packsaddle

The 'quick and the dead'? I have a suspicion that is an old one but I've never heard of it before, good one too. Around here we feed nutria to the alligators...nice crunching sounds. And speaking of rocks, maybe paleontology AND archeology can be merged with Geology MB?

Just pulling your chain, Trevorum, sorry. You also left out the part where they both have beautiful women chasing them. Arr, Arr, Arr! But do you really think a 'dillo is an even trade for a sloth? It'd be more like a 'dillo for a fox or maybe an opossum, I would think.

OGE, that comment about the executive committee was great but the last reference...I nearly fell out of my chair. Nice to see the old sense of humor return.

Delighted to assist with this demonstration of 'thread evolution', I think a paleontology MB could be lumped in with the existing Archeology MB. Pretty much the same thing...only on a different time scale. And continuing on the digression, speaking of narrow and esoteric consider that there is Collecting, and then there are also Coin Collecting AND Stamp Collecting. I have been collecting samples of brain tissue - think that would qualify? My daughter collects skulls. Anyone want to contribute?

This unit uses the blue cards when possible. But the camp doesn't, usually just a photocopied page with the MB requirements, etc. No problem, here's why. From painful (but not catastrophic) experience: Prior to all Eagle BOR's, I or someone from the unit will acquire a current printout of the council advancement report. The boy's application and other records (usually the troop's copy) are compared to the council record for inconsistencies (inconsistencies are common). I or someone from the unit then work with the council prior to the Eagle BOR to reconcile the records. Because our council recognizes this problem and because we have been very objective about it in the past, the council is very receptive to our corrections when needed (fairly common). There are two ways to avoid a problem. Periodically compare the troop advancement records to those of the council. Or...accomplish the same thing by having an Eagle BOR periodically. (bragging time now) This unit is about to have three of them in the next couple of months...really great guys, every one of them. But blue cards or not, as long as the requirements are satisfied and the application matches the council records, no problem.

Kahuna, I think you're really on to something. I can just feel the breeze and imagine its sound through the palm fronds. I can hardly wait. At about the same time, I spent a week or so camping in highs of 106-114 in various places around the central valley - but with almost no humidity. It was far more comfortable there than the 90's here with 100% humidity. Go Hawaii!

I have followed this with interest because we've had a couple of situations where boys have made some very poor decisions, but nothing nearly as serious as this - they haven't victimized other persons. I think there could be a large range of responses. Our community (in the larger sense of people outside family and church) is very supportive and almost nurturing in response to young persons who make bonehead decisions from time to time. If the infraction is outside the scouting environment and if these infractions are addressed effectively outside scouting, I see no need for 'double jeopardy'. In fact, we have used the scouting side as the 'carrot' for improved future decisions. And it has worked so far.

Now THAT's interesting, Fuzzy Bear, thanks. CalicoPenn, I agree - there does seem to be a lack of clarity and I thought I detected an element of entitlement as well.

That reminds me, anyone know the origin of the phrase, "Whose ox is being gored now?" I've always wondered about that, it's such a curious phrase.

Somewhat related, I just found this and there are some interesting observations: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050812/OPINION/50812001/1008 A teaser: While scientists are essentially unanimous in rejection of intelligent design and creationism as science, ID also does not agree with creationism. Gotcha!

Well I would like to welcome Trail Pounder back. Where were you? I hope the fam and weiner dog (s?) are doing well. Back to topic. I read a lot. I talk to all sorts of people of all political leanings. But this forum is almost the ONLY place where I've read mentions of the idea that the recent tragedies were God's wrath (or something along those lines) upon the scouts. Come to think of it, it IS the only place. I vote to kill this thread.

Yeah, it's fun to throw insulting and demeaning jokes at people we don't know. Really scoutlike. At least I've confined most of mine to musical instruments (and the occasional non-specific banjo player, gulp..). I have to side with Kahuna and NJ here. Seriously, one of the attorneys whom many might categorize as an ambulance chaser rescued my family from a terrible disaster. I was glad to have the guy on my side and I add that he and the opposing attorneys were all as professional as I could imagine. The system worked well but my family wouldn't have had full access to it without those attorneys. I propose a test for future jokes: substitute 'Christian' for 'lawyer' (or maybe 'banjo player' ). See how that flies.

I agree about the distance. Especially if that is removed as a problem, it opens many more potential options - I'm thinking Great Plains, for example. Hypothetically, how much open space does it require? I'm not asking how much it uses now but rather, ideally how much space would be needed? In any convenient units: hectares, square miles or acres?

Rooster7, is it too late to mention that much of Europe drives on the same side of the road that we do? Either that or else I must have really teed off a lot of people over there. As for the other stuff, Huh? In the spirit of your original post (...not intended to single out any particular individual) I never mentioned "any particular individual". The phrase, "he doth protest too much" comes to mind, however. I don't know what you believe and I can't. Likewise, you are equally ignorant of my beliefs. But you evidently read things in my post that seemed real to you. It may actually exemplify part of the point I was trying to make - a person who reacts defensively simply because others fail to agree, that is, simply not ascribing to a closely-held idea perhaps because of failure to understand (and different, in this sense, from actual disagreement in which the others support an opposing idea)...that defensive reaction is a thinking error. If this is part of a general pattern of reaction it could be categorized as 'victim stance'. And to clarify a fine point, persons engaging in 'victim stance' often are not actual victims, hence part of the nature of the thinking error. H'mmmm? But you're right, you're not a victim. As for what is living or non-living (to leave the original post again...I think), life does not 'begin' at any particular point. Rather it is a continuum...that is, unless you think hapoid gametes are dead - which they are not. If they were, the planet's ecosystems would begin restoration in just a few human generations;). Or perhaps we don't care about those hapoid life forms...except I think we do, at least in some religions where all forms of birth control are prohibited. For that matter, what was it that Anita Bryant was going on about gays and orange juice or something? And then there was also General Jack Ripper's concern for the purity of the essence (and I don't mean pearls here) of his precious bodily fluids. (OGE, you and NJ will probably get that one.) The political/religious wrangling over the 'beginning of life' is actually an attempt to draw a legal line in the timeline of human reproduction. Any line that is drawn will be arbitrary to some degree and, I think, biologically bankrupt. That is why, although I disagree with them, I consider the Catholic Church's official policy to be a beacon of clarity among a morass of so-called 'prolife' views. So what was the third thread, Hunt?

stlscouter, your real name is Adrian Monk, right? Bob White, madkins007 was correct...it was me (or rather NJCubScouter even earlier in the thread) that raised the 501c3 issue (I goofed and called it a 503c, sorry. This is why I hire an accountant to do all that tax stuff:) ). But to answer your question, NJ seemed to imply that BSA was limited, in a sense, by their 501c3 status as a charity, in that certain conduct (endorsement of political parties or candidates) could jeopardize that status and the ability to accept tax-deductible contributions. To lose that status would, indeed, be a problem precisely because anyone whose decision to contribute depended on tax-deductible status would likely not contribute if BSA no longer had that status. However, as a private club without the special 503c (rather, 501c3, there I go again ) status, BSA could truly pursue any behavior (except criminal, of course) they wanted, including political endorsements or outright campaigning for that matter. They would be free of the limitations that come with the status. They could spread their wings and fly. I guess the metaphor was too obscure.

The initial question is prejudicial. I know Christians that feel this way about certain other individual Christians. It is not the sole domain of non-believers. I have felt this regarding certain individuals, some of whom are Christians. I feel that they consider their faith superior and that my faith is inferior, possibly evil. I think the difference is that I try not to generalize, but rather to view others as individuals. When the Jehovah's witnesses arrive, interrupting my weekend to try to convince me of their view, I get the feeling they think their belief is superior. And I have asked in these threads in the past: can anyone think of a faith that adds to their creed, "...but we might be wrong"? Or starts with the word, "perhaps"? The only faith I know that constantly questions their own beliefs (and others) currently has their religious award blacklisted by BSA. And there is the co-worker with whom I have little, if any, interaction but who once gave me a ticket (number 666, heh, heh) to eternal damnation. I shrug this off as a joke but my view of the guy is not the same as before. Or the Baptists down the street who informed my children (ages 5 and 7 at the time, as I remember) that they were "going to hell" and likewise caused me to have some impure thoughts. Or the ones who informed my friends that they "walk with Satan"...what can I say? Perhaps they are right . Nevertheless, I also have many friends of a variety of faiths (and some with no faith, so they say) and I hold no prejudice in my mind toward them. And, thinking on it, I believe the reason for my lack of prejudice toward all those people with vastly different faiths is that they likewise display no such prejudice toward anyone else. We sometimes discuss our beliefs openly and without fear of criticism or accusation. But I guess if someone were to join and then try to convince the rest of us that their beliefs were absolute, they might come to think we were prejudiced against them. Especially if we didn't say we agreed with them. 'Victim stance' is the thinking error that comes to mind. Edited part: Just a thought...is there such a thing as a non-bible-believing Christian?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Back from internet limbo (to use a religious concept ), I understood Bob White's message differently. Conforming to the 'Reverent' requirement involves many forms of faith and is very inclusive in that sense. I see this, therefore, as supporting ALL of the creation myths, regardless of the religion to which they may be attached, possibly even those that are cultural and not religious. I just wish that one myth didn't take such a dominant position...the others are really interesting as well. Edited part: Oops, I forgot to add...there is nothing sacred (religious term again ) about the 503c status. BSA could terminate this status and spread their wings to fly freely. Actually, that might be a good idea.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I once observed my commanding general order my commanding colonel to 'gimme 10' in front of a civilian audience when the colonel didn't answer something to the general's satisfaction. I am bringing this discussion to the general's attention for his education.

True confession: I play the piano...with just a touch of talent. As to the Jericho question, my empirical study of a former accordion-playing apartment neighbor indicates that the walls would have come tumbling down but it would have required repetition of 'Lady of Spain' about 50 times. Bagpipes: the sound of mass slaughter of geese. Sorry.

I would consider the push-ups to be hazing. No different from making him sing for his lost (and found) handbook.

If it doesn't happen under the scouting umbrella and if the parents are aware and engaged, outside of conversations and perhaps some friendly advice regarding the law, I am not sure you have any other avenues to address this behavior and I would not hold him up unless he has not completed the requirements. Rather, I would use his rank advancement as a means to impress on him his added responsibility as an example to the other boys. It also wouldn't hurt to have a police officer pay a visit to the troop to inform them of the law and the consequences of breaking it. You might let the boy introduce the officer and the topic of his presentation. And to remind all the boys that none of them will be able to claim ignorance...if they ever get caught.

An accordion player is on his (her) way to the next concert, the expensive instrument riding in its case in the back of the station wagon. They stop at a restaurant for a meal and while the order is being taken by the waiter, the accordion player remembers...they forgot to lock the car. They rush outside to lock the car only to see that it is too late. The back of the station wagon now contains TWO accordions.

Getting back to the actual topic... I know of numerous examples where public lands are leased to churches, etc. by my agency. In all cases, the leases are reviewed periodically (annually in some cases) and re-evaluated to ensure that the lease amount is in line with the actual value. There are other restrictions as well. This process is viewed negatively by some of these organizations because they claim (rightly) that their leases reflect the retail market (also rightly). And that the restrictions require broader access than they would allow if they had the freedom to set their own limitations. In some cases the churches can no longer afford the leases and the properties are open to other groups, public or private. The only improvement that I could make to this system would be to open these properties to public bids on an annual basis or at the end of each lease term. This would put the properties in a position for greater public access over the long term, subject to market forces. With regard to the sailing club: my club would reject the idea of accepting a public grant for an addition to the clubhouse. However, the club would accept a grant (for example) for funds to help stabilize the shoreline, thus benefitting the public resource as well as the club. However, the conclusion that BSA's acceptance of public funds is not a "huge evil" is an interesting example of the end justifying the means - the result of moral relativism, perhaps, since it evidently IS a 'minor evil'.

there is another thread on this topic with more responses. I responded to that one.

She is right on. Perhaps BSA is counting on the good-ole-boy system to sustain them. And it might. But it would be better for BSA to take the action she proposed and come clean on the 'private club' status. Like Linda Hills says, BSA shouldn't expect to have it both ways. BSA should be more honest and make the 'private club' a truly private club.