Beavah

I am not going to produce the file. It uses language like M***F**** on several occasions. FU on more occasions. Talks about girls having orgasms so on so forth. It also uses most all the lesser cuss words. Yah, hmmmm.... Yeh know, that fits almost every big-name comedy act in Vegas or other places these days. Also fits just about everything that shows up on da Comedy Channel. Even during Prime Time when little kids are up. Bill Cosby types are pretty rare, I reckon. Yah, yah, I know, for us old farts it's hard to get past da language. But my real question is: Was it any good? Most of that stuff I find too shallow, but every now and then... That ridiculous Tucker & Dale vs. Evil thing that someone mentioned on da other thread comes complete with graphic violence, foul language, and sex talk/sexual innuendo. But in actual fact it's sort of amusing and even sweet, with some good moral messages about the penalties for stereotyping and judgin' others. Yah, I actually watched the darn thing. Since that link showed up on a public scouter forum, maybe we all need to apologize or be thrown out or somethin'. Beavah

Or it depends only on your bizarre definition of "religion", which means only that some people agree on something, including that there are multiple gods and they live in trees and crystals. One of the requirements is deity that acts in lives and in da universe. This holds even if civilization collapses and is rebuilt - God will still care and act. And if yeh have enough time and enough experience with Deity as a culture and people, yeh will come to the same conclusion that there is One God. Yah, yah, if yeh only have limited experience or data, some people may believe in multiple gods, just as with limited data, science might well conclude that the Earth is flat. That's not a problem with da methodology, it's just a human problem of not having enough data, or being stuck in our old beliefs, or having aspects of human culture that get in the way of thinking correctly. So my belief is that religion will be rediscovered in just da same way science will be rediscovered. Because the underlying reality is there, even if it takes us humans a long time to build our ideas and understandings as we try to describe that reality. And that is just as much an untestable statement of Faith as yours is. Only difference is that I don't believe that mine is uniquely privileged. I believe both monotheistic religion and science will be restored. In fact, I maintain that without monotheistic religion, science is not possible. If yeh believe that trees and fire and such are independent intelligences that are free to act on their own, or are driven by multiple gods that act independently and capriciously, then there's no intellectual or cultural reason to ever assume that there are Universal Laws which govern the behavior of matter. That's why science only emerged in monotheistic cultures in our present world. You, Merlyn, are in fact a cultural Monotheist. Not only do yeh maintain the existence of Universal Laws, but yeh maintain that people should be governed by universal laws of behavior in how they treat each other, even in voluntary hobby and educational organizations. In fact, your belief is so strong, that yeh are evangelical about it, and go out among us heathen to preach and try to make converts. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Generally speaking, I'm opposed to coerced apologies. Yah, I'm sorta with SeattlePioneer here. At the same time, I do reckon that sometimes learning how to say "I'm sorry" is somethin' boys have to be taught, eh? As the necessary first step to repairing a relationship that they want to repair. Some boys from some families I've found have never learned that skill. More to the point, as Calloo's parable points out, if yeh don't apologize, yeh can expect that the relationship will not be repaired, and indeed da consequences from that should hit the lad, because consequences are a part of learning. "The majority of ASMs no longer are willing to work with you" might well mean that he is excluded from campouts where those ASMs are necessary leaders.... until he repairs da relationship. Now along the way, I reckon it's also a good thing to teach boys (and by osmosis, adults how to accept apologies graciously. How it's inappropriate after you've accepted an apology to bring it up again; how it's considered courteous to take the person apologizing at his word. Now in this case, it honestly seems just as, if not more appropriate that da adults in question should apologize to the boy and the SM. Their behind-the-back and over-the-top behavior (and the fact that they are adults) I find more disturbing than a teenager posting a typical Vegas comedy routine on Facebook. Sauce for the goose and all that, eh? Boys learn by the example we set. Perhaps a "coerced" apology from the adults as a condition of their continued membership is in order, especially if one is expected of the lad? Or if yeh would not have such an expectation of registered adults in your program, why would yeh have the expectation for the boy? Beavah

Science would, eventually, come to the same conclusions. Religion would not. An interestin' hypothesis. Or should I say, an untestable, unscientific myth that just describes da Faith of the poster. --- No worries, packsaddle. Apology unnecessary, but appreciated and accepted. B

Yah WAKWIB, yeh have to remember that da role of the BSA professional staff is NOT to police the activities of units. They exist as a support service for chartered units in their service area. If yeh expect that they have any role at all in investigating or policing the activity of units you are goin' to be sorely disappointed. It's a bit like callin' the textbook publisher's local representative to report a teacher doin' a poor job usin' their textbook. That's why da appropriate action in this case is not necessarily to go traipsing off to da SE. If yeh have a real firsthand concern, the people who need to address it are the unit leaders and the chartered org's authorities, and that's the place to start (and end). If yeh have a secondhand report as in this case, I'd generally not get in the middle of it, other than a call the CM to let 'em know you've got a transfer application and to exchange information (things they should know and things you should know). You know, a friendly heads up to a fellow scouter about what you've been told, and an opportunity for him/her to give yeh a friendly heads up about the family's needs/behavior. Da reason is there seems to be a lot of other stuff goin' on. Often people who leave a troop do so with a lot of "baggage", and their reports have to be taken with a full helping of salt. They typically recite a litany of every real or perceived "wrong" that their son or them experienced over many years. Alcohol use on campouts may be a couple of people and the unit leaders or CO are already dealing with it with those folks in private, or maybe they've already made a considered judgment that those parents don't come out frequently and it wasn't a hill to die on, or perhaps because it was more important to get dad out with his son than to worry about one can of beer. Or... After all, it doesn't seem like there was actual drunkenness around kids, eh? Beavah

its a statement that in all areas of his life he will hold up the morals and values that are embedded in the Scout oath and law and do so daily. Just a tool used to let him know that he has entered leadership in the scouts and that eyes are now upon him. Yah, hmmm... We adults get sorta weird about this stuff sometimes. Here I thought it was the duty of all scouts to strive to live up to the Oath and Law in their daily life. It's sorta odd to make an explicit requirement of living up to the Oath because people are watching you. Character is what we do when nobody is watching us, eh? Crossramwedge, do yeh really think that your boys aren't aware of that expectation by the point they're stepping up to leadership roles? It seems from here like you're running a fine program, and that step is at best redundant. If it's not, why not think about doing a better job on the Oath and Law with "regular" scouts, rather than requiring paper statements from leaders? Just MHO. B

We also explain to him that we expect him to adhere to the Scout Oath and Law in all aspects of his public life. Yah, hmmmm.... The Scout Oath and Law are methods eh? Or more properly, they are part of da "Ideals Method" of Boy Scouting. Like the Advancement Method and all the rest, they shouldn't be confused with da goals. We try to teach kids positive values by givin' 'em some ideals to try to live up to, eh? Recognizing that no one lives up to 'em all of the time. One of my personal pet peeves is when some adult lectures a lad about behavior usin' the Scout Law. Da Scout Law and the Ideals Method don't work if they're a punishment - something that a kid dreads. They only work if they're somethin' positive to aspire to. If being perfect in living up to all the positive virtues of the Oath and Law is a condition of holdin' office in your troop, then I reckon yeh don't have any youth leaders. Nobody could honestly sign such a "contract". And as ScoutNut says, yeh shouldn't have any adult leaders either, because none of us live up to da Oath and Law in all of our public and private life. But, that havin' been said, you as the COR have to set the tone for da troop on behalf of your Chartered Organization. If yeh really feel that this merits a stronger response than the SM is willing to give in order to meet your organization's goals and values, then yeh have to ask the SM for his resignation, and find someone who is a better fit. What yeh can't do is override da SM without removin' him. That's just a recipe for every parent with any gripe to go traipsing over the SM's head to your door, and no good SM would stay around in such a circumstance. It can destroy your program. So if you're really conflicted, I'd sit down with your IH and discuss how yeh feel about da organization's real goals and values. Not yours personally, eh? You're just a representative. And then yeh have to make the call. Do yeh accept da resignation of the anonymous "concerned parents", or do yeh ask for da resignation of your SM? No micromanaging da SPL allowed. When a problem hits da COR and yeh are speaking on behalf of the troop's owners, yeh have to make the real call for the program. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As for myself, I find it distasteful to see the roadside markers where humans have been killed. Yah, I gotta agree with acco on that. On da other hand, markers for dead cows I would just find hysterical. Might brighten up a long drive! Now, for those of yeh who have a passel of 11-year-olds in your car on a regular basis, I might warn yeh against introducin' 'em to the little ditty "Cows with Guns". Guaranteed to shorten a long trip, but what might happen is that every time they see a cow (or a dead cow marker ), they might burst into song. Beavah

Yah, but Merlyn, if yeh compare "science" from various parts of the world (defining science as how people describe and interpret natural phenomena), then it is also vastly different. What you call "science" is a western cultural approach that is now practiced in many places throughout the world. Just as Christianity is a western cultural phenomenon that is now practiced in many places throughout the world. In fact, more places than science is practiced. And da creed of Christianity? Not so different anywhere in da world. Just like physics. Do yeh really think that in a reconstituted world we'd have 3 Laws of Motion? Exactly three, if it isn't considered a magical number? Nuthin' in there about energy? Of course not. But all of the underlyin' truths would slowly be rediscovered. Written down in different ways, conceptualized differently. Still present, but perhaps with different emphases. Beavah

Yah, moxieman, yeh know your kids don't need passports or passport cards, right? Youth traveling with an organized youth group can enter da U.S. or Canada same as the old rules. Just permission, ID, and proof of citizenship (like a birth certificate). Adult leaders do need passport/passport card, but the cards really aren't that expensive. Does Maine have an Enhanced Driver's License program? Back to risk adverse... yep, just like da passport requirements, most of da rest of the world is less risk adverse than the U.S. We are the land of the regulated and the home of the terrified. Beavah

If civilization collapses and all scientific knowledge is lost, building it back up would not result in e.g. F = MA^2 instead of F = MA. Maybe. Or maybe instead we'd have developed a notion of 4-dimensional universe much earlier, and have skipped da somewhat awkward Newtonian formulation in favor of field theory or conservation of energy/momentum much earlier. If for some random historical reason we started thinkin' of things more in terms of waves than particles, we would have built up a more robust wave mechanics understandin' of the world much earlier, and our interpretations of quantum mechanics and da progress of the discipline would be much different. Maybe we wouldn't be stuck in da Standard Model . Science in da most part is driven by technology and da extant philosophy of the folks pursuin' it. If we stayed polytheistic nature-worshipers, odds are science wouldn't emerge at all. Similarly, if civilization collapses and all religious knowledge is lost, building it back up would still result in da equivalent of the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule and the notion of a monotheistic, personal God. Same with our understandings of psychology or law or philosophy. But they'd emerge differently and in different order, and perhaps with new insights. Maybe this time around God would send Her Daughter, and Aquinas would emerge earlier. Maybe we'd skip some awkward steps and wrong turns. Maybe we'd make new ones. God and the universe don't change, but both are big enough that we can only take in pieces. When we talk science or theology, we're talkin' about the development of human understandin' of the world. Science and theology are human endeavors, and when we talk about humans, our understandin' can change or be different, as we see from da cultures that grew up separated by distance. Beavah

Yah, Crossramwedge. Yeh have to decide as COR whether yeh feel the behavior and judgment of the adults in question is what your institution wants for its scouting program. The most important thing yeh do as COR is decide on your personnel, and set the tone for how lads should be treated in keeping with the goals of your organization. If I were your UC, I would probably encourage yeh to accept da resignation of the adults in question. Yeh want the people who are representing your organization to be on board with the direction of the organization and the choices of your Scoutmaster. Nothin' more deadly to a program than adults who aren't on the same page, and then are whispering behind each others' backs. Yeh can destroy troops with that sort of thing, eh? And it happens only when da COR doesn't do his job of selecting leaders. I also agree with everyone else. This has not a thing to do with BSA media guidelines, and those do not apply in da least. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I enjoy the odd adult beverage every now and then. Yah, I wonder why Eamonn keeps drinking odd drinks. Yeh would think after all these years in the states he'd drink some normal ones. We in da U.S. have an odd puritanical/prohibitionist streak compared with da rest of the known universe. So it's worth taking that into account in how we respond to others. There are different sensibilities on this, and it seems like cub scouting is where this stuff comes out most often. I'm not fond of alcohol in the woods myself, and especially not with kids. But a gentle reminder and some kindness and understanding are in order. I do recall at one crossover event, though, we had some boy scouts find da adult stash and bring it in. I thought it was garbage someone left in the woods, so I told the lads to dumpster the whole lot. That solved da problem . I also don't think folks from different units should talk smack about other units, past history or no. We're all brothers (and sisters) in this scouting endeavor, and even when we feel that another program is an Eagle Mill or whatnot, that's just friendly discussion and unit rivalry. In public, we should talk about how all scouting is great for kids, and each unit has their own style and approach. So I'd listen and nod to the new transfer. Let 'em get it off their chest, welcome 'em. Only if I felt that there was a real safety issue would I encourage them to pursue it further. Otherwise, I might mention it offhandedly to their CM or UC if there was an opportunity. Generally, I like da notion of a unit that receives any sort of transfer to call the original unit and share any feedback (and get any "heads up") just as a friendly matter of course. Beavah

Yah, Scoutfish, while I appreciate da feedback (and would have apprecisted it more in private), I reckon it would be more effective if yeh used an actual example. I reckon even Merlyn would agree that I have never talked about his looks. I have never intended what yeh claim I have done, and if I have been perceived that way I apologize for my failure to communicate. Da forums are a poor communication medium, and while I try to respond to each person as best I can in their own terms, I'm sure I fail more than a anybody. At some point, yeh just trust that fellow scouters will follow St. Ignatius's instructions and try to read things in da best possible light. In this thread Tampa Turtle made an observation (that others besides me agreed with) and got dinged for it, and I commented. TT mentioned that I correctly described his position. People argued their position and I defended mine. The topic raised by TT is that calling religious tenets "myths" isn't courteous, so of course that part of da thread is about courtesy. But da current topic with packsaddle and Merlyn is whether science is just one branch of human rational thought, with characteristics very much the same as all other branches of human rational thought, or whether science is privileged, or to borrow a term, "sacred". From my perspective, science is just one form of human rational thought, and is not privileged. From what I perceive, science is their sacred form of thought, and is privileged. That's not an argument I ever expect to "win", because folks don't give up their sacred systems easily, eh? Nor should they. But I find da discussion interesting, and da most recent turn toward personal attacks (by pack, not Merlyn) to be fascinatin'. That's how all of us react to challenges of what we consider sacred, at some level. Anyway, I enjoy such discussions, because I learn things from 'em. That's why they're worth spending time on. If da arguments weren't interesting they'd just be ignored, and that to my mind would be a far worse insult. Of course, some would say I argue for a living Beavah

I had a talk with our DE and found out that "concerned" parents have talked to him. Yah, I'm never quite sure what an adult hopes to accomplish by talking' about other people's kids behind their back to unrelated individuals like a DE. Da proper response of the DE is that it's none of his business or theirs, but if they're really concerned they can call the boy's parents or the SM. And da SM's proper response is "thank you for the information.". And then filing it appropriately for a quiet mention if he feels it's appropriate somewhere down the road. Or not. I'm in agreement with FScouter on the adult behavior. If your volunteering really depends on every 16 year old complying with your personal mores 100% of the time, then I reckon yeh should turn in your badge of office and go find somethin' else to do with your volunteer time. Workin' with kids isn't for you. Going' behind people's backs and threatening to quit just isn't appropriate adult behavior. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, that's an awful lot of text to spend stuck in an ad hominem response, don't yeh think? I reckon it also presumes fact not in evidence, as we sometimes say. I don't mind at all, I know that's often da way all of us are tempted to respond when others touch on our "sacred" beliefs. Beavah

Show me where I claimed Jesus was a myth. Doesn't matter if yeh claim Jesus was a myth, God is a myth, Satan is a myth, sin is a myth, Moses parting the Red Sea is a myth. Mine was an example of da concept, not an accusation. Beavah, to respond to one of your other statements, the answer is: you don't know much about science. You aren't even a dilettante with regard to science.... [uninformed personal sleights continue] Yah, I'm not rightly sure which one of my "other statements" that responds to, eh? I reckon that if a fellow were to make a reasoned scientific argument, it would identify da concept in question with reference to previous literature at least. It might even offer a methodology, evidence, and analysis. It's always funny to me how our beliefs or perceptions of folks so strongly color our analysis of their arguments. Besides, a careful reader would realize that I've been discussin' the sociology, philosophy, and epistemology of science, eh? That's a different thing than daily scientific practice, and draws from a different literature. That only results in a belief system if the inclusion/rejection criteria are all based on what those beliefs are; science doesn't include or exclude people based on their conclusions, it's based on what methods were used to get there. So what? It's still a belief system. And honestly, whether it's religion or science, all systems of human thought assume some combination of both methods and core assumptions. Religions also espouse methodologies, and it's possible within any religion to identify different, mutually-contradictory theories that exist and are still considered "religious" in the same way yeh describe those of science. "Just war" theory is an example in many Christian religions. In da same way, science will for da most part reject out of hand anything that smacks of violation of conservation of energy or suggests ESP, or anything else that is presumed to violate its core beliefs. Yeh can't point to any peer-reviewed and replicated studies of da use of goat entrails, can yeh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

You seem to hold people as rude and arrogant and disrespectful if they do not agree with or bow down enthusiastically to your ideals or beliefs. Nonsense. But I do reserve da right to respond with longwinded posts and arguments. In this case, I just jumped in to support Tampa Turtle. Calling Jesus a "myth" to a Christian is roughly like calling a black American a monkey. It's demeaning and belittling. Oh, there's not the same dark history of overt racism, so it's not "as big a deal", but still, if that's not the person's intent, he or she shouldn't use the term. If it is their intent, then I reckon most Christians like you or I are big enough people to simply blow them off as they deserve, just as most African-Americans would do the same for the other sort. Or, if they were friends who were just ignorant, would correct them so that they don't inadvertently offer offense to others in the future. I give Merlyn equal status and respect to follow his own beliefs and to view my beliefs in the same way as I view his. Nothing wrong with that, though I personally try not to view Merlyn's beliefs the same way he views mine. Da question is not about opinions, it's about language and conduct in public. It's just fine to think that your boss is an ass. It might even be accurate. It's a different thing to call him an ass to his face in public. If you choose to call him an ass in a public forum, then the rational presumption of everybody is that you intended to be rude and disrespectful. Even though da notion that the fellow is an ass is just an "idea." Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

But your problem is, you've got no justification to deny those who say auras and goat entrails ARE authentic science. Not my problem to defend da integrity of science. That belongs to packsaddle and his ilk. I expect he decides on his own justification for telling someone that something isn't "real" science, but that his thinking is shared more or less by others in that community. Or maybe there's an official creed I don't know about. My only point is that if yeh let a community of human beings decide what does and doesn't constitute authentic [insert phrase here], then they will create a belief system that is more or less self-consistent. It has nothing at all to do with it being "science", or "religion", or "linguistics", or "English Literature". It has to do with the ability of da community to exclude those who they do not feel are authentic practitioners. If yeh don't allow 'em to exclude others, then what yeh see won't be self-consistent. If it's religion, you'll get different numbers of gods, different character of gods, etc. If it's science, you'll get auras and crystals and Pons and Fleischman cold fusion. I'm a Unitarian Universalist... there's not much that I would consider just plain wrong. Yah, but then I'm not sure all UUA's consider themselves Christian, eh? And it seems to me that there are at least a few things that come across as dogmatic, like da UUA views on "tolerance". There's nuthin' at all wrong with being respectful, and asking people what they believe and how they understand something. There's nuthin' wrong with looking for bits and pieces that are interesting or valid in other beliefs. A good western scientist will listen to a witch doctor out of human respect, and may well examine the herbal remedies being used to see if something valuable is present. But that doesn't mean that the same scientist won't be patiently firm about rejecting the validity of voodoo. A Christian may well listen to an imam out of human respect, and may well read the Koran and examine what truths may be found within Muhammed's teachings. But that doesn't mean the same Christian won't be patiently firm about rejecting the validity of other tenets of Islam, like polygamy. He or she would argue quite naturally that such a tenet is not the authentic Word of God, not "authentic religion" if you will. And that could lead to an interesting and productive argument or mutual sharing. But what packsaddle can't seem to wrap his head around is that if yeh called Islam a "myth", that wouldn't lead to a good argument or productive sharing. That's just arrogant and dismissive. Rather than questioning the validity of a tenet, it is an attack on the whole belief, the whole person. It says, in essence, "everything about you and your beliefs is quaint and silly." That position may be honest, of course, but expressing it in public is uncouth and disrespectful. And I think in most cases, that is the real intent. Beavah

Beav is attempting to dabble in Anthropology and cultural relativism, which is good. Nah, I'm an absolutist just like Merlyn, eh? I don't reckon yeh can be a Christian (or a scientist) without that. Yeh have to be willing to recognize that some notions are just wrong. Doesn't mean yeh can't do it politely and respectfully. Also doesn't mean that yeh can't take some time to appreciate where another belief is comin' from, portray it honestly, and consider what might be valid within it. So Merlyn, da point yeh keep missing is that I'm just fine with sayin' auras and goat entrails aren't authentic science. But I'd also say that neopaganism isn't authentic religion. You make science self-consistent by removing things that some call "science" from what you deem is authentic, real science. In da same way, religion is self-consistent if yeh remove things that some call "religion" from what yeh deem is authentic, real religion. The mechanism is da same, eh? There's nuthin' special about science or theology as intellectual pursuits. They're both human endeavors. Da self-consistency comes from excluding others with different beliefs. But would I call Hindu tales of multiple deities "myths"? Nah. Not unless I intended to be disrespectful. Beavah

If you want to call dark energy a myth, me, I don't see the disrespect in that. The point is da folks in that community don't call it a myth, eh? Besides, if I wanted to pay disrespect to something, I would summon something far stronger than calling it a 'myth'. Unless yeh wanted to simply slight or denigrate it, eh? Some things we oppose, others we just ridicule or dismiss. What I am getting from you and others is that I'm not allowed to use the term, 'myth'. Period. If I apply the term to my own deeply held beliefs, is that also disrespectful? You're allowed to say anything yeh want about your own beliefs, as is the Reverend Foster. Just as a black fellow is allowed to call another black fellow a stupid nigger. But if yeh want to be respectful of others, then yeh behave in a more circumspect fashion, mindful of the connotations of your choice of words, particularly as someone who is not a member of a particular group. Are you saying that the term 'myth', applied to the idea that crayfish caused a great flood...is disrespectful? Certainly, if there is a community that genuinely believes that a crayfish caused the great flood (though I doubt that there is). And yeh know it as well as I. The straw man you're settin' up assumes that everyone must agree with you, that the story is quaint or ridiculous. And that's what yeh mean when yeh use the term "myth" about aspects of Christianity, eh? That yeh find it quaint or ridiculous. Nobody is goin' to stop you from saying such things. It's your right. It's just disrespectful and discourteous. What about the deeply held belief that young women must be subjected to genital mutilation? What about it? As I said, yeh can choose to denigrate a belief as wrong-headed or barbaric, and the people who believe such things as fools and villains and violators of human rights who should be subject to da Inquisition and forcibly repressed. That's a choice. Sometimes, it may be justified. Just recognize that that's what you're doin', eh? You're calling other people fools and villains, and suggesting that their belief should be discounted, no longer taught, or forcibly repressed. I reckon that counts as discourteous . If that's not what yeh mean or intend, don't use the term. Nuthin' in the least "PC" about it. Like all feedback, yeh can take what I or Tampa Turtle says, or yeh can leave it. But yeh did ask. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Memory has a delightful habit of erasing the failures and hard times and amplifying the good times. People are people, eh? Good, bad, and mediocre. I do, however, believe that there are good and bad systems; ones that enable good people and encourage da mediocre, and ones that just get in good people's way. I don't buy fred8033's everything modern is better notion either. Given school achievement and the profession's demographics I have a hard time buyin' da notion that today's teachers are better. I also don't believe that most scouters are "better trained" than they once were, unless yeh call the silly online checkbox stuff "better trained". Overall, I'd say that scouters skill sets are similar, and committee members skill sets are weaker. We have a bit less depth than we used to. Beavah

So to follow on, there is a story about da nature of the universe. The universe is expanding, and so in order to explain this expansion there is a tale about "dark energy" which no one has ever seen or experienced, but which accounts for 95% of the energy of the universe, works against gravity so as to cause the galaxies to speed apart. Even the originator of this tale isn't at all convinced by this tale. In fact, yeh could just as easily substitute "Dark Bunnies" for "dark energy", except that da word 'energy' has more mythological significance within this community. But if yeh call it a "myth", yeh get Merlyn's knee-jerk reaction, eh? It's not a myth! You don't know anything about it! It's a hypothesis. Myth is what we call other people's explanatory stories when we want to dismiss them, not what we call our own explanatory stories when we believe that elements of them might be true. Treat others' stories that might be true with the same respect that yeh treat your own, and do 'em the courtesy of using their own terms rather than substituting other terms that imply theirs aren't worthy. Beavah

"If not how can I tell the difference between respect and disrespect when calling something a myth?" That question (still unanswered) was to Tampa Turtle. But you didn't answer it either, Beavah. Yah, I did. Yeh just weren't listening. If you use the term "myth" with respect to other people's deeply held cultural/religious stories, that is disrepectful. Eagledad's explanation is on the mark, eh? You're usin' the term for yourself, not for them. It is perceived as a statement of arrogance and derision. "Your tale is a myth, and I am above that." Most notably, yeh don't call your own tales (dark energy? really?) "myths." Yep, only God and your conscience can speak to what your intent really is, but even kindhearted old furry critters are apt to perceive your intent as arrogance and derision. Same with some other pseudo-academic terms. You'll occasionally hear people talk about the "cult of Mary" in referrin' to Catholics or Orthodox Christians, and pretend that they mean 'cult' in an academic sense as a group of common believers. Balderdash. The term is chosen deliberately to be dismissive and derogatory, and yeh can tell because they don't apply it to their own groups. Beavah

"And there were in the same country shepherds, abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them! And they were sore afraid ... And the angel said unto them, "Fear not! For, behold, I bring you tidings o great joy, which shall be to all my people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ, the Lord." "And this shall be a sign unto you: Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the Heavenly Host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth peace, and good will toward men." "That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown." - Linus Van Pelt Merry Christms to all! God Bless us, every one. B