packsaddle

Unless I'm fairly sure it's going to rain I don't use a tent, just a ground cloth. When I do, I prefer the Sierra Designs Clip Flashlight CD tent, gives me room for my daughter as well. Twocubdad, how did you waterproof the old floor and how well does it work? I also have a favorite old standby and the coating is long gone. My conservative nature doesn't want to retire it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Signing off in a few minutes to go to Grandma's. Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Now my second response actually doesn't begin to match the tone of some I have read in the past but it gets the point across, I think. My first response recognizes that Bob made several errors and I have attempted to limit his embarrassment. It is a far more constructive way to address the problem than the second response. In that response, I could have noted Bob's accusations, his inference that I have not been honest. I could have taken up Bob's last remark and suggested that if he doesn't want to be quoted, he shouldn't write anything. None of that would have been constructive. Among these threads it is easy to get caught up in the heat and I plead guilty of having done that in the past. But if we are to be constructive, we need to try to set passion aside. And if someone, Bob perhaps, errs in word and passion, I think it best to give the benefit of the doubt. Give them a chance to recognize the error and make an honest effort to address it. So now: Bob, Would you like to try that again? I really did try to quote you accurately.

Here is an alternate response, along the lines of some I have read in the past: Bob, I am astounded. I haven't fabricated anything. I am not engaging in a deception. You did say that and I quoted you exactly. When I quote someone, I attempt to clip it directly from their original message. Only under special circumstances do I ever retype a quote and I usually note departures from the original if there are any. If you had read the next paragraph of your own message you would have seen it for yourself, I can't believe you could think the rest of us don't see it. I think everyone else can. In case this isn't as obvious as the nose on your face (and I have never seen you to my knowledge, it's probably a magnificent nose) your response in totality, posted: Thursday, 11/18/2004: 5:12:32 PM in first page of this thread, BEGINNING OF BOB WHITE'S MESSAGE: "The BSA does not approve or disapprove of ANY religion. The BSA approves what awards it recognizes for wear on the BSA uniform, and does so based on their requirements and how those requirements further the values and Aims of the BSA Program. At the present time the BSA does not approve the requirements set forth by the Unitarian Church for their award. The Scout is welcome to pursue the recognition from his church, he simply may not wear the award on his Scout Uniform. (This message has been edited by Bob White)" END OF BOB WHITE'S MESSAGE The portion of the above response by you that I quoted was merely clipped from that response. Here I have clipped it from my message unaltered, "At the present time the BSA does not approve the requirements set forth by the Unitarian Church for their award." If you examine your response, second paragraph, first sentence, everyone should see exactly the quote that I mentioned. I haven't fabricated anything. I don't know your password and I wouldn't attempt to edit anyone else's message. Unless someone else did that, I assume that the response with your name on it...came from you. Or have I made a mistake in this assumption? Are you saying that the Bob White who wrote that response is another person? Now THAT would indeed be reason for some confusion.

OK, this is getting a little weird. I offer the following three responses as a lesson on civility, two of them in separate messages: Bob White, I think you may want to rethink your last response. Take a look at your other responses, especially your very first response in this thread, the second paragraph, and I think you'll see the portion of your response that I quoted.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Ed, you out there somewhere? This might be a good time to elaborate your thoughts. I have noted that you seem to question the idea of separation of church and state. What would you propose as a better approach?

NJ, No offence intended but as for me, I'd side with your mom every time. She's probably a better cook too.

WWBPD, NJ, I also noticed the lax control on patches. I actually still have my original card for my God and Country award. But when I asked for the patch there were no questions asked (nor, I add, for the eagle patch I also asked for). As far as I'm concerned, a UUA boy who wears the patch in violation of the regs will not suffer at my hands. I will leave that for the professionals. fgoodwin, I noticed the absence of the requirements for these awards on internet sites, a conspicuous absence. For that reason, I'm concerned about publishing those requirements here. Maybe I'm being too careful but if I can determine that I will not violate copyright or something similar, I'll list them for you along with changes that took place during the time of this controversy.

In case there's confusion, the reason for my initial inquiry was a statement by Bob White, "At the present time the BSA does not approve the requirements set forth by the Unitarian Church for their award." In that message I detected something I had never known before, specifically that BSA objected to the requirements that UUA has established for the award. This was news to me and in contradiction to the record of the controversy that I had read in the past, so I asked about it. I think the matter has been settled, again from Bob White, "Which requirement(s) the BSA has a problem with I neither know or(sic) worry about." Evidently the requirements are not the subject of BSA objections after all. This, at last, is consistent with the record.

Bob58, back when I first became aware of this issue I procured copies of the current and the old pamphlets from the UUA. I wanted to actually see the change that BSA objected to. BSA, as you note, does not provide these pamphlets to the scouts. For that matter, in our area at least, it doesn't provide religious award pamphlets for quite a number of religions, even some of those named in the list of approved religions (or whatever that list is called). I also have learned things from Bob White in the past. Recently he stated that "At the present time the BSA does not approve the requirements set forth by the Unitarian Church for their award." I am merely hoping he will identify the offending requirements.

Ditto. (sorry NJ)

Hello, hello, calling Rangoon! Bob White, did you miss my question earlier? I asked which requirement is it, for the UUA religious award, that BSA objects to and therefore disallows wearing the award on the scout uniform. I am looking at the pamphlet and I can't find the offending requirement.

I just learned that some troops in this district are allowing senior scouts to run BORs for the Tenderfoot rank. I was shocked to learn that this was discussed at roundtable and met with approval by all. I am at a loss for how to respond. I am outnumbered and probably outgunned on this one. Some help would be appreciated.

Whitewater, in answer to your second amendment question, I examine my area (listening to gunshots in our development on a Sunday morning before church while I write this) and I detect no infringements. Therefore no need for the ACLU to protect the right. (or do you want free access to fully automatic weapons?) Tdavis, regarding your comment to Merlyn about being anti-Christian, why Christian? You do know that quite a few folks in this country are neither atheist nor Christian, don't you?

A couple of years ago, I think the number of pages for a topic in this forum was limited partially by the amount of time it took for a 56K modem to download the file during a reply. Now, with widespread increased bandwidth, the limit seems to have grown with the bandwidth. I would have thought this thread was dead long ago. WWBPD, If the transgender person remained heterosexual in practice, I assume BSA would have no problem. It would, however, be an interesting experiment to observe, any volunteers out there? I do see your point that defining 'heterosexual' in that circumstance might be a challenge for BSA. However, I detect a curiosity about this in your question. When I was quite young, a man (who had been drafted into the Army shortly after the war ended) made headlines: http://www.transgenderzone.com/features/ChristineJorgensen.htm It's an interesting read. Later, I heard all manner of rumors about Christine. The link can also lead you to some other related, rather-detailed pages about the topic if you're interested. Taking one step back, though, is a similarly interesting scenario, cross-dressing. There are heterosexuals who engage in this behavior: http://tri-ess.org/ I assume that, as strict heterosexuals, while these individuals might not 'fit in' with many of our prejudices, they would still qualify for BSA leadership if they were so inclined. For all I know, they are already here and I just haven't noticed. H'mm.

Trevorum, I'm curious about your last sentence. Do know something, suspect something about this situation with the UUAs? Bob White, Which requirement was it that BSA objected to, thereby disallowing wearing of the award on a BSA uniform?

WWBPD, It's the little things that just nag away at me. Ok, some big ones too. But I can't figure out what song that referred to, "FALALALALALALALA!!!!" It doesn't have enough "LAs" for 'Deck the Halls' but two "LAs" too many for 'The Flowers That Bloom in the Spring'. Help me out here.

I imagine the good folks of this forum could express varied opinions on that.

...taking a break from trying to remember where I left my keys.... "Dateline - USA: "Most adolescent boys would forget their heads if they weren't attached". Stop the presses! Is this a newsflash for anyone, especially anyone who has a teenage boy in the house?" So, KoreaScouter, you're limiting this to the boys? ...oops, there they are still in the doorlock...now where are those glasses?

Whew, that's a relief. So....if it was movie, what rating would it get?

OK, I have resisted until now and now it is a 'handle' that hooked me. Please explain the moniker, catsmasher. "The suspense is terrible...I hope it will last."

In our area the boys are free to choose, and cross the lines if they want. As a practical matter, driving distances usually keep them fairly close to home.

We use it as a follow-up treatment after a rotenone survey. It neutralizes the rotenone in the right proportion. A little stronger, it kills everything. Read the MSDS.

EagleInKY, If your point is that stereotypes are not a good way to engage in constructive dialogue, I agree. I may have heard a couple of those terms thrown around, I don't pay them any more attention than the term, 'soccer mom'. Why should you? You should shrug that stuff off. What do you really have to whine about anyway? Your guys beat their guys, right? Your guys are in complete control and theirs are out of the game, right? The victim stance doesn't work if you're not a victim.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I was going to do this in another thread but this one is most appropriate. I would like to thank Trail Pounder, KoreaScouter, and all the others in these forums who have served in our armed forces, for their service to this country. I mean that sincerely.