packsaddle

SM406, I'll try to clarify what we do. Our council has told me that it IS important to make sure the dates on the Eagle application agree with those in council records. I go through the effort to make sure they are in perfect agreement BEFORE the application is sent. Some of the time everything agrees and there is no problem. But lately, I have found errors in every recent set of records. If I spot an error in council records, I do everything I can to correct it. BUT...council records are more likely to agree with the advancment forms. And if the blue card is dated differently from the advancement sheet...and if the recorded dates on the advancement sheet and at the council conform, nevertheless, to the written requirements, I use the date that agrees in the records (and leave the blue cards in the plastic sleeves as an emergency backup). I hope this is clear enough. Occasionally, the council records have had the dates COMPLETELY wrong (First Class to Life in two months, for example). I take great pains in those cases to bring everyone back on track.

Adrianvs, I can't speak for the others but I have never seen a parent who is not a parent first, regardless. But now that I have no children in the troop, I probably conform better to your standard, at least I try to.

Hops, you ever hear of 'testosterone poisoning'? It has led to quite a few organ donations, OGE can probably atest to that. Be careful, you're one of the good guys.

I'm thinking....OCD, OCD!

I agree with OGE and SM406 makes a good point as well. We use the blue cards but before the time of the Eagle application, I get the Council advancement printout and check it against our old advancement forms. Once the advancement and MBs are on the advancement form, we just archive the blue cards. The council records are abysmal and they know it (missing boys, wrong birth years, lost advancement records, etc.). Consequently they allow a fair amount of latitude for corrections by the adult leaders. As long as we supply credible evidence, they have been very reasonable in getting the corrections in. Moral: Be Prepared. Don't count on anyone else to keep your records straight. Goes for the boys too.

Hey folks, don't let the grumpy guy fool you. He DID remember all those things and, I bet, a lot more. He's thinking about it. NJ, I sympathize but I'm at a loss for what you could do. I also worry about them spending hours there in really smoky air. Life is really tough for some and it makes me try harder for the ones for whom I'm responsible.

Hey, what section is she up (down) to? I'm still working on the same thing but not so much at a time. I'm envious.

At least he didn't spell it, "aluminium".

I'll chime in with the view from the parent/leader side, I made my son aware that because of our relationship, he would be viewed as an example by the other boys. If I erred, it was in making his advancement much more difficult. But I give him credit, he really stuck with it and made Eagle...at age 17. I think he looks back with pride.

Welcome friend! If you search around this forum you will find some great recipes. You will also find a variety of other topics. Some of them are interesting also. The site is national - people from every part of the U.S. are members and some of them are in other parts of the world. Scouting here is different from some other countries, Boy Scouts is separate from Girl Scouts. I have noticed that boys and girls are combined in other countries. Is this true for Chile? Welcome again. I hope to read more about your country as well.

Eamonn, I'm with you. Where's that blue pill?

Rooster, sorry, I missed your challenge. How is it that you know that I have not already done this? How is it that you know me that well? How is it that you know the answer I arrived at is so inferior to yours? If I have done this already and gotten a different answer from yours, would you be satisfied?

Merlyn beat me to the punch, thanks. I was going to add that an experiment also requires a control...not mentioned. But it brought to mind a favorite poster of mine: An extraterrestrial zoo - with worm-like organisms observing cages, each cage with a single human in it. One worm says to the other, "They're an interesting species but they're difficult to propagate. When you cut them in half they just die." It doesn't have much to do with the topic but I liked it.

Ed, .........did you just say that you're gay? MK9750, I agree with the essence of your post. I am, however, just a little confused over the very last line. General comment to all: Believe it or not, I once felt almost exactly as Rooster and others do. I changed my mind because I came to understand that I was wrong (I'm only human) and I accepted that. My native skepticism leads me to question everything. But I remain open to rational, objective arguments. Use this to your advantage. Pretend that I'm from Missouri. Persuade me with measurements, experimental evidence, objective observations that I can repeat independently with identical results.

1386, ahem, is in the 14th century, not the 12th. Rooster, after fussing with you all these times, I have to tell you that I do like you, perhaps more now than before. We do disagree on a lot of things but I know that we agree on other, really important ones. I don't really want anyone to be in chains if they do not pose a risk of harm to other persons. Nor would I yank such a chain just to be mean. To subject your statements to a critical view does not mean that you, personally, are being attacked but if your statements can't stand such scrutiny then don't complain about it. You must realize that other persons probably have similar reactions to statements you make. It is possible that I have not interpreted your statements correctly. You must admit that you have not been clear. You write of biological sense, moral judgements, nature (not God) as a designer, God as a creator, obscenity, heart, mind, soul, perversity, accountability, repentance, salvation, conscience, the natural, the supernatural, the spiritual, and then (curiously) logic. You throw these terms and concepts around as if you have the last word on their comprehension, but your carelessness in their use just compounds misinterpretation on top of error. You condemn homosexuality in the florid terms that you seem to have cultivated for just such venues and then admit your ignorance in that you cannot comprehend why a man "would allow himself to succcumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality." That, at least, is an honest admission. If I see an incomprehensible morass of conflicting terms and usage, I submit that there is good reason. Rooster, I and others in this forum have some understanding of your feelings on this subject. But your view, like the views of the rest of us, is just that - your own personal view. And an attempt to convince rational persons on faith-based arguments will only please those who already agree. CubScouterFather is a person you don't know. Not really. You don't know me. You don't know many others in this forum. Not really. Yet you seem so quick to judge - harshly. That's the part I would really like to understand. Peace

And now we have come to natural law. If we were to ask a number of persons (>1) to explain what that is, a huge mass of confusion would almost be inevitable. For the amusement of those who did not read this quite a while back, natural law has long been enforced. "In 1386 a trial was held in which the accused had allegedly disfigured a child. The accused stood before the court in a waistcoat, breeches, and with white gloves. The accused was sentenced to first receive similar maiming, then to be garroted and hanged at the village scaffold. The accused was, literally, a pig." There are much more contemporary examples as well. Rooster, are you missing the good ol' days? Clearly pigs were (are?) held accountable (probably baboons too if they are similarly guilty). One of the major limitations in behavioral science is that no-one, not even you Rooster, can really know what another organism thinks or feels. At some level of inquiry the same could be said of people. No-one, not even the omniscient Rooster, knows whether any animal does or does not have a sense of morality (although there is increasingly good evidence that some animals may feel envy or jealousy). As for souls, those are not capable of being addressed by science (though some humorous attempts have been made). The concept of mind is one of those that rests beside 'heart' and soul. Difficult to define, much less measure or study. Some of us probably should get a little uncomfortable if it were any other way. I must admit, male and female bodies are designed particularly well for reproduction (with just a few limitations) and I, for one, really appreciate (enjoy?) that fact. Rooster's embrace of this evolutionary outcome is downright refreshing. However, I am sympathetic to the conservative view born of the marketplace (both commerce and ideas). Rooster's judgement that "homosexuals will not contribute to the subsistence of mankind" is patently wrong. Homosexuals have the opportunity to contribute materially to society and mankind as much as anyone, certainly in commerce and obviously in ideas. And such contributions are in abundant need in society while, for the time being at least, there nevertheless seems to be an abundant supply of reproduction. Now what was that quote from Ehrlich, "People can be produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work."? Homosexuals make crucial contributions to the welfare of all people. I suggest that if persons who are repulsed by this thought would merely reject all technology or medical procedures based on such contributions or performed by homosexuals, the situation would correct itself quickly and their worries would be shortened. Lastly, I observe that although homosexuals are unlikely to reproduce (note that with cloning or in-vitro fertilization, lesbians are less limited than male homosexuals), their fitness in this population is by no means zero. Through their action in the marketplace and socially with all of us, their inclusive fitness is significant. Difficult to measure - as is fitness of any human subject group, but undeniable nevertheless.

I have observed other troops with the pole ends fitted as a group into cans of appropriate size (coffee usually). Each set of poles of equal length is grouped and capped by a can on each end. The cans have holes in them near the open end. One can on each end, then tied to each other by ropes through the holes in the cans. The ropes are then used as handles. Seems to work well and keeps the wasps out of the ends.

I think Bob White is completely correct in his explanation of the requirement. It states that the scout must supply the names of persons who "...would be willing to provide a recommendation...". This implies that no such letter is required up front, only that they "would be willing" if asked, presumably by the board or the boy. This leaves the disposition of the requirement up to the board. It works for us. This does not contradict NWScouter's observation that the religious reference need not be a religious leader. It merely needs to be a person who can provide said support.

Saw it. ATL is my favorite large airport. MIA is my most hated. JFK is just weird, probably suffering from age. ORD is just big.

If I didn't have children still baking in school, I wouldn't hesitate...nor would my wife - ROAD TRIP! I love travel, especially to places like Peru (to which I haven't been but my wife has). Her last flight there was from Equitos back to Lima, on a little prop job. The flight was delayed while mechanics tried to bend a propeller blade straight again using a monkeywrench. But another plane was necessary in the end. She loved it. Go! Take it from me, you ain't gettin' any younger. Go!

Good morning folks. I hope everyone is doing well. CJ, I am not trying to offer a rebuke, just a personal view. Have a nice day.

Ed, I don't know the thought process that led to the Supreme Court decision. In the case you and NJ cite, I agree it does seem to be an inequity. I'm still struggling, however, to understand your meaning when you say that if you can, you should be able to do something. I just am not following it. To continue with your flag example, some of my neighbors fly the Confederate flag on a pole in a position just above the American Flag. They can and they do. But I think they are trying to say something, don't you? My guess is that the message I get when I see those flags is different from the message others of my neighbors get, who fly similar flag configurations. I also suspect that if the local Post Office did this, yet other neighbors (and I) would correct that, posthaste. Edited part: Oops, Ed, I forgot to add that many of those confederate guys have menorahs in their windows at Christmas. So do many others down here. A Jewish friend of mine was visiting and he commented on the large Jewish community. I laughed and explained that those people had no idea what a menorah was...they thought they were displaying candelabras - they even refer to them that way. Sometimes the message is wasted. CJ, I agree with TwoCub regarding your test questions. If a teacher in my region had destroyed the flag as you describe, tenure likely would have ended the same day. I don't deny that there are bad public school teachers. I have also found them in private schools. However, I have interacted with a large number of teachers across the country and I have found many fair and highly-trained ones as well. In my experience, a school that has a large number of incompetent teachers often has an incompetent principal. My solution for the variation in teacher quality in middle - high school is for education to be offered only as a minor and prospective teachers for those grades be required to earn their actual degree in the subject to be taught. This doesn't sound liberal does it? It also might not work for kindergarten through lower elementary school. I teach my students that applying terms or labels to something should not make them confident that they have thereby explained or understood that something. I try to look beyond the label (in this case, 'liberal'). Nevertheless, I consider myself to be socially liberal (in the sense of 'individual liberty'), but fiscally conservative (in the sense of actually conserving - resources, energy, or even paying one's bills and living within one's means). I would love to have students in my classes who feel no reluctance to debate points, time permitting. If they were good at it, I might even recruit them for graduate school. But that's another topic.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Ed, you asked a great question. Every time that we have been able to study the phenomenon, an animal's display (color, behavior, etc.) has been done at some energetic or other cost. Most investigators assume there is a result from the display that has outweighed that cost, otherwise (we're talking economics here) there's reason for it not to occur (the cost of doing it). Are we really that different? Do we apply makeup merely because we can? Do we carefully choose our clothes to match the occasion merely because we can? (OK, I tend to wear whatever is on top but that doesn't count) I think we do all these things to achieve a result, however subtle that may be. If I were to put a cross in my front yard (which I did as a child) it isn't a random act. It is a message to everyone who sees it, sometimes different messages to different people.

Sometimes I ask myself, "Why, oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?" cjmiam, I understand your comments and I am sympathetic with your complaint, at least at its base. I guess I need to step forward and confess to perhaps qualifying (on a part-time basis anyway) as one of those evil liberal professors. I can't and won't defend the classroom actions of someone that you may have had for some course in the past, but I would never respond to a student in any way but an objective, informative manner. My students would back this claim up, and they also would not tolerate such conduct as you describe in a professor. I also don't teach that subject (what the heck does a Healthy American class teach?) and my dean knows I'll walk if he confronts me with 250 students in one course. Furthermore, although I have taught human reproduction in the past, it was strictly clinical in nature. The students were confronted with a list of topics and their interests largely determined the order and content of discussions. I was impressed with the wide range of knowledge for some and the ignorance of others. My goal was to provide a basic knowledge level of how human reproduction works and to dispel the incredible number of myths that people seem to cling to. The childbirth films, I think, led to greater abstinence for all. My courses (various topics in biology) have lent themselves to neither pro- nor anti-war nor -Americanism nor -religion so maybe I have been spared those issues. After reading your post several times, however, I am still not clear how one person would indoctrinate another about condoms. Or did someone advocate their use? Still not clear what kind of issue is possible for such an object. In my class they were presented in terms of operation, limitations, risks. The students, I assume, made their own decisions on whether to use or not. I try not to lump people into stereotypical groups (one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with the concept of race) but rather I try to take people as individuals and their ideas one at a time, to be judged on the merits of each (or lack thereof). Am I wrong? One of the reasons I try to be faithful to this policy is because I know how unfair such lumping treatment as you describe is. The 'liberal professor' comment, I might add, could also be used as a case in point.

That Uhaul thing is good to know. Our DE also forbade us from similar solicitations. But I know troops in his district who list 'sponsors' on the side of their trailers. The policy seems to be applied unevenly. Because we asked, our DE has placed us in a position of closer scrutiny. So we are paying for ours through regular fundraisers where we sell hot dogs or similar things to the church or the public. It's slow but effective.