packsaddle

OGE, I respect your request regarding the use of the term, 'Nazi'. It was an attempt at humor, borrowed from the Seinfeld 'Soup Nazi' idea. Guess it didn't work though. This seems to be evolving into a discussion of how to dissent. I agree with johndaigler's request for the process of changing a rule. I may be in a minority opinion, but my experience is that the district and council pay little attention to my suggestions. I guess they are bad ideas, but an acknowledgement for a written letter would be nice. For that matter, some of us have noticed that the pros themselves are also setting an example for us. And the example, at least in some limited way, seems to be 'local option' - in other words, we may use our best judgement. Like I wrote before, I really try to follow the rules, even the uniform ones, but let's face it, personal judgement is the way it's going to be, given that we do have that ability. Edited part: Oops, I was typing this in while eamonn's message was arriving in background. So now a conundrum: Do I speed read eamonn's message and change this one? I'll probably time out on the ability to edit while reading that lengthy tome so if I try to read it I won't be able to change this message. What to do, what to do? Dave, my mind is going, I can feel it, I......can.....feeeeeelllllll...iiit. Daisy, daisy, give me your answer do...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I like the pants and the shirt. I have no big problem with the uniform as it is. I actually like the fit, feel, and appearance. The socks could be better (or at least a bigger variety of materials). But it's not a big deal for me. Guess that takes me out of the discussion, doesn't it? Oh well...

TheScout, The ruling you are discussing does not prevent scouts from using the park. It prevents the government from giving them exclusive access. The ruling now allows the scouts equal access, which is fair.

Eamonn, I understand the spirit of your question. The short answer is 'no'. I think that I can put the answer in slightly different terms though. The leader who is cavalier with the life jackets may be, in my mind, more likely to ignore the uniform guidelines. I could be wrong, they may think the uniform is far more important than the safety and health of the scouts. However, this doesn't mean that the leader who winks at the wrong socks is necessarily going to ignore the G2SS. He may simply give the G2SS rules a higher priority than the fine points of the uniform guidelines. Given that boys and troops are imperfect entities, constantly striving for some ideal but making mistakes, I am willing to work on appearances but I am insistent on doing that work safely.

Fscouter, I think not. There seems to be an inordinate interest in socks and, Kahuna, I sure hope you changed them once in a while. I really try to wear my uniform correctly. And yet, there is a nagging thought in mind at all times - if the uniform Nazis put me under the 'microscope', they'd probably find something wrong. I understand the need for everyone to wear the uniform correctly and I understand the reasons for that need. This, to me, is a less important infraction than things that involve safety. I may say something about a boy's uniform or lack thereof at a meeting. But if he's handling an axe in an unsafe manner, for example, that will stop immediately and the issue will be addressed before he handles the axe again. In addition, I've seen leaders take scouts out on boats without life jackets, or on outings without two-deep leadership, and list goes on. Yes, I cringe when I see units wearing camo as their uniform and I might mention something to the DE (who doesn't seem to care anyway). But if I see that the life jackets are missing from the boat, I say something immediately to the leaders. And mention that there are also real laws if good sense doesn't work for them. But uniforms? If they are worn incorrectly in front of the pros and the pros say nothing, I'll just keep watching for those life jackets.

jkhny, You sure did assemble a devastating statement just now. The only thing I can add is that most of the things you mention are the result of deceptions, some intentional, but nearly all are self-deceptions on the part of pros. And they hurt the program and the boys. However, I note that at the local level (at least in this locality) enrollment is up. This troop has doubled in size in just a couple of years and has more than quadrupled over the last five years. This has nothing whatsoever to do with BSA at an organizational level greater than the district. Rather, and I suspect that this is true other places as well, it is local volunteer leaders and the community that recognize the values of this program and the principles that are good for the boys. As long as BSA, the corporation, does not distract us from focusing on the boys, those values and principles are alive at the local level even if corrupted at the national level.

Ever notice how some topics evolve into hair-splitting exercises? Well to add to the split ends, the concept of ash also adds to the confusion. If wood is combusted to completion, the residue that is left will be a greyish powder (or ash), some of which will dissolve in the next rain event. If any charcoal is left, combustion has not been complete and it will remain as charcoal for many years (I can show you historic campsites that are over 150 years old, with charcoal remaining in the soil. Some papers are similar to wood in combustion characteristics but many papers contain added clays or other materials to impart qualities needed for those applications. The problem with ash is that rarely does a campfire combust all the materials completely and even then, the residue may contain materials that are not 'native' to the fire site. In those cases, we are leaving traces of our presence (not to mention the fire itself). The fire itself, especially if it is hot enough for complete combustion, disturbs the underlying soil by killing the organisms, combusting the soil organics, and changing the soil texture and other properties. The process of digging a pit, especially if it is more than a few inches deep, disturbs soil structure, plant roots and their mycorrhizae, as well as soil microbes and invertebrates. Such a pit can start or contribute to soil erosion. And I remind you that the presence of a pit can be detected (perhaps studied) by an archeologist many years after the event. I interpret LNT in terms of no fire ring, no fire, no ashes, no burial pits, no trace (or as little trace as possible).

I think you misinterpreted Acco40's post. A statistical correlation (and that's what we are reading) does not show, much less 'prove', causality. At best it may be the foundation of a hypothesis that can be tested experimentally. At worst, it is merely a numerical relationship that may mean nothing whatsoever. In that sense, when a correlation seems to agree with our preconceived notion (such as the inherent value of scouting) our natural tendency is to believe that the correlation supports that notion. Some statisticians would argue that it does not because a correlation can't be structured as a statistical test (the way a regression can). A subjective test of our bias, however, might be to consider our response if the correlation showed no numerical relationship whatsoever. Would we reject the result because it DIDN'T seem to agree with our notion? Or would we reject our notion? The tendency that I have observed is that most of us cling to those notions and instead of setting the notion aside, we would look further for a numerical relationship (and this is an important characteristic of this bias) THAT WOULD SUPPORT IT. And that is the 3rd great lie.

Acco40, remember Mark Twain's three great types of lies? 1) Lies, 2) Damn lies, 3) Statistics. You have pointed us to door number 3.

Fuzzy, regarding the pollen, etc. How does that old commercial go? "...without mucus, life itself would not be possible" or something like that. The average person produces daily approximately a quart of such mucus (aka 'snot') and swallows most of it. Have a nice day and bon apetite! Hey, would you just look...it's time for lunch already, and I'm starving...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Referee huh. Does that mean OGE stands between them? In that case we might want to try cow flops instead, you know, the ones that are crusty but still have a gooey center. See just how quick he is.

Wow TJ, That was wonderful. I wish all scouters could appreciate the example you set. I think most would.

It's astounding, time is fleeting, Madness... takes its toll, But listen closely, not for very much longer, I've got to keep control.

OGE, Here's a suggestion, taken from something I seem to remember about Abe Lincoln and his response to a friend who in a thoughtless moment challenged Abe to a duel: let them step off 20 paces and have at it with horse turds. Of course we'd be stepped off a little further than 20. H'mmm, this has the makings of a game for the boys.... Edited part: Ooooh, Ooooh, I'm at the top of the page!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I guess I'm pushing too hard. When you stated that the boys knew you were Christian because of the way you act, I wondered how that could be. How could you distinguish yourself as a Christian through actions, and how would they know (having observed those actions) that it meant you are Christian (as opposed to, say, Jewish)? My underlying assumption, if that's what you're wondering, is that you (and I) are not all that different from most other people regardless of faith. But it seemed, from your post, that you had adopted actions that set you apart specifically as a Christian and I was trying to clarify. I may have simply read too much into your words. Or am I wrong? And thanks for the correct pronunciation Edited part: Perhaps 'Jewish' is not the best alternative - there would be that candelabra thing - or was that Liberace? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

firstpusk beat me to it. Dang! Anyway, evolution and creationism can both be taught but in separate classes. Evolution would be in a science class and creationism in a class along with all the other myths. And I thought there are BSA documents in which BSA claims to be a religious organization. Have I misread something? And when the government gives exclusive access to a religious organization that does not allow gay people to enter the government facility, then gay people (or any other excluded people) do not have equal access.

That would be a big OOPS on the spelling. Sorry to all you persons out there that think it's a 'gum band' rather than a 'rubber band' (just a little PittsburgH trivia there ) The problem is, I know plenty of people who act in an identical manner but who are not Christians. If that is the behavior of which you are thinking, you're in the same crowd as at least some Unitarians and Jews. I'm not sure about the prayer habits of the others. And you don't mean to imply that people of other faiths are NOT "honest, hard working" do you? And that they HAVE "the 'If no one get hurt it's OK' attitude", and DON'T "care about my fellow man." You don't mean to imply those bad things about other faiths do you? That just leaves the prayer thing, do the boys see you praying at the beginning and end of each day? OK, now how do you know (since you haven't been around those denominations & religions I listed in a Scouting setting) that members of the other faiths DON'T have similar practices?

From the National Park Service backcountry guide: "...When in bear country there are several practices that will help keep you and the bears apart....blah, blah, blah,...When hiking in bear country, wear small bells attached to your pack or feet. In this manner, bears will hear you before you see them and you will be less likely to surprise them. Also carry pepper spray to repel a bear if it approaches you on the trail...blah, blah, blah....It is important in bear country to know what kind of bears are in the area. One way to do this is to identify them by their scat (feces). Black bear scat often contains rodent fur and berry seeds. Grizzly bear scat often contains small bells and has an odor like pepper spray."

evmori, The part about one of your recent posts that caused me to ask the question was, (I quote you out of context here) "I am a Christian and the Scouts in my Troop know that. Not because I beat them over the head with it (because I don't) but because of the way I act." From your statement we know 1) you don't beat children, and 2) something about the way you act causes them to know that you are Christian and, presumably, not something else. In other words, the way you "act" causes them to know 'something' about you that they couldn't otherwise know. And that 'something' is that you are a Christian. Logically this means that to be distinguished as a Christian, that designation must be in comparison to some other state (non-Christian) hence my previous question regarding the way that you "act". Your response was, "Not sure. Don't even want to speculate because I haven't been around those denominations & religions you listed in a Scouting setting." (Here I add that they were: Jews, Unitarians, Buddhists, and Moslems) You seemed certain of yourself when you wrote the original post. I wasn't asking for speculation, but rather what you meant by "...the way I act." Think of it this way, perhaps I would like to "act" Christian. Help me out. Tell me how to "act" Christian. Tell me what "acts" are uniquely Christian so that I will be able to recognize you out of the Pittsburg population. I'm confused as to why you would feel the need to speculate about something of which you were so certain before. It is, as you claim, the way that YOU act. You must know what you're doing. Then I have to ask, have you been around ANY non-Christians in a scouting setting? I would have thought that scouting in the Pittsburg area was more diverse than that. This logical problem arises because if you are in a troop with homogeneous boys and faiths, and all of you share the same faith...how could you possibly distinguish yourself as a Christian? You ALL must be Christians and the boys would know that about you simply because you are there. Please explain.

I hope this thread lasts until Thanksgiving.

Trevorum, took a look at your link. GADD! The spirit of T.D. Lysenko is alive and well, it seems.

The simple answer: Yes, to both questions. They're nuts! And I'm right there beside you. When my son got his driver's license, he was allowed to borrow the family minivan. We gave him the choice of that or my really beat-up '67 International pickup. Looking back on it he says it was humiliating but the only option. After he proved he could operate a vehicle responsibly, we found a very reasonably priced older I30 and he paid for most of it out of his savings. The luxury aspect of it made him nearly paranoid about making sure he didn't damage it (a hidden strategy on our part that seems to have paid off). So now our son is old beyond his years. Really old, come to think of it, maybe a bit scary for that matter. My daughter, Holy Toledo! THAT will be a different matter but she'll get the same treatment. Edited Part: In case you're wondering, her name is not Holy Toledo. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

evmori, Just curious. What about the way you act in front of the boys sets you apart from, say, Jews or Unitarians? Or for that matter Moslems and Buddhists?

Fuzzy, that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. And bad enough for most people to have little awareness of these things, the same persons then watch the television fantasies regarding DNA-related topics and think it is reality. But it sure works for the talk shows I suppose. Dittoheads anyone? It should pain everyone to read the dialogue on topics such as this, or embryonic stem cell research, or for that matter most topics related to human reproduction. Technology and understanding have run far ahead of public awareness and the gap is widening. I guess it's no wonder that our representatives offer such thoughtless and superficial legislation. The best optimistic view that I see is that because the gap is so large, corporations are essentially free to pursue these things at will, not to mention other governments who give their scientists greater freedom. I note that many of our top minds on these topics are leaving their posts for those other opportunities. http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/20/144559/471 The net effect: everything that our government wants to suppress will occur anyway - only elsewhere. And any of us that wants access to it will be able to, if we have the cash to travel. Borrowing from a former justice, I don't know how to define 'geezer' but I know one when I see one (mostly in the mirror).

Kahuna, I could make the equally valid argument that if all entities paid tax, each of us individually would have to shoulder less of the overall burden thus leaving more to give. When I donate to my church, the net effect on my bank account is still negative, even after the deduction. I would be quite happy for that church to pay tax in order for me to support it at a greater rate. Not sure where the 10% figure originated but I think I remember the DeMint proposal going for 23%. Now that I think of it, the proposal was for a 23% SALES tax to replace the entire tax code. Probably doesn't apply to states though. I'm for it whatever the rate, as long as it stops this policy of intergenerational theft, robbing our children's future earnings to slake our spending lusts of today.