the nay-sayer views articulated on a talk show today (Boortz, syndicated out of Atlanta). He got part of it right but then flubbed the process. The biggest and most important 'greenhouse gas' is and always has been...water vapor. It just so happens that we have absolutely no direct control over it whatsoever. Other 'greenhouse gases' include such things as methane, oxides of nitrogen, ozone, etc. Whenever the troop serves up beans on the menu, I comment that it's going to be a little warmer. I don't think they ever get it though. CO2 is the one we know we contribute to and although we are less certain about all its sources and their relative contributions, we are very certain about its increase. We also have good estimates of what the atmosphere contained going back several hundred thousand years (apologies to the young-earthers). The second slide in this link shows the results of the Vostoc ice core from the Antarctic ice. It goes back about 400 thousand years: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/peyresq2003/talks/0918/koerner/koerner_presentation.pdf CO2 concentrations were a lot less over that time than we have now. And what we have now is increasing to levels that we have never measured (this is where the 'hockey stick' graph of the last 1000 years of temperatures often comes into the discussion). Here's a link to a discussion of that plot and how it has been received by the esteemed body of our representatives. The plot itself is at the end of the darkly humorous article: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i03/03a01001.htm I just love this stuff. But I also note that the only limit that we will likely place on carbon emissions will have more to do with the price of fuel, and less with our social conscience (which I personally doubt that anyone would care to rely on). Also, I like to note that we can be energy self-sufficient in a couple of days. All we have to do is stop burning so much fuel (yeah, I know the reality of THAT, too). Nuclear power, I'm open to that IF the Price-Anderson limits on liablity are eliminated and IF a solution to the waste-storage/management problem can be found. On the other hand, I'm an optimist. OK, I sunburn easily so I know it's the ozone thing that's going to get me. But in the meantime, we're going to be able to grow palm trees and extend the habitats for so many species by putting more moisture in the air and warming things a little. OK, maybe more tropical diseases will move into temperate zones. OK, maybe some of those species aren't exactly things we WANT to live with. OK, maybe some will go away that we DO want to live with, hey, extinction is a natural process. OK, maybe Kansas and Oklahoma and Nebraska and other places need to get warm and fuzzy with a lot more tornados. Maybe we want to rethink rebuilding a city that is below sea level? Especially if, as we know quite well, sea level is rising? But word to the wise...buy property at the right elevation, maybe bracketing the 20-150 foot band, and just wait. Someday your beachfront property will be worth millions. Yeah it'll take a few generations. But then, considering what we've already done with our national debt, we already know we don't really care about the next generations anyway. I sometimes wonder if Omar Khayyam didn't have it right after all? Edited part: Hey Gonzo1, I think we were writing at the same time. Anyway, I think I can explain the TP factor. It depends a lot on what I like to call, 'pucker factor'. Sometimes, when I read some of the stuff I read, I can nearly bite a chunk out of my chair, if you get my drift. Only one sheet necessary under those conditions.... Or as I heard one person claim, nah...I'll get kicked out for repeating that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I still agree with LisaBob on this. BSA should keep its nose out of business that rightly belongs to the family setting. Same as with religious belief. I can think of perhaps two scout leaders who are competent to address some aspect of human sexuality and I know at least a hundred parents who would come down hard on them for discussing with their son, the topic of masturbation or nearly anything else along those lines. For better or worse, let the parent be the parent or else "Be Prepared" to take on a huge amount of personal responsiblity yourself for what you say to the boys.