packsaddle

SagerScout, I concur with your dad. One of the most interesting things I heard is how Ticans proudly note that they once defeated the United States in an invasion attempt. OK this is their exaggeration. http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/FieldCourses00/PapersCostaRicaArticles/CostaRicain1856.Defeating.html The table could be turned. See: http://waldmanreport.com/reports/index.php?ReportID=39 Like the little dinosaur says, "gotta love 'em." Time to brush up on Spanish.

Merlyn, after rethinking some of my earlier responses (especially the last one) this thread probably isn't the best place to bring someone up to date on basic biology. Not enough space and I wonder if they really care anyway. I wonder, regardless if homosexuality is learned or if it is not learned, does it really matter to any of us (outside of academic curiousity?) If there was sufficient evidence for a genetic link - so that even skeptics had to admit it, I submit that most of us who condemn homosexuality would still feel the same way about it. And for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with science. Just a thought.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Costa Rica tops my list. Compared to Costa Rica, we are a really violent and lawless country. I really like the people and the country and I think it is the safest country I have visited so far (the food could use some improvement). I can point you to great destinations there. Just fly to San Jose, rent a car, and wing it. Great fun! Ecuador has always intrigued me too. I plan to get to that one asap. Did anyone say, 'Galapagos'? The way to get to Cuba is to...come to think of it - if I tell you, I'll technically be breaking a law. Sorry. See: http://travel.state.gov/cuba.html Especially during these times, trying to re-enter the U.S. with a passport accidentally stamped by Cuba (without the license) tends to catch the attention of our agents. You'd lose more than your cigars and any of the other countries you listed make better destinations. Have a great trip! Edited part: Exit plan - the great thing about Central and South America is that if worse comes to worse, I could theoretically walk home.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

johnsned, you made me hungry with that post. I anxiously anticipate your recipes. Edited part: One of my favorites - persimmon bread.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eamonn, are you originally from merry ol' England?

We also used old mayo' jars as well and those would break once in a while in the pressure cooker. But heating in an oven could be less even so I would think the risk of breakage greater. Our old mason jars were all survivors so I think we had already lost the weak ones.

10-4 on those boots, Saltheart. Mine are Vasque Whitneys vintage 1971. Similar wear & tear, me too.

My pocketknife. My canoe. My backpacking boots. My splitting maul. My survival skills. My curiosity.

I recognize this. It is essentially 'canning' the baked item. Lidding the jar while hot would create a low pressure inside. However, the preservative action is probably due to the heat of baking and then the seal against contamination. Make sure you have the lids pressure-cooked to minimize introduction of microbes on them and handle them very carefully, taking them hot from the cooker and quickly to the jars. But if it works for green beans, it'll probably work for bread. One note, Mason jars may not be that compatible with baking temperatures. Be careful if any shatter in the process.

Rooster, I must note that Merlyn's lizard is by no means the only organism engaged in parthenogenesis. Many organisms do this and one reason why was explained by Maynard Smith in 1975 who showed that there was a two-fold decrease in fitness for species with sexual reproduction as opposed to parthenogenesis. That said, single sex populations with parthenogenesis DO reproduce. Just not sexually. And I would hesitate to characterize such populations as analogous to human homosexuals for a variety of reasons that ought to be obvious. And THAT said, I do think that a reliance on 'nature' for support of one's argument cannot lead to 'proof' of anything because 'proof' is an exceedingly difficult condition to attain and 'nature' is an exceedingly weak means of attaining it. Unless, of course, you agree with Spinoza that 'nature' and God are one and the same. In that case it becomes a matter of religion and 'proof' becomes, as Merlyn suggests, a personal matter. But mammals are not parthenogenetic animals, indeed parthenogenesis is impossible for most (all?) of them due to genomic imprinting. Presumably some other advantage outweighs the associated reduction in fitness as a result of sexual reproduction. At this time there are well more than a dozen hypotheses regarding the selective advantages that maintain sexual reproduction. Here's the really good part...to understand the leading hypothesis you need to begin by reading Alice's dialog with the Red Queen in 'Through the Looking Glass'. Good words to you.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Or another alternative would be a song and a group hug. "How much is that doggie in the window? Arf, arf." Man if that's not intimidating I don't know what is. And I hope everyone keeps that tune in their heads for the rest of the day.

Rooster, Thanks for your explanation. Your usage is more sophisticated than that of most persons who just use the term - with little thought as to what they mean by it. I wanted especially to respond to your statement, 'Dont try to use these bogus arguments such as natures way to control the population...' I agree with this completely. However, it cuts both ways. I try not to use nature to 'explain' anything. Therefore while you and I agree it can't be used to accept anything, I also do not consider it valid to use it to reject anything. One final note. What I am about to write neither supports nor rejects your views, it is just a personal admission. I have become sensitized to some of the things written in this thread with regard to 'natural' or 'unnatural' acts. Many times I have heard identical arguments against interracial interactions of all sorts, from marriage to merely sitting together at a table. I doubt this is unique to my region but I understand that the Southeast carries a special stigma with regard to racial prejudice. Occasionally I still hear remnants of those things. Therefore, when I hear such arguments, regardless of topic, it sets me on edge. I hope you understand. I am reminded of a walk I took with friends many years ago on the shore of Lake Michigan near U. Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Interracial couples were everywhere that evening, sprawled out on the grass in great numbers. My friend, who suffered from deep prejudices, made a remark about the scene. I responded with sarcasm, "Yes, it's almost as if it's not unnatural." He accepted the response as sincere. I just shook my head in sadness.

What would we do without you NJ? Acco40, I know persons who define God as 'negentropy'. But unless you forgot to put in a happy face, I have no idea what inspired you to say that, nor for that matter, what it meant.

I...ahem,...also..have two children, h'mmmm. Your point is taken. For me, at least, the use of 'purpose' or 'intent' is a bit troubling, as science cannot address such. "Whose purpose or intent? Why? How do you know this?" These are questions that I wonder when I read such usage. I can't respond for the others but for you to add sarcasm probably will just make interpretation of your ideas more difficult. As a reader, it would then be even more difficult to identify which of your messages are sincere. But to continue on the earlier thought, your response, for example, still makes reference to mother nature as if it is something that exits. And when I reread the passages you list as sarcastic I still see an implication that the writer (you) uses the concept as if it exists. I'm not trying to criticize, rather I am interested in the views that people have about 'nature'. As a concept, it greatly predates the concept of a deity or deities. Yet it is popular for nearly everyone to continue to use it casually, regardless of their religion, as if their usage 'naturally' explains their ideas. I just find it interesting. Philosophically, I do see a potential conflict if 'nature' is used synonymously with God. If one or the other is used consistently and exclusively for separate discussions, that is a little clearer. But in this forum, when the two concepts are used simultaneously, I have to view this as an attempt to distinguish them from each other, thereby acknowledging the existence of both. Alternatively, they must be the same thing. I hope this explains why I asked.

Quote from Ehrlich again, "People can be produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work." And it doesn't take many to get it started. Lewontin once estimated that any two random mated persons would be capable of expressing 80% of all the human genetic variation on earth. As NJ says, a small non-reproducing segment of the population has little impact. In 1960 world population reached 3 billion for the first time in history. It doubled before the end of the century. It will add another 3 billion before 2050. It may level at around 12 billion in a hundred years or so...if everything goes well. If not, it will be really bad news for everyone. But CJ, your statement about sex only being for reproduction reminds me of a favorite line from Monty Python's 'The Meaning of Life'. The Protestant man, casting aspersions on a large Catholic family states, "Those Catholics, they have a child every time they have sex." and his wife replies, "Its the same with us, dear. We have two children". Sorry Acco40, disproof by analogy to satire. CJ, I am nevertheless puzzled by your use of the term, 'nature' or 'mother nature'. Rooster does this too. Are you saying that 'mother nature' is the same thing as God? Rooster mentioned nature as a designer. Are you using these terms synonymously? Or are you saying there is another supernatural force out there that also controls things?

Ed, they've been there all along. They always will be. You just haven't noticed before. Also, in case anyone else is concerned about this, the sky really is not falling. Don't worry, be happy. NJ, uuuuhhhh, have you been talking to my wife? She claims I lost them a long time ago. And after decades of marriage I know she's always right.

Uh oh! I might have started something here... I can't place you, seriously, I guess I haven't formed an image my mind's eye yet. (Same goes for most of the other forum members so don't ask) Maybe a different book would work better. Suggestions? P.S. Zorn Packte, definitely a shape shifter. The Baron - I'm currently thinking he's probably not in Scouting (I hope)

Insufficient illumination.

Not experimental evidence but: Let's suppose that you have a large container of marbles of different colors. You don't know how many of each color. One of the colors is prohibited if it's found in the container. However, you can't look into the container. A steady stream of marbles of unknown colors continually replenishes the container. There is an opening in the container. Marbles also regularly leave. Every once in a while one with the prohibited color emerges. It is not allowed back in. Do you think there are other prohibited marbles still in the container?

Mine didn't push and I did it anyway. But I've met other adults whose parents didn't push and they didn't make it. And they have regrets.

I suspect the approval process varies but once the boy writes the proposal, in our area he can get it approved the same day. It doesn't happen often because it's rarely needed, but it could.

Dan, You should at least read the first couple of chapters to learn what the gom jabar is. I like Tom Clancy too so it might grow on you. But when you read it you'll also recognize my intended association for Bob White. It's meant in good fun but you never know how a person will react. Edited part: I better put in another smiley face, I wouldn't want to meet the gom jabar. And I agree with Dsteele regarding the sequels (5 sequels so far). The last ones are just a chore for me. But Dune is a great read. It won awards but I don't think of it as science fiction as much as fantasy. I'm thinking Merlyn could be a member of the spacing guild. Can't place the Baron just yet. I would like to be thought of as Duncan Idaho or Dr. Kynes (hey you know I can dream too, I like spice and my eyes are blue). But Frank Herbert was a serious person. He did quite a bit of work crafting the original. See: http://www.dunenovels.com/news/genesis.html As John Ciardi would say, good words to you.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Wow! SM406, almost exactly the same stuff happens to us. You suppose our councils are helping each other by swapping recordkeeping hints? Just a thought.

OGE, don't underestimate the effect of whining. Turning their tactics back on them not only is occasionally effective, it puts them off balance (hey, where did they learn this?) and gives us a temporary advantage. But they're quick and will adjust the shift frequency of their shields soon enough. Remember they're not 'our' troop. Or to paraphrase: from this moment on, we're here to serve...them.

Adrianvs, Wow! And if you think OGE is a wee bit touchy, wait till you meet Bob White (and the gom jabar). I think part of the difference you observe (and this is just my experience) is that the parent/leader knows their son more intimately than any of the others. In this respect I think you may be correct, the parent side may intrude on the leader side and the son may have an advantage. This is almost unavoidable. But ideally, if any boy asks for help, a good leader will do everything they can to assist, I know I do. Here's a smiley face to cheer up everyone. Y'all have a nice day now, you hear?