packsaddle

Hello Littlebillie, Thanks but Oregon is one of my favorite places...I could spend a lot of time in those hills. In regard to your thoughts on historical lapses in our freedoms (at least for some of us), I think that in retrospect most of us view those lapses with some wonder as to how we thought they were necessary. Do you think it was necessary for example, at the time, to imprison our citizens of Japanese extraction? I think I understand the rationale for that action and I have to admit that without the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, I don't know for sure how I would have acted then either. But I do beg the question, is it ever really necessary to give up our freedom and if so, how much? It just seems so easy to lose them and so difficult to regain them later. .....and then it seems so often wrong in retrospect. Zahnada, (interesting name, by the way) I would like to know the origin of your list of questions and answers if you can locate that info.

Actually we agree on the need for safety. You simply have not supplied convincing evidence of how a noseclip is unsafe. Outside of your unsupported claim that anyone who loses a noseclip will panic, you have given scant support elsewhere for your opinion. What I see is an arbitrary application of a personal opinion that may or may not have anything to do with a real safety issue although such provides a convenient means to cloak your opinion in undeserved merit. You have no way to conclude that a boy taking the test with a noseclip is unsafe without - or at least have given no evidence to support your opinion. Rather than informing us how the Red Cross or the YMCA approach this, perhaps making suggestions on how this does or does not apply to BSA, you supply us with all the force of logic and reason contained in...another iteration of your unsupported opinion. Using your approach, you would have equal validity in banning ID bracelets, swimcaps, or anything else you chose (I notice you didn't address those earlier) or, for that matter, rings on fingers. You present the fanciful possibility that the boy will 'panic' without the noseclip as support for your demand that it be removed. Without such justification and with an unwillingness to defend your opinion outside its simple restatement, your approach appears more like some kind of 'dominance' display than a reasoned policy. The "I'm in charge" approach does effectively control, but without a reasoned and rational basis it won't command respect. I view it as an example of weak leadership for the boys to follow. Perhaps the "I don't care..." attitude applies there as well.

Youngblood, nose'clips' not 'plugs'...that thought is downright painful. I think the important phrase from your response is "I don't care..." You have a personal opinion and you exploit the lack of clarity by BSA to impose that opinion unfairly on some boys (at your camp), but not others (who are going to other camps). You therefore place BSA in the position of applying their rules and regulations in an unfair and unequal manner. This is partly your fault for wanting to impose your opinion in the form of an unwritten regulation. It is partly the result of BSA's lack of clarity which gives you that opening. Obviously there is a need for BSA to resolve this with a more specific revision to their documentation.

"Jump feetfirst into water over the head in depth, level off, and begin swimming. Swim 75 yards in a strong manner using one or more of the following strokes; sidestroke, breaststroke, trudgen, or crawl; then swim 25 yards using an easy, resting backstroke. The 100 yards must be swum continuously and include at least one sharp turn. After completing the swim, rest by floating." THIS is the requirement. Period. In the explanation following the requirement, the statement is made about entering the water without aids. Then it explains what that means, "Walking in from shallow water, easing in from the edge or down a ladder, pushing off from side or bottom, or gaining forward momentum by diving do not satisfy this requirement." I would buy your argument if you were concerned about a mask and fins, or waterwings. But anyone who thinks a noseclip or goggles or earplugs should disqualify an otherwise competent swimmer is adding their own opinion of how things should be, unfairly. I'm waiting for someone to argue about the proper bathing suit. How about a swim cap? Or a waterproof watch? An ID bracelet? Take your concerns to the top guys if you think you're right. Get them into the regs and then we'll all conform. But you'd have a bad scene if you kept one of my guys out on this basis...and it wasn't clearly in the regulation.

Ed, it meant that I was beginning to think you were describing a real situation. Sorry. Frankj, I liked the prodigal son analogy as well. Regarding your 'vanishing scout', I have seen a couple of those as well. I try to keep my judgements to myself. If they meet the requirements they deserve the award. Once they get the award, it is their choice and their loss if they do nothing more. I might think badly of them but I wouldn't deny them the award just because I question their motives. This assumes, of course, that they really did meet the stated requirements. But consider this as well, one of the scouts I have in mind made statements similar to the one you mention, and then during the final year or so of working to Eagle, he turned around and 'got religion' so-to-speak. He is now one of our dependable ASMs. My advice, give them a good example and good leadership and let them decide. Most of the time, they'll make a good decision.

Bob White is correct on advancement regs but the spirit of that should apply to such activities outside strict advancement. In the past I've had a few boys whose doctors required earplugs for watersports. Under the extraordinary approach presented by AquatDir those boys would never be allowed to participate in any aquatic activities, advancement or not. That would have been wrong. FYI, our camp applies no such extra requirements. As a matter of fact, now that my memory is finally working, this reminds me of a non-BSA-camp director (no lie!) whose personal opinion was that PFDs were only for wimps who couldn't swim. He did not allow anyone in a canoe, for example, WITH a PFD. A rigid policy, yes,...there are some other terms I would use to describe it as well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Ed, I agree with BW, your hypothetical was just a wee bit too convincing. That said, I accept your statement that it is hypothetical. ...but it was pretty convincing, you wouldn't happen to be a writer would you?

Mark, you must have met my son somewhere along the way. I couldn't agree more.

Like I yell to anyone who has fallen out of a canoe, "Don't swallow!". I guess I didn't want to think about the hot springs thing but you're right, Staph city! Scoutldr, I'm not sure that the Safe Swim guidelines can address pathogens unless some gov agency is testing the waters and providing the info. The rate of these infections (amebic) is very low but nice to remember. And these organisms are EVERYWHERE. ASM1, they're out to get you too! Theoretically it would be possible to become infected through the mouth but most concern is about the openings that don't have convenient closing mechanisms (like the nose). But you're right, witnessing one of my boys who needed to throw up a quantity of pizza but kept his mouth clamped shut...yep, mozarella cheese drooling out the nose. Nice.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Curious, I thought it was a really tall mountain in Alaska. Anyway, this thread reminded me of our most recent incident...there are different degrees of mischief. On a national tour permit we were on a long trip and two of the boys were holding...well...rude signs up to passing motorists, in our well-marked church bus. OK, at least they weren't mooning anyone, I've seen that before too. The other adults stopped the behavior and at the first convenience I informed the boys that I would have to 'think' about the appropriate response. Man, this did keep them quiet for a long time! I spoke to the parents and we worked out an appropriate course of action. Those two are now in line as good future leaders. There's a lot of room for judgement and I think that, where possible, the parents must be included. Occasionally, the parents and I also share a good laugh. P.S. If any of you saw those signs, I apologize.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I suppose, as they say on STNG, resistance is futile. As amazed as I am about this, I agree with Bob White on this 'hypothetical' question. Or at least I think I do (You'll let me know if I'm wrong, won't you BW, I know I can count on that). While it might seem that the regulations leave little room for judgement, there actually is a tremendous need for good judgement and one way to use such is to really know the scout. By the time a boy attains Life, the adult leadership should know him quite well. I suppose this is easier in smaller troops but it should apply everywhere. Without evidence to the contrary, I would have to assume that a returning scout is sincere in his wish and I would work to help him achieve his goals. Ultimately the Eagle Board would provide a final answer. Ahem, I probably would, however, give him a pretty good lecture about waiting until the last minute...not that I ever do that...nooooo.

jps, If they survived the fall then the screw would likely chum the water with them. Have a nice day! Youngblood, It has been my impression that the swim test is a skills test to discriminate between boys who can swim well and those who can't. I think it's not a survival test or at least it better not be in my pool! And I agree with an earlier post...all the swimmers on our swim team wear goggles, an occasional noseclip. There are good reasons to wear them. First, in a pool the chemicals are less likely to irritate the eyes and nose. For some children the reaction can be severe. In lakes and rivers there is also a very small risk of infection and the goggles and noseclip can help there as well. Not to alarm anyone but you might want to refer to: http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/FreeLivingAmebic.htm The operational translation for 'olfactory neuroepithelium' is 'nose membranes'. Pay close attention to Naegleria fowleri. This is one of my favorites, nearly always fatal, and reeeeaaaally gruesome. You can help avoid it by blowing your nose often during and after swimming...or wearing a noseclip. I thought you guys might enjoy the link. There is a lake in SC where persons used to be required to wear respirators within 100 feet of the water because of this organism. That's right, you can get this from airborne spores as well. Sleep tight! P.S. Never make an enemy of a parasitologist.

KWC57, I think I see a very loose relationship between 'patriotII' and an Iraq war but only in the sense that there is an association between Iraq and terrorism. The provisions in 'patriotII', if it's passed, will very much apply if we do go to war with Iraq. I think ASM1's assertion is that with such an Act, the coincidence of actual war could greatly curtail our freedoms...including ASM1's 1st Amendment freedom to bloat scouter.com's disk space. I think it is possible that this administration will seek such power, don't you? But as to the earlier link to whitestruggle.net, I agree with your characterization of that organization. However, ASM1 is free to use their ravings to support his arguments. I, fortunately, having read some of that site, am free to take a quick shower and try to feel clean again. Later

Wow! A guy takes a couple of weeks in the Oregon woods and returns to an ASM1 meltdown, no telling what else in other threads...I'm almost afraid to look. KWC57, I think I understand your sentiments and I might have been a little more sympathetic to the other argument that the coming war is about oil, but... I saw Dennis J. Kucinich make a miserable attempt at articulating that argument recently and I was even embarrassed by it. But KWC is more persuasive with his argument that Bush has painted himself into a corner. Either way, the administration will lose politically. Littlebillie, I hope you are correct about the big dog but I am afraid that I don't have that much faith in Bush's intelligence (I'm not thinking about the CIA or FBI here). I fear that in addition to wrecking the nation's solvency (too late to worry about that), Bush could put a lot of good men in their grave. I hope I'm wrong. If I'm not, though, we are risking long-term damage not only to our already-battered status as the leader of the world's 'high ground' but to the rest of our alliances as well, maybe a lot more. Again I hope I'm wrong. ASM1, I hope you are able to ease your pain.

ASM1, I hope that you will continue to post to this and other forums. I share some of your thoughts, perhaps not to the extent that you take them in your post. And I share your loathe of 'W' for very personal reasons as well as some that you mention. I encourage you to continue to interact and not to feel isolated. And I hope the forum guru, or whoever, agrees. btps, most of the boys I know don't care to know about Saddam. But if we go to war and they ask about it, we should tell them the simple facts, including the stated reasons. Most of them can think for themselves fairly well.

ASM, I have Jewish friends who suffered the answer to your hypothetical. At first their boys, each morning at school, were made to pray to Jesus during a class devotional. The father made an official objection. The boys were then encouraged to sit in the hall during the prayer. Then they were no longer chosen for the sports teams. Then the mom, who had been a substitute teacher, no longer was called to substitute. The family got the message and moved. I suppose this is OK for those who think THEIR religion is the only true one but it was unAmerican as far as I am concerned.

OGE, Huh? Are you referring to my wife's tendency every once-in-a-while to release the flying monkeys? I hate it when that happens, those things really give me the creeps!

Man, I tell you...this is the reason I pursued science - I am blind to these social codes, they're complicated and continuously changing and I just don't get it. First Sagerscout ruins my use of the phrase, "jump the gun" and now my favorite movie of all time, "The Wizard of Oz" is suspect for being 'over the rainbow'. What I am going to do is, I'm going to ignore all of it and continue to be the 'out of it' person that I am. If any of you ever see me wearing a rainbow, it means absolutely nothing!

OGE, Uuuuuggghhhhh....you got me! Sorry, I honestly forgot where I was and went into "don't ask, don't tell" mode. And you know I'm not one to sugarcoat things. But you put me back on track. Thanks.

I think the point is...among the list so far articulated (smoking, obesity, sexual identity, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, bad driving - did I leave something out?) the least visible to the boys is sexual identity. The most dangerous to the boys is probably bad driving or some combination of that with alcohol or drug abuse. Then second-hand smoke followed by obesity. Unless a leader is a sexual predator, and this could include anyone, sexual identity poses no risk to youth nor is it visible for purposes of role modelling. I also would encourage tobacco users to quit the addiction rather than the program. I would fire the alcohol and drug abusers and consider such for dangerous drivers. Overweight persons can join me on the trail and things will take care of themselves. But BSA chooses to focus on something that offers no risk above other factors, actually much less risk than many. And unless sexuality is made an open issue, the role model factor is absent as well. The policy is inconsistent with the best interest of the boys. What is left if not for hatred, prejudice, condemnation, and fear?

littlebillie, your story is anecdotal but consistent with more controlled studies. My boys' experiments are not perfect but better than wild opinion. We could get into a great discussion of field vs laboratory experimentation.

So Bryan, you goin' to enlist?

littlebillie, NJ, are you guys talking about Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition? Or what? I have rainbow banners all over my yard in the summer. And elsewhere. Is this supposed to mean something else? I thought it was a celebration of the end of the flood and a new covenant.

BW, as long as we are chasing our tails, I remind you that BSA does allow homosexuals. Gays merely have to remain in the closet. That is the essence of the hypocrisy. BSA preaches and enjoys the benefits of the Constitution. Then BSA doesn't live up to Constitutional principles itself. BSA indeed has the right to practice hypocrisy. And they do.

Right so! I had forgotten about that. If anyone wants to know how we do this experiment, let me know. I have experiments also for the rest of Env. Sci. if anyone is interested. The boys really get a charge out of some of it.