packsaddle

SeattlePioneer, please...if you're going to quote someone, actually quote them. What Cambridgeskip wrote was, "You'll tend to find that for the cub programme having girls will make no difference to how thongs work at all." By changing his words and then putting them in quotes, you have completely changed the content and misrepresented what he wrote. While 'thongs' ARE 'things', it is clear that the reverse is much 'broader' and I will add, to Cambridgeskip now, that I happen to agree completely...that thing about thongs, lol. Those thong things will work the same no matter what. And I fervently hope that in our zeal to ban fat persons from scouting (you know, that OTHER thread in this forum), this topic never arises in the discussion...ever. Scoutfish, I know you're tempted...no photos, please, in the Facebook group...please. On the other hand and in fact, I have to thank you, Cambridgeskip, for making my day with your observation just now. You have an interesting mind.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

More than double I'd estimate in this area. Not only would the direct effect be a doubling but a LOT more boys would join as well who wouldn't have considered scouting if it weren't for the girls. It would be a really interesting effect. I'm thinking it would be a good effect. This would work GREAT for the cubs as well.

BadenP, or anyone, if BSA did split with LDS taking out one chunk and the remainder being the rest of us, which part would the Congressional Charter go with I wonder?

Hello, hello, I'm not seeing any responses. And just like clockwork, there are two embroidery digitizing threads (no pun intended). I'm going to let all of it ride until I hear something from you guys.

Calico, set your potential surprise aside.

I'm suspicious of this forum member, this post, and this web link. There is absolutely no information about the identity of the website owner, nor is there any physical address. If anyone in the forums thinks this is one of the many phishing or advertisements that seem to be coming through the forums lately, I'll gladly delete this thread. Alternatively, if someone can vouch for its authenticity (and by 'someone' I mean forum members with real forum interactions under their belt) I will leave this be. FWIW, there is also a recurring thread regarding embroidery. It appears in three different threads each time and contains the same obvious commercial advertisement. If someone wants that information about embroidery setup I'll leave it the next three times it appears (which will be tomorrow if the past is any indication).

Real Life Story. Sunny spring morning. I'm driving along and see a black rat snake on the highway. I want to prevent it from being run over and it wants to stay there to warm up in the sun. So I stop my vehicle and catch it. Then I realize that I have nothing to carry it in while I take it to a remote place...so I just lay it in the floor of the passenger side. The road vibrations cause it to remain coiled and still for the remainder of the trip. I keep looking occasionally just to make sure. I get to my lab out in the boondocks and as I turn into the driveway, it's still there on the floor. But when I stop the car - it's gone. Vanished. Now I have borrowed this vehicle from someone who is deathly afraid of lizards and snakes. I have to return it that evening. If I can't find the snake...do I tell them what happened? Why?

More often than not, results fail to reject the null hypothesis. I think ACCO40 has it right.

I don't feel strongly about this but I'm OK with the change.

C'mon Brent, we're all beautiful at least in some sense. Remember in whose image we're all made....

Hal, "...shoving their agenda--and smoke--down our throats." Take a deep breath man....Lungs, Hal, lungs. To me the difference is that tobacco smoke actually DOES affect other people directly. We have no choice but to share the air at times.

NJ, the better question might be would Swift would consider you Kosher? Congratulations on slimming down. BSA24, I'm also impressed with the waddling I see among both scouts and scouters. If you make people a bit nervous with your trolling, I guess I agree with OGE.

Calico, the thing is, the New Testament didn't exist for Jesus. It wasn't until a few hundred years later that we had that basis for true Christianity. Jesus today would only be considered a liberal Christian if he embraced part of the New Testament and rejected other parts. Can you explain how Jesus would reject any part of the New Testament?

I know this is going to make Brent nervous but I'm going to reinforce what he has written and note that I'm willing to consider the possibility that the entire concept of 'liberal' Christianity is bogus. There simply may be no such thing. If anything, what some of us would like to think of as 'liberal Christianity' may really not be Christianity at all. It might be something else dressed up with 'some' of the parts of Christianity that feel good but without the unpleasant or objectionable parts, and nice persons who want to be part of the 'broad umbrella' of Christianity may claim their faith to be Christianity, falsely. We may want peace on earth but we may miss the entire purity of essence of Christianity. Claiming to be Christian doesn't make it so, any more than such a claim makes the existence of some sort of 'broad umbrella' of Christianity so. I'm willing to concede that Christianity really may BE just as Brent describes, and anyone who sees negative aspects to that may need to reexamine their claims to that faith.

Sunday afternoon has long been the traditional meeting time for this unit. I've heard stories that it was on a Monday night, long before I was involved. The upside is that it doesn't conflict with many 'organized' activities like soccer. The downside is that there are often weekend family trips which impact attendance. That said, I think parents, some of them, are glad to have a couple hours of peace on a Sunday afternoon. And the boys enjoy a couple of hours of boy stuff. Overall it has worked fairly well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I'm with Eamonn. Heh, heh, Trevorum, are you trying to join the Mayas and their 'ilk' now, making predictions based on, well....nevermind? When I read predictions like this I think back on all the predictions by other smart people who turned out to be completely wrong. I'm willing to admit I think the change will come. But for all I know it could come with the return of the glaciers (you know, when that mythical warm place freezes over).

Callooh! Callay!, If you remember what Edward R. Murrow did and said in response to McCarthy's baseless attacks on Reed Harris and others, I see analogy in McCain's response to Bachman et al., NOT a cliche'. I actually remember listening to Murrow on the radio (we didn't have a television and I was too young to appreciate how important Murrow's speech was at the time). When I heard about the Bachman charges and John McCain's speech in response, it was no cliche' to me at all. It saddened me to be reminded that we've descended that far down, that openly, again.

Callooh! Callay!, please explain what the cliche' is, through which anyone is viewing things here.

CC, why would liberals avoid something that is secular?

Shortridge, you do know don't you, that THAT is related to what is behind the 'Voter ID' laws? It's not limited to 'antebellum' times. Edit: BTW, 'Ghostbusters'...nice touch!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

In an attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the original topic, lol, I'm going to depart from what has been characterized in the past as "my ilk" and offer a defense of Bachman and her 'ilk'. In this case at least, I commend them because they did NOT demand to see Huma Abedin's long form birth certificate. Of course, there's no such qualification for her to meet in the first place but when did a detail like that ever stop the loonies? Or perhaps there's something even more sinister....perhaps they're trying to deflect attention from the fact that Romney still has not produced HIS long form birth certificate - to prove that he isn't an illegal space alien from Kolob. New slogan: WWMD (What Would McCarthy Do?)

Howarthe, here's the link in a 'hot' form for anyone who is interested: The Article I think you make a good point. I disagree with Beavah's contention that the moral status of slavery and racial apartheid are 'absolute'. He should know better. If they were absolute they wouldn't have been openly debated, even defied (and continue to be in some places) in such widespread manner by thoughtful persons until very recently. If they were absolute, no less than champions of Beavah's 'natural law' would not have justfied slavery, at least, and by extension apartheid, on that basis. Moreover, we should reject the contention that the moral status of slavery and apartheid are absolute because by doing so, we risk becoming complacent not only to what DID occur in the recent past and which still occurs less openly today, but we also risk loss of the understanding of the real reasons why most of us reject those things today. In the view that such things are settled moral absolutes, we risk substitution of a thoughtless 'pronouncement' for a reasoned decision. Beavah should know better.

C'mon Moosetracker, there's no need to sugarcoat your thoughts. Tell us what you REALLY think, lol.

I take my students on a hike that is reasonably difficult, especially the hike back out. I am told by the guides that when Chuck Norris did this trip, he had a helicopter come to pick him up. He's a wimp. Go ahead and eat his lunch.

Peregrinator, Donald Rumsfeld disagreed with you. On 20 February 2003, in response to a question by Jim Lehrer which asked if American troops would be welcomed by Iraqis, he replied, "There is no question but that they would be welcomed." But I guess there's a tiny chance he might have been wrong about that.