packsaddle

Acco40, I must respond (while sporting a Mephistophilean grin this Sunday morning), that evidently Rush Limbaugh is correct, "It's all about money." All I can say is, "Ditto." Now that's a traditional value for you. (sorry NJ, couldn't resist) Essentially what you suggest is that the market decides...policy, interpretations of rules, ethics, morality, everything. What could be more American than that?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

GernBlansten, I don't think I've read you around these parts before. Welcome. I've often heard suggestions that young people are better soldiers because they accept authority more readily. It is a persuasive idea but I sure wish their acceptance would make itself present in other venues as well. Such as the classroom. Anyway, I need to correct what I said regarding emancipation, I am getting conflicting views from attorneys. Some say there is no such statute in SC and others are saying it can occur at age 17, but only through a legal proceeding. I did a little looking and it seems in Colorado, for example, a young person can be emancipated at 15. Not sure about parental responsibility, though. In a related matter, the age of consent is quite variable among states and is as young as 14 in SC - with parental consent (I hope that sends everyone's minds reeling). I guess ol' Strom had a local influence as well. But I see your point regarding the inconsistencies. This research just gives those inconsistencies greater importance.

CubsRgr8, I understand. I believe the parent has a right (responsibility) to insert their views at any age for their children. But the children should pay greater attention prior to becoming adults. At that time they can choose to ignore it. Anyway the thoughts I have had since I first heard about this research were: 1) Why is the age of legal adulthood 18 years? 21 years would be a lot closer to correct and that's what it was when I was that age. 2) Better yet, children also should not be eligible for the armed forces at age 18. 3) In SC a child can 'emancipate' themselves from their parents at 17 - absolute lunacy - the child is off on their own and the parents are still legally responsible. 4) The alcohol age limit is close to correct but what about tobacco? These are some of the issues in the public domain that might be good ones to reassess in light of this research.

Trevorum, you're scarin' me, man!

Backpacker, They DO represent us after all, don't they!?

OGE, Are you saying you don't see the difference? This is what Trent Lott said that got all the attention: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." I suppose Trent's statement could have been related to Strom's support of environmental protection (not) or the way Thurmond worked with the Republicans in their quest for fiscal irresponsibility (possible). Alternatively is it possible that the statement implied, 1) that Mississippi supported Strom's segregationist stand and 2) Trent laments the civil rights movement and its success and attributes this to our failure to embrace Strom's racist views? H'mmmm? Trent Lott evidently agreed with this interpretation because he apologized for it when the so-called 'liberals' and civil rights organizations objected. The difference I see is that Dean spoke from honest conviction and is unapologetic. Lott hid his honest convictions until they slipped out during Thurmond's 100'th birthday party. And then Lott apologized, knowing he was 'toast' if he didn't. Which one represents a deception in their views? Howard Dean will get precisely what he earns in politics. The same way Trent Lott did. And James Watt did before him. And Earl Butts did before him.

The work on which the interview is based was published as far back as 1999, the research well before that. I'm not sure why the sudden attention? If you follow the links to other interviews and discussions you will understand that scientists involved with this research are very concerned about the leaps being made here in this thread. They are extremely cautious about extensions of their research into policy or practice. Our beliefs are not 'hard-wired' by neurochemistry. Truth is not something that is a result of brain chemistry. Rather, our innate ability to reason, our personality traits, our talents, things deep within us may change or develop as our brains develop. And the primary value of this research is that normal development does not end at some arbitrary teen age but in fact continues into the 20s. Environmental influences can affect that development. Did we really need this research to 'know' this intuitively? Duh! Facts and faiths can be learned or rejected as a matter of choice at any time, whether 14 or 40, as NJ writes. I know septagenarians who are learning to play new musical instruments for the first time, or foreign languages. I hope that many of us (and I have my doubts about some) can examine our own lives and realize that we have acquired many new traits and abilities well after our 20s. It is life-long growth and if we do not experience this, it often is by choice. Don't get me wrong. This research is very exciting. It may open doors to understanding how we think, or mental illness and its mechanisms. But it won't bring us any closer to deciding whether God is really 'negentropy' or whether an epiphany is an endorphin effect. But I guess it's fun to discuss?

Welcome to the forums. You can learn a lot here but you need to be careful. I fondly remember my years (years that I serve? sorry, inside joke) as cubmaster. I sure miss the cubs. Remember, it's only one hour a month.

Nice, Acco40. I sometimes wonder why we are surprised if a genetic basis for behavior is discovered...why should this be so unexpected given the evolutionary development of the species? And yet I think it is too easy to criticize the so-called 'right' with characteristics that actually are simply anti-intellectual. There are plenty among the 'right' that embrace science and there are some among the so-called 'left' that reject science. Those who reject science seem to think that it conflicts with their faiths and beliefs. And out of fear they reject science in a vain attempt to make it go away. Sad. Everyone's loss.

We have one person who does nothing but tour permits. They keep all the individual info on file and just pull the files for the appropriate drivers, etc. And then get the appropriate signatures. This works well to help keep us current on training as well. And like Eamonn, we file for EVERY trip, regardless, and use it as part of the planning process. This person is one of our most valuable leaders because it allows the rest of us to devote more attention to the boys.

As you might imagine, the idea of zoning gets rough treatment in these parts. Need to make sure that the cock fighters aren't inconvenienced by the junkyards. Just kidding, most of these guys are OK if everyone has guns in their hands. Guess that doesn't really sell the neighborhood either. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Spiney Norman, Jesus was a communist at heart. Acco40, nice scenario. Like you've been advised, discretion is the better part - let the boy determine his own fate. TJ, I understand your feelings on this. I must note, however, that few of us are completely consistent in our personal views of the world. This is not to excuse BSA's inconsistencies or those of any individual. It is merely to suggest that what you seem to seek is an unlikely outcome. As an example I use myself: There are some in this forum who think I am hypocritical in my disagreement with BSA's policy on gays and atheists and they have suggested that I do not belong here. They are welcome to continue to feel that way. Those individuals should be aware (as I mentioned a while back in a PM to another poster) that I have neighbors who are bigoted and full of hate to an extreme extent toward gays, "mud races", Catholics, Jews, Moslems - I've probably left someone out. These persons ALSO think I'm hypocritical and they fiercely defend BSA because in their view, BSA agrees with THEM, and implicitly supports their bigoted and hateful views. They have told me so. They ALSO think I do not belong here. (and fortunately, they are not BSA leaders..whew!) If I were to be unfair, I would compare my critics here to my critics down the road (some of whom fly the Confederate flag on the same pole as, and ABOVE the American flag.) I don't make that comparison although I am sometimes tempted. But I feel that I am as unlikely as you are to reconcile their views in my mind (and in this case they AGREE with each other). I will, however, continue to treat them equally...and listen to their prejudiced views as I disregard their shallow and thoughtless advice.

Just East of you and a little South, we've been getting plenty of rain. But we'll probably get a couple more inches from Arlene. Stay ready to go to high ground.

Yes. Especially if it was free time, why would anyone not listen to a boy? I think the correct passage starts, "Suffer the little children...." Mark 10:14 Or does BSA disagree on this?

Before Politenessman clonks the boneheads on this thread (me included) with his gauntlet, I want to welcome xray10 to the forums. Xray10 (are there 9 more of you out there somewhere?), I think it would be illuminating to get the sources for the information you mention. I am willing to reserve judgement (unlike some others here) and examine what you say in light of your sources. Are the things you list merely your opinions or do you have some documentation you could cite for us? Merlyn, you had me going there for a few words. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Most of the time I just use one of those really thin plastic drop-cloths instead of a tent. Really lightweight (4 oz, max) and there is a lot of room under that tarp for all the gear. If there's a bad storm and it tears away, well, it's only water. The tent is good if I'm going to be out for more than a couple of nights. Then I cover the pack with a garbage bag to shed water and haul it up from a tree limb.

I agree with Hunt and EagleInKY regarding this topic. Scoutcraft, waterfront activities, almost anything active are all fine at camp. But I observe boys who pursue certain MBs and complete all the requirements at camp in spite of the fact that this is impossible without prerequisite work (absent in each case). Beyond doing a poor job, these MBs are being awarded without actually meeting the requirements. But because a council-approved counselor has signed the sheet, our hands are tied. Some of the boys even brag about this fact to the other scouts, making it an even larger problem. My conversations with the camp staff have produced no changes.

Huh? Did I miss something somewhere along the way? Don't answer that. OGE, you're not going away completely are you? I really liked your sense of humor. I don't know the extent of the abuse you must have endured but I do appreciate the help you gave me from time to time. It was good to know that a sensible moderator was available to reel us in if needed. In some parallel universe it could have been sticks and stones, you know.

I guess I had the first response. But you'll have to forgive me. I was just standing around in my silver underwear, and the invisible man told me that something had gone wrong with King Kong and Fay Wray and her delicate satin draped frame. It made me think of all those poor tarantulas fighting androids on the forbidden planet. But this creature of the night, this bee with a deadly sting, this wild and untamed thing, would wait for worlds to collide in order to rejoin the insects called the human race - lost in time, and lost in space. I now return your internet browser to you.

Oh no, not Meatloaf again!

With a bit of a mind flip, You're into the time slip, And nothing can ever be the same... I think it's time for me to take a jump to the left, and a step to the ri-i-i-ghhht. Later

Hunt, I agree. Short of very carefully crafted prose (not often encountered here), the only way to communicate intent is to use one of those smiley-face things (it took me a while to figure out how to do it). And my repertoire there is rather limited as I am sure most of you would acknowledge. To get a little more serious, I do recall a troop situation that offered an opening to discuss some of these issues. It involved some behavior by a group of scouts, instigated by one or two of them, in which unsavory and impolite (to say the least) remarks were made regarding women. (I'm trying to dance around the actual remarks but they had to do with anatomy, sex, and disrespect) Anyway, we needed to address this immediately so we did. And then reported what was said to the parents of those boys (explicitly) and to the parents in general (not so explicitly) so they could follow up at home. After these boys get older and more mature (???) I look back on some of these incidents and smile. But such incidents must be addressed and when the boys display such behavior we need to address it factually and explicitly, if necessary. Even if it involves discussion of sexual behaviors. I think the key point is to try to dispel myths and confirm facts while trying (at the same time) not to give them too much new knowledge. Best to let the parents do that.

Let's do the Time Warp again, Let's do the Time Warp again. So, would you be Magenta? The guys liken me to Riff Raff (and I'm not insulted). Time to go to the lab and see what's on the slab.

Hey, I'm taking exception and I'm neither Irish nor a redhead! Actually I guess I'm more of a mut, considering the mix of German, English, Welsh, French, and Jewish (does that count?). Besides I thought redheads were often from Scotland. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, you better take that back! And speaking of sneaky interpretations, are you suggesting there may be deceptions lurking in BSA? No-o-o-o-o Wa-a-a-a-y! Edited part: While I'm here, Rooster, I'm still wondering what you really mean by that. I understand it's meant to be a pejorative statement of some sort but under some circumstances it could be complimentary. I think. But I still wonder...What work? And what piece of it? How big a piece, assuming it is a fractional part? Is a piece worse than the whole thing? Or better? Or is 'work' a metaphor for something else? If that is the case, anyone who doesn't know what that something is won't make much sense out of the statement. Sort of like me. I just assume that you are trying to insult NJCubScouter, who (considering the source) is probably wringing his hands over whether he's going to hell or something. Or maybe going to be the epicenter of the next lightning strike. So a little clarification would be interesting. More editing: I misspoke, of course Hell is reserved for Christians for the most part because, as I understand it, Hell is not part of the Jewish faith. So I guess NJ would have to wring his hands over some other ghastly fate. Thinking....Gad! All I can think of is food. Time for lunch.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I've always wondered what it means when someone says that. Care to explain?