packsaddle

Whitewater rafting, backpacking on the AT, canoe-camping on local islands, recent massive trip to Yellowstone NP, MarineLab, lots of local camping overnights.

As promised, I asked the class. It was nearly unanimous. SEND STUFF. They didn't seem to care who it was from or what kinds of snacks were included, although some of them had specific items, usually specific kinds of candy. I won't go into detail. Only one student objected. He thought it sounded creepy. I asked him if he'd share why he felt that way and he declined. And I respected his decision.

Heh, heh, I guess that would be a 'xenobiotic transplant' of sorts. That probably crosses the line for me, regardless of my gender. [NJ, I hope this one REALLY creeps you out, BTW] Still, if BSA is hung up on the hetero- homo- thing, it would be nice if they'd at least be clear about whether they're thinking in terms of physical or phenotypic characteristics...or if genetics is also important. That was the reason I posed the question. Beavah, what can I say? I was looking for an Ed replacement and for some reason, I don't know why, you came to mind. My apologies.

Wanna trade a few parties?

Personally, I would not be comfortable with someone involved with incest in this unit, depending on the nature of the relationship. If it involved a child I would be strongly opposed. Adults...I don't know. I have never confronted anything like that though, so I don't know for sure how I'd react. Perhaps any unmarried adult male living with mom or sister or adult daughter is suspicious? It's not something that occupies my thoughts except when I read your posts. I am religious. Therefore there is nothing to reconcile. What part of THAT do you not understand? Merlyn has made it clear in the past that he is not a member of BSA. I already gave you a working link to replace the broken link. Did you miss that? I also explained to you how to do a search for the Buddhist forum member. Here, I'll give you a link to the relevant thread - I had forgotten that Kahuna is also Buddhist in addition to studentscout, who I'm just now reminded included a quote from Buddha on page 4 which addresses your inquiry. I enjoyed reading it again: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=280863&p=1 I got the part of the answer you mentioned above. When you said you answered in the affirmative about providing care for certain groups, you didn't write anything about which groups or what kind of care by which governments. That is what I'd like to know. But THIS thread is about sexuality and I answered your hypothetical question. Now how about mine?

AZMike, assuming their church is also a CO, if that CO has a positive view toward them, I'm guessing they'll be BSA adult members. Like NJ says, I am not aware of anything in the policy that indicates otherwise. So, are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

Heh, heh, I AM diabolical. Pity my students. So what advice would any of us have for BSA in this situation? I guess I could expand on those mental images if necessary.....h'mmmmmm?

I'll pose the same question I posed years ago but rather than use Ed as my example, this time I'll use...h'mmmm...Beavah. So for some reason I decide to respond to the inner woman in me and get the full Monte: surgery, hormones, implants, whatever it takes. And I mean I'm a knockout. Somewhere along the way Beavah becomes so intrigued that he leaves his wife and Beavah and I decide to tie the knot. OK, we're both old, decrepit, gumming our food, etc. So children are out of the question. How does BSA handle the two of us newlywed-but-elderly husband and wife...as registered leaders? Keep in mind that outwardly, all the cuddling and such appear heterosexual. Just like 'regular' older lovers. But we all know what's happening behind the curtain of that little blue pill...and remember, it's the behavior that so many of us draw the line at. SeattlePioneer, since you seem to be absolutely obsessed about sexuality (and most recently about 'genitalia'), your thoughts are especially needed. So what about THIS behavior? Physically it's heterosexual. The only hangup is that chromosome thing. So do we start karyotyping people for leadership applications? And if this superficially heterosexual (but genetically homosexual) relationship passes BSA judgment, then what?

Egad, how did THIS get started? Polygamy is actually fairly common in this country. It just mostly occurs as a time series. My grandmother had a slew of husbands. "Humans began breeding for intellect." This is a joke, right? I have to wonder about those last guys who married my grandmother, with respect to their intellect. Didn't they notice a rather obvious trend?

I will ask a classroom of about 150 freshmen tomorrow morning and let you know what they think.

Lisa, at its base I think the issue is one of 'control'. BSA top leaders may feel threatened or perhaps fear the incremental loss of 'control' which translates into a perception of weak leadership. While I recognize that such feelings ARE weak leadership, I guess that's what I think about top BSA leaders. They feel like they must 'show hard' on this and similar issues and they're willing to allow the membership to use 'moral' or 'economic' rationalizations for their decisions - because while those are neither strong rationalizations and in spite of being intellectually bankrupt, those rationalizations do successfully serve as surrogates or diversions from their fundamental leadership weakness.

Beavah tried that. He did a really good job of it too. And it didn't stop them.

OK, I guess it's true that if any 'hack' wants to make their stupid ideas sound reasonable, they can hang the term 'science' on it. But when political figures apply the term I view it pretty much the same way as when I used to hear about 'scientific' wrestling, another thing that depended a lot on deception. Edit: oops, if I just offended someone who fervently believes that championship wrestling is 'real', I apologize. It's real, every bit of it. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gad, what the heck is a 'scientific' Marxist? Groucho in a lab coat?

The fact alone that the source is someone named 'Partridge' makes me want to believe it. It sure sounds better than anything else I've read.

I suppose I have myself to blame for this...but it's the 'bird' part of this that I still don't understand. What does it have to do with birds? The closest I can find is something about pheasant feathers on arrows. And that story just doesn't seem to have the same panache that the gesture currently carries. I wonder if anyone has tried to patent it or protect it as a trademark?

A short digression: blame Moosetracker. Does anyone know why the hand gesture she referred to (the one-finger salute)...does anyone know why that is called 'flipping the bird'? I've heard this most of my life (well, after about age 5) and I do remember my first impression of first putting salt on their tail with a salt shaker and then, once frozen in position so you can catch them, you flip the bird. It was a while (as is my fate it seems) before I caught on. Anyone know? Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.

"Would you not just love to play nine holes with Condi!" JoeBob, I'll have to just take your photo with her. It is a gross understatement - that I suck at golf.

Thanks Scoutnut for noting that. (in triplicate, lol) I was almost ready to believe SeattlePioneer's assertion and had decided not to mention that around here there are several men who are Girl Scout leaders. I didn't want them to get in trouble. They started as fathers but their daughters have gone on to college and they were so good at it that the community basically asked them to continue if they wanted. Well, one has moved away so I guess he doesn't count anymore. But otherwise it's working pretty well as far as I can tell. Of course, down here we're just a bastion of liberal thought...NOT. Edit: thanks Lisa for noting the difference between skepticism and promoting a conspiracy theory.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

There's a reason that 'The Simpsons' has been so successful, Americans love them so much, lol. Bart (no relation to the Simpsons), are you suggesting that humans are not subject to natural laws?

Rand sure wouldn't be my choice to run a day-care center, lol, and she probably wouldn't fare very well in Vulcan society either - I could be wrong. I was always struck by the number of times that the Enterprise would risk the lives of thousands of crew members for some remote outpost with just a handful of renegades...but it made for some entertaining episodes (Shut UP, Stella!). What I'm trying to do is to play the advocate for that thing that Beavah won't let me apply the 'M-word' to. I am asking if the 'null hypothesis' has been rejected: Is it impossible to have a stable society based on individuals interacting on the basis of self-interest (which is, in my view, the American economic system - so in that sense the null is not rejected at all but rather validated). What I am trying to do is to examine the possibility that if it works in economics, why then does it not work the same way in society? I'll expand on that. Our knowledge and understanding of ecology and ecosystems follows the same logic and there are no interactions that we know of which do not adhere to physical laws and the interactions, as far as we can tell, are mostly individualistic. And yet, there are vast systems which are operating and sustained successfully with no sense of future or morality or purpose, other than that which is the outcome of some fairly basic physical constraints. Why then does it not work the same way for society?

Peregrinator, I think the difference between what you write and what I'm asking is a difference in approach or something like that. When you write, "Each of these forms of individualism teach that the goals of the individual are not subordinate to those of the family." you view this as an explanation; whereas I view it as an outcome. I want to understand the underlying processes and rationale by which this outcome is produced. Is this outcome the only possibility or is it one possibility constrained by history, or environment? Or is it the only one that someone with a particular 'world view' can envision? I am willing to entertain the possibility that individualism can ONLY produce this outcome but I need to understand in my own mind, how that outcome arises so that I can explore any other options I can think of. That's what I'm asking for.

In that case, once you're satisfied with the trim and that the bugs are gone, you do need to seal it the way JMHawkins describes in order to prevent it from splitting. I use spar varnish (fishing poles) but polyurethane will probably work well too. Then keep them dry. Bamboo will rot really quickly if it stays moist.

"I think a family is quite a bit more than an emotional bond. Wouldn't you agree?" I would agree that they are different. I didn't intend to imply that family is no more than that. "I did not refer to the errors of individualism. I referred to the errors of individualism and collectivism -- that is, both individualism and collectivism are errors." So what is the error? "I've already pointed out how individualism is incompatible with the family." You did state that opinion. That is not an explanation of your reasoning.

Well I can tell you they all sure had ME fooled. And I actually kind of liked FOG. Finding out they were all the same person kind of makes that nonsensical doesn't it?