packsaddle

Talk about timing! As it happens, a new book just arrived unsolicited at my mail stop. It claims to be two books in one, the first being a Geocentrism Primer and the second being a Geocentric Bible. I will begin reading it tonight. Evidently there are a number of persons who still hold to the belief that the earth is the center of the universe...based on Biblical authority. This could be just delicious!

OGE, you can come to our town and yell at us from a street corner any ol' time. Always nice to have a new face around.

I suspect that in 1491, the Pope probably did think the earth was round. It wasn't such an outlandish idea by that time. The problem was he really KNEW that it was a biblical fact that the solar system and all the stars orbited the earth. And being infallible, a Pope wasn't ready to listen to a scientist on the subject a few years later. BTW, Galileo's birthday was just a few days ago. The deception that was embodied in the concept of "phlogiston" is essentially the same contained in "intelligent design" except I suspect that some of the promoters of ID actually know that they are engaged in a deception. ID fails to be scientific because it is incapable of being tested experimentally at any level. The so-called evidence for it amounts to identification of complexity that is so great that it seems that the only alternative is for some 'intelligence' to be behind the complexity's 'design'. Aside from being untestable, the weakness of this and similar philosophical chicaneries is this: as objective evidence accumulates, explaining more and more of the mechanisms of the apparent complexity, there is less support for an 'intelligent designer'. In essence, the less we understand about that complexity (that is, the greater our ignorance of it), the greater the apparent support for the 'intelligent designer'. ID depends on our ignorance for its support. I enjoy all of the creation myths. There simply isn't a way to judge one more worthy or correct than another. Prairie_Scouter, I too have colleagues who say things like, "Personally, I think the truth, if there is such a thing, is someplace in the middle. Perhaps, a God who set the wheels in motion and is content to let the wheels spin as they will, and intervenes every once in awhile, just to keep things interesting." I often wonder if they are merely trying to avoid conflict so they can quickly get back to the lab to see what's on the slab.

Torveaux, enough already, you're killin' me man! Take a look at this site: http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/physics/particles/particlesmodel4b.html Yes, Newtonian physics has the conservation law. The E=mc**2 law is actually the formula predicting the amount of energy that is yielded from the conversion of matter to energy. Relativity. Uranium. Plutonium. Atomic weapons. Nuclear power. Electricity. Basic physics...a few chapters into the book. It depends on your perspective. Conversion of your mass into energy and your subsequent dissipation into space would constitute destruction by many accounts. I suppose, however, that someone might consider that a conversion.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Welcome to the forum. I won't comment on the water safety aspect of your post, you summed it up nicely. As for the judgement that there are no atheists, or that atheism is quickly abandoned during adversity, I wonder if such a mercurial attitude toward faith would fool a deity, especially an omniscient one. Alternatively, perhaps the deception you suggest is that faith is always there but sometimes 'masked' by an outward claim of atheism, but only during the good times. I think this is an interesting twist on the policy. If such faith is always there for everyone, even if it is behind a facade, then BSA is ejecting persons on a truly superficial basis. But then, who could know for sure?

I'm curious as to what you think constitutes a good scientist. Or is the inability to make a conclusion regarding a higher power the defining quality of a good scientist? I would submit that a scientist wouldn't attempt to address such a question at all...because science simply can't address it. Period

Climbing through the tangled web... Deceptions are upon us practically from birth. And we are the authors and perpetrators. I think the 'label' ethic applies here. It would be better to avoid the label and focus on the idea. Nevertheless, to address the label itself, a person can be mistaken but if that is an honest mistake it doesn't qualify them as a liar in my judgement. My harsh judgement of G.W. Bush as a liar, for example, did not arrive until I learned that he knew of the uncertainty of the existence of WMDs before he claimed there was no doubt. If he had not known beforehand of that uncertainty it could have been an honest mistake. But slinging the labels around is still unproductive. It doesn't address the ideas at all. Similarly, I can rant about Bush being a liar but he will still be there sending good people to their graves. And my rants won't do anything to save them.

I see a couple of alternatives here. BSA studied the issues carefully and with full knowledge of the legal consequences, went ahead. And now they are whining about what they knew was going to happen. Another alternative is that they thoughtlessly pursued the policy with no consideration of the legal consequences. Either way the consequences are there. Tough luck. I'm wondering which alternative makes BSA look good.

We use topozone.com for quick reference and Delorme for the final products. But for a boat trip we just get a good road map that shows the takeouts?

Gulp, I guess I'm also guilty of some of that stuff. But if I apply reductio ad absurdum....Ed yanking chains - he quite possibly could actually be Zorn/FOG/etc. or whoever. Yikes, my conspiracy sensors are on full alert now! Yikes again! If I'm also guilty of that stuff I also could actually be Ed/Zorn/FOG. Uhhhhhh, I think it's time to transport ol' NOMAD out to deep space.

jd, are you referring to the 13th and 14th points of the scout law? Torveaux, the religious award is not a BSA award and therefore not subject to BSA approval. BSA merely no longer recognizes the UUA religious award and therefore it is not officially allowed on the scout uniform. Hint, Hint.....if anyone would like to jump in at this time and bring some recent news to the forum, that would be just great. But that's just a hint. I would note that the UUA probably agrees with many of the so-called 'scouting principles' but not with the policy toward gays. This is also a conflict with other faiths. The unique situation here is that the UUA actually wrote their objection in THEIR religous award materials and BSA, unable to stop them, decided to take it out on the boys. This quite possibly has nothing whatsoever to do with a boy's individual belief. In fact the UUA supports a boy's right to come to his own personal ideas about these things. BSA responded to the UUA and NOT to any boy's personal statement of belief. For the sake of argument let's hypothesize that the boy is NOT firm in his adherence to the UUA view. He could be a UUA youth and be in complete agreement with BSA on all this. He would still suffer the BSA penalty.

Going back to the original statement by evmori, "Don't expect the ACLU to get involved. They only support atheists when their rights are stepped on.", it has taken me a while to digest what the problem was. The reason is that there's more than one way to interpret the statement. When I initially read the statement, I understood that the ACLU only supported atheists (or anyone else) under those conditions when atheists' (or anyone's) rights are stepped on. And I agreed, thinking that of course those are the necessary conditions under which ACLU supports anyone. This was not a problem in my view, because it seemed inclusive. I did wonder a little - just why Ed was informing us of this obvious fact. But then I realized that perhaps Ed meant that the ACLU normally doesn't support atheists at all, but reluctantly comes to their aid when their rights are stepped on. This somewhat more restrictive view was less inclusive, but didn't make sense coming from Ed because 1) I think he doesn't much care for the ACLU, and 2) he would seem to be expressing sympathy for the atheists. H'mm. But Merlyn's subsequent response seemed to be a non sequitur. It was much later that I realized that the statement could be also interpreted to mean that Ed thinks that ACLU only supports atheists, PERIOD - Especially when atheists' rights are stepped on. Does anyone else see the difference between these interpretations? And I'm still wondering, Ed, which way did you mean it? It is clearly confusing to me. I find myself wanting to defend Rooster7 in this thread. Anyone who has followed the various topics should well know that Rooster and I differ on many topics. However, I do believe that Rooster is sincere in what he writes and basically means well. Yes, he makes some mistakes and sometimes pixxxxx off a few people, me included. Yes, he thumps the Bible. And yes, he sometimes seems mean-spirited. Even if all of that was true, it would not be a justification for attacking him (and I admit I've been guilty of this as well), as opposed to his ideas. I do believe that if we were all really sitting together around an actual campfire and speaking face-to-face, our statements would more often be interpreted correctly, because we could hear the tone, inflection, cadence, emphasis, all the things we listen for in a conversation but are lost in written words. And there would be fewer hurt feelings. Am I wrong? Perhaps Bob White would still be with us. I guess I could be wrong.

I think there is another way to look at this. If I am in a forum where a person with an opposing view is speaking, I wait quietly until it is my turn to speak. I do this out of courtesy and respect. Also because it is the golden rule. My personal view is that exercise of my freedom of speech should not limit expression by the other guy. Nor his mine. I think that Marcavage could have quietly held signs and there would have been no problem. But with the bull horn he got the response he expected.

Your letter is a good letter. The point I was trying to make (but evidently flubbed) was that someone else shouldn't take yours and merely fill in the blanks. They should put the same thought into their letter that you did in yours. My most recent letter was for a boy who was Islamic and had shown great character living in a Christian-dominated community. He also had some family interactions that were extraordinary. I tried to work these things in as well as the usual mix of good grades, sports, etc. I suspect that every boy has unique qualities and these are some things that I look for beyond the grades, etc. I apologize if you took my words as criticism, I didn't have that intent.

johndaigler, Yep, a whole lot more. But the event was on 10 October and I'm not sure what the current status is. I would advise thorough investigation of this before forming hard judgements. OGE, this is sort of scouting-related because Marcavage was a boy scout, a fact that was mentioned in this article: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/philadelphia_county/philadelphia/10640442.htm?1c If it wraps keep clipping it into the address. You'll see what I mean. Here's another: http://citypaper.net/articles/2005-02-03/cover2.shtml Remind you of anyone?

Roger, from the perpective of a person who is currently reviewing such letters (for a different purpose, not BSA) I urge you and others to use such a 'model' very loosely. In such a letter, I never expect to see something negative about the candidate. Nearly all of the candidates have good grades and are superlative in many other ways. Therefore the generic letters usually serve as a check off with little means of ranking them. Unless there is a superlative letter or else the letter is absent, generic letters are neutral. So I look for evidence that the writer really knows the candidate well. I look for statements that indicate a truly close personal understanding and I give the letters that have that personal touch greater weight than the generic ones. I think it IS possible to write a letter that stands out from the rest. But it requires some work on the part of the writer, and the desire to do it. And THAT is one thing that makes a big difference to me.

Welcome packwife! I have to say that sure is a catchy moniker. I now must inform the forum that packwife is in no way related to packsaddle. Really. At least as far as I know. I could be wrong. I often am. H'mmmm. Anyway, I think the parents of the boy MUST get engaged in his situation. If they are letting the troop act as aftercare they must be informed that is wrong. If they are in denial of the problems, they must come to grips with them. The boy is worth the time and I applaud you and the troop for your patience and for doing what you can for him. But your description indicates that the boy is not getting the scouting experience. And if the parents are not supportive, you cannot be expected to take their place. Such is not fair to the troop. If a private conversation with them doesn't resolve this, then perhaps the minister (assuming your CO is a church) could assist. edited part: sorry, there was a typo.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

acco40, here's a link that identifies the state: http://www.thebreeze.org/opinion/houseed.shtml The cartoon itself is worth a look. Regarding the question of choice, there is some evidence that the genotype is at least partially involved. But as with all behavoirs, science is a long way from providing a complete answer. I also agree with NJ on this.

Zahnada, I just remembered your comment. I agree on "Wrath of Khan". If you take the television episode, "Space Seed", clip off the credit stuff at the end of the episode and the credit stuff at the beginning of "Wrath", and stick them end-to-end you end up with a great evening. Captain Saavik was perky and in later years seems to have filled out quite nicely. Ohhhhhh yeahhhhhh. And lets face it, Bones aged just as badly. http://services.tos.net/pics/st2/st2-crew.jpg Actually time wasn't very kind to any of them, nor - for that matter - us. I also remember Yeoman Rand (Grace Lee Whitney). Check this out. http://www.sixtiescity.com/startrek/LOST/rand.htm And Yeoman Colt (from "The Menagerie" - Laurel Goodwin"). Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

I take the attorney thing very seriously. Any reservations I ever had were removed during the experience my family had after an uninsured drunk nearly killed them on their way to school one morning. If we had been left in the hands of the insurance company with no assistance from an attorney, our family would have been left in the same condition as our total-loss vehicle. The insurance company, ours, instantly became our adversary. We would have been twisting in the breeze from all the medical costs.

Well Worf might not have wanted to talk about it but I can tell you this...Klingon women have gotten hotter and hotter! Grrrrroooooowwwwllll!

Prairie_Scouter, welcome to the forums! The religious award of which you speak continues to be out of favor with BSA. Unless there is another such instance out there somewhere, it is the Unitarian Universalist religious award and as long as the UUs decide to exercise their right to free speech, BSA will likely decide to exercise their right of association. At least that's how it has been explained in other areas of this forum. BTW, you might be interested in this site: http://www.inclusivescouting.org/ Fuzzy Bear, I don't want you to think I was fussing at you about all this...I wasn't. I try to fuss at BSA but am reluctant to because of their track record for kicking people out when they exercise their freedom of speech. You state that the 'small step' is consequential. I agree. The consequence is that BSA would place their trust on individuals to make the best decisions that their individual consciences would allow. BSA would have to cease trying to exercise central control of our thoughts and behaviors. You also mention that BSA is evolving. I now note that 12 February is approaching - Charles Darwin's birthday. I hope everyone will celebrate one of the greatest minds that has existed and the tremendous contribution to science and humanity that he made with the theory of evolution.

FuzzyBear, I have considered your words and tried to find disagreement but I can't in any substantial way. However, BSA could take a small step further and eliminate the issue. BSA could leave this question solely to each individual's own conscience. By staking their claim on being a "religious organization" BSA also accepts a responsibility for providing a clear policy, one that evidently is lacking, except that persons of conscience who are labeled as atheists are excluded. I understand the fact that BSA painted themselves into a corner on this issue. But BSA chose to do that and I must believe they knew what they were doing. So my sympathy is reserved for those persons of conscience who are needlessly excluded...I think to the detriment of us all. We can react to Merlyn by taking a victim stance, but as I have observed before, that approach doesn't work well for those who are not actual victims. We can stand in the corner raging at the surrounding paint, but we did that to ourselves. Neither the action nor the rage exactly covers us with glory.

OGE, good question. I suppose, as it seems to be with many people, especially those with power over others, Yoda was engaging in a deception. Like the one where he didn't tell Luke about his sister...you never know where that tangled web will lead. But it rarely ever ends.

boleta, I agree. The problem with such labels is that if we closely examine most individuals, we are unlikely to find a perfect match for whatever stereotype we attach to that label. Attaching such labels to those persons, to me, indicates an unwillingness to really listen to what they say and consider their ideas, whatever they may be. But it is the easy thing to do and the boys are very susceptible to it. When someone applies a label to me, I think that I (and my ideas) have been dismissed as unimportant, and not worthy of their time or attention. Therefore, applying the golden rule, I try to avoid this practice when interacting with others. If the boys are having aguments over some issue, I try to keep them from engaging in the practice as well. OGE, Churchill obviously looked more like Yoda, except for that cigar.