packsaddle

I was once sent to find a shelf stretcher. I'll put this into the same category as 'prop wash'. I was young, naive, trusting, and wanting to be accepted by the group and to show how I could really contribute. 1. I trusted the people in the group. I trusted that they had the same sense of honest desire to do the right thing that I had. I trusted that if they said something, it was 'truth'. I trusted that they would not say or do anything to deceive anyone, much less me, the new guy. 2. When I was asked by a couple of them to go ask 'so-and-so' where the shelf stretcher was, I trusted them. I trusted that 'so-and-so' knew the answer and I was going to return with it. Moreover, I knew that my success was important to being accepted by the group so I was very sincere when I asked 'so-and-so' for the shelf stretcher. He wasn't sure so he referred me to the next guy. This process eventually worked me up to the top rank. 3. Each of these persons were 'in' on the prank. Each of them knew that I was sincere...heck, it had worked countless times on other boys, on them for that matter. They were going to teach me a lesson. 4. Every one of them knew there was no such thing as a shelf stretcher but they told me that not only WAS there such a thing, it was also critical to solving the problem they were working on. 5. I sincerely believed all of them. 6. I sincerely wanted to be accepted as a member. 7. I sincerely wanted to help solve this problem, whatever it was, evidently the shelf needed to be longer. 8. The last guy sent me back to the first and when I arrived there, they all laughed. I learned my lesson. It is fun to deceive. It is fun to prey on someone's sincerity. Heck, later in life I could perhaps make a lot of money doing this to people. I wasn't physically harmed. But my understanding of 'Trustworthy' was permanently modified. You might argue that this was going to happen anyway, that life is hard and we all have to learn how to deal with betrayals and I would agree. But is Scouting where you want this lesson to occur? Or in as trite a manner as this? If you can't see the elements of deception and betrayal in this, I'm sorry for you.

'American' is just a word. What it describes is changing: http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pg3b6YIC8geir4JgfjrgWpP8ruOTfs+FB9RK6nyVeF6wDO22XdvwV8h17sP5u7dRHb74HdBWhcUQBJ0izbLTxY5hdRNkOoA+pLV5tbyRXmIgfeCY8qSk0CiJRUoXlFaWAM4Gp+iue7htY=&campaign_id=129&instance_id=15314&segment_id=33647&user_id=66917861a07a0f006bcfb9f5be2a750e There are now more minority births than white in the USA.

SeattlePioneer, Congratulations. I'm glad for you and for the boys. I can identify with your experience. I too revived a pack but things weren't nearly as dire as you experienced, I'm really impressed. To me 'falling into place' occurred at a different level though. I just liked to watch the boys confront an activity (a problem), focus on it, and then work together, no matter how inefficiently or how many mistakes, to try to solve it. To me each of those occasions was all I needed to see 'fall into place'. I have always liked the cubs far more than the scouts. And I think your cubs will long remember you for what you did as well. Your work and time has left you with some great memories. And you'll enjoy those for the rest of your life. Enjoy.

Trustworthy. Which ones of all these do not teach that it is fun and OK to lie?

Eamonn, I have discovered the secret to a very long lifespan for you. Now that you have asked a deity to have you die in Ireland, all you have to do is never, NEVER, EVER go to Ireland again. This supernatural stuff is just way cool. Calico, people from Costa Rica call themselves 'Ticans'. BDPT00, "The newest immigrants seem to want to maintain their heritage." Hellooooo.....St. Patrick's Day, Octoberfest, Scottish Games, Amana Colonies, The Amish, etc. Oh, I get it, this is off-limits for 'new' immigrants, wink, wink. Scoutfish, this 'Native American' thing is just as bogus. They immigrated too, just a long time before the Europeans. We ALL came from Eve who originated somewhere in Africa. And then we literally swarmed over the rest of the planet.

The critical term was 'realistically'. If there's ANYONE in these forums who think that public schools across the country would 'realistically' get themselves organized to the point that they could do what Beavah just suggested...in order to make such a change in BSA..I'd really like to know who else has gone into la-la land. Beavah, I think you're delusional if you count THAT as realistic.

"..."might makes right" refers to an effort to force a position on da majority." Huh? I'm astonished. Sheriff Joe Clark understood that phrase to mean something quite different and his might was aimed at a MINORITY...who ALSO understands that phrase to mean something quite different. And there are plenty more Joe Clarks out there who still see things the same way. To them it means that if they have the 'might' pretty much everything else is irrelevant. And that 'might' is handed TO them BY the majority and almost exclusively applied to a minority. Edit: "If instead those same chartered partners worked for change from within, spreadin' their version of Scouting to all da public schools in the land who agreed with 'em, they could have forced a change on the BSA quite easily." Pure speculation. Show us some evidence that such a thing could realistically have happened.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Will someone please explain for me what a 'mulligan' is and what it has to do with Cub Scouting? I 'get' the original questions but I've been scratching my head over this subject title for quite a while now.

That's one of the reasons I like Romney. He's a manager. In fact the lack of 'passion' that so many criticize him for is a virtue in my view. I want a dispassionate manager. I want someone who will make those hard decisions that have to be made...without kicking it even further to future generations. I think Romney IS dispassionate, cold, and calculating enough to be the kind manager we need. And I like it.

Just went to a wedding. Catholic (he) married Jew (her). The Rabbi performed the traditional Jewish ceremony. As far as I could tell, there was no hint of a Catholic presence at the wedding, not sure what that was all about. Nice ceremony by the way, and the Rabbi had a great sense of humor...although I'm not sure that any of it was meant as a joke. ANYWAY, the Rabbi informed the new husband, once the vows were over, that here's what has changed: Everything that the woman owned, she still owns. And everything that the man owns, is now hers. Lots of nervous laughter in the audience. I think this was the first time the groom (one of my scouts from long ago) comprehended the magnitude of what he had just done...judging from the stunned look. Yep, I really enjoy moments like those. OakTree, that 'wife as property' thing...is that related to the Baptist mandate for the wife to "submit"? I'd be interested in learning who, if anyone, protests loss of 'spousal privilege'.

To me it is a really interesting twist on the concept of deception that people who lie together can lie together, lol. Seriously, even if all what you describe is accurate, I still would like to know the basis, the origin, of this legal 'doctrine'. Is it grounded in religion? Or somewhere else that I don't know about?

I'm with Eagle732's list. Obviously it would cut back in some areas for only 6 days and significantly for summer. One modification is that I just go barefoot around camp. No extra shoes. Also I use a pack poncho rather than a rain jacket if it's light rain or winter but most of the time I try to take winter trips when the precipitation will be frozen. Other times if it's a real downpour, I just try to protect the pack and go with a hat to help keep it off my face (and glasses) and no other raingear (summer of course). I just let myself get soaked through quickly and then I'm completely free.

You know, I've often wondered about that as well. What IS the basis for this 'spousal privilege' when it comes to such things? I suspect that in this case 'spousal privilege' isn't a 'gag rule' and if the spouse WANTS to provide testimony, that is still open. I could be wrong about this. Maybe one of the legal eagles could clarify....

Calico, I'll answer your question. Neither the concept nor the fact of gay marriage affects nor will it affect MY marriage at all. No effect, nothing. Regarding the prospect of one religion taunting another that 'the other' marriage isn't legitimate, hey, we already have that kind of thing running rampant in religion. I mean for example, who is going to go to heaven? As far as I can tell it's 'only those who are members of MY religious flavor' or something along those lines. And I'm guessing that for at least some of us, the prospect of an eternity in heaven is a bit more important than a short stint in some form of matrimony. Always remember that like TheScout said, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." There's nothing that prevents any individual from forming their own religion and church for that matter. Heck, my old tax protester buddies have advocated that kind of thing for decades in order to avoid paying taxes. (for some reason they cringe when I refer to them in public as 'Reverend', heh, heh....so I do it as often as possible.)

NJ, my grandson isn't even 3 yet but he already surfs the web to order cartoon videos to watch on his iPad. His favorite is Spiderman. I have my work cut out for me...again.

Three. Shared meals with one. Been backpacking with another. Like Trevorum, I also have a 'bucket list'.

A prank intrinsically involves deception. #1 Trustworthy - NOT #2 Loyal - not to the recipient #3 Helpful - probably not #4 Friendly - perhaps not for the recipient #5 Courteous - NOT #6 Kind - NOT #7 Obedient - N/A? #8 Cheerful - perhaps not for the recipient #9 Thrifty - N/A? #10 Brave - depends on how big the recipient is #11 Clean - huh? #12 Reverent - who knows? All in all, I'm not sure how the above benefits anyone.

Yeah NJ, I've been trying to place that too. I've been labeled a 'Trekkie' before and I followed it pretty closely back then but I'm not sure I could be called an 'accomplished' Trekkie, perhaps 'avowed' though. But that episode with Crusher and the Trill...that was just confusing to me, that's all. I'll give William Shatner this much...he is simple..but funny. Incidentally, I thought Chris Pine was masterful in portraying Kirk as a young man - just perfect. I really enjoyed that film. Even Leonard, who I saw in person here on this campus long, long ago. Nicely done. Beavah, OK show me the data. I'll pay attention.

Moosetracker, my family is traditionally Catholic and I was married in a strictly Catholic ceremony after all the traditional preparations. (But I was raised in the Presbyterian church...talk about burning...long story...still not using the 'M' word) Anyway, I want you to know that I am not seeing the "anti-Catholic" thing that Beavah claims to see in your posts. I've re-read several of them to try to detect what he's talking about and I'm obviously not seeing it the same way he is.

Fred8033, just a quick correction...it was BS-87 who came up with the idea, not Beavah. But Beavah wrote, "I believe da only reason the gay community wants to appropriate the word "marriage" is to try to convey a sense of legitimacy to their lifestyle which it does not merit on its own." Perhaps, or it could be that these citizens would merely like to have the same rights as other citizens. As shown by the shifting attitudes in the public, that 'sense of legitimacy' is already largely in place, at least among the people who are still going to be alive in 20-30 years. Getting government OUT of the picture would take care of everything. "So what we see is that even in places where gay couples were accorded all of the legal rights of married couples through civil unions..." Which places are these? Name them please. Edit: This must have arrived later: "Let da LGBT community compete in da marketplace of ideas instead of in da courts. I believe history across all world cultures has shown that on that kind of basis they can't compete." I think they'll do as well as they want. They might occupy a niche in the market but I suspect that would be just fine. The important thing is for the market to be free.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Moosetracker! Wake up! Look around you! This is AMERICA! This is the American Economic System! Are you daft? Money IS what it's all about! ALL of it. So come on, now...love it or leave it. Tampa Turtle, you sad reptilian creature. You're actually being sincere aren't you? Here's what happened to those generations of Christians that we've produced. They ignored what came from our mouths but paid attention and learned from what we actually DID. They're smart and perhaps less hypocritical than we are. Plus, sacred cows make fine BBQ after all. The beauty of biology is that regardless of how we treat each other, the basic process is probably going to continue no matter what. As Paul Ehrlich said, people can be produced in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work. One of the few correct statements he ever made. Who knows...maybe I AM beginning to understand why religion is so infused and obsessed with sex.

"Christians reserve the right to impose their will on the rest of society." No, no, no...THAT is the way it is TODAY! But under the new matrimonial order, every flavor there is will be free to impose its will ONLY on its own followers, see? And followers being the fickle things that they are, will decide of their OWN free will whether or not they want to knuckle under. This really IS going to bring the marketplace to faith. You're simply not envisioning the profit potential here.

Strictly speaking, evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual or species level. Beavah just changes his mind. Think of the possibilities. All the different flavors create their own protocols and ceremonies, much as today. But now, unfettered by legal entanglements, they begin to compete (now that the 'state' no longer issues licenses) for 'business'. Think of the incentives (money back guarantee!), the price wars (BOGO), the 'bait and switch schemes', the fraud, the legal suits across faiths...why religion could take on the same characteristics as businesses, but completely unregulated and unfettered. I am reminded of the time when I 'discovered' by accident, this new television program in which a mealy-mouthed charlatan was 'selling' salvation. It was called PTL Club. For those of you who are a bit skeptical, Google Jim and Tammy Bakker, 'Jim and Tammy' are all that are needed. Anyway, they had a great business model. PTL supposedly meant, "People That Love" (Jim expanded on this particular concept during a lurid saga with a member of the truly faithful). The locals who caught on to the scam referred to it as "Pass The Loot". But when I discovered this, I knew nothing about it. What I saw was the model for what we're proposing. Just call the 800 number on the TV screen. For a very modest sum, an operator would be glad to arrange for salvation over the phone. I'm not making this up. You CAN'T make this stuff up. Moreover, I learned that there are 'levels' of salvation, all of which, of course, have their associated price tags. Martin Luther, you didn't know ANYTHING!!! So this is the world that we are advocating. It's one that's an indispensable part of our religious world as is and we're advocating unleashing its full market potential. I'm telling you like I was told at the beginning of one of my jobs long ago, we're going to MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! Play on!!!!

BS-87, Joebob, me, scoutingagain, Beavah, Merlyn, Moosetracker...the connection is growing! I see a beautiful harmony forming.

Haven't we done this thread before??? Dejavu all over again? When I think about the experience OGE describes and envision the boy he was - having that experience, I understand and deeply sympathize with what he's saying.