Jump to content

Beavah

Members
  • Posts

    8173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Beavah

  1. Yah, and all yeh sheep scholars... have yeh ever been to Bethlehem? Yeh do know that it's located in da subtropics near da warm Mediterranean basin, right? The mountains pick up winter rains which cause the grass to grow up higher that time of year. By spring, they start dryin' out so the higher elevations become arid and dry in da summer, when yeh have to graze in the valleys closer to town, relyin' on the runoff and such. Shepherds watch their flocks by night when grazin' in the high country away from town, in winter and spring. Beavah
  2. If not how can I tell the difference between respect and disrespect when calling something a myth? Yah, packsaddle, generally speakin' "myth" is a term used by atheists and academics when they want to belittle the legitimate beliefs of other people. They'll pretend it's a technical term that means "ancient story", except that they deliberately chose the term because it has an original colloquial meaning of fictional story, where the term "story" can be real or fictional. So usin' the term "myth" for someone's religious tale that they believe is true in at least some ways is a choice to belittle and denigrate those people, as Merlyn does repeatedly here. You'll note that when I used da term "myth" for the theoretical stories of science, he reacted with great vigor and insult, eh? That's because in truth, he interprets "myth" to mean "silly fictional story", and intends the insult to others. As you do, when yeh use the term sometimes. Merry Christmas to all, wherever you happen to be tending your flocks this time of year. May the Joy and the Hope of the Season which is truly True, be with each of you and yours. And for those who are celebrating the tail end of the Festival of Lights, a Blessed Hanukkah to yeh. Treasure stories which are True with your family, tales of joy and wonder and thanksgiving. Beavah
  3. Beavah

    Fire!!

    Yah, I love hangin' out in da forums, because every month or so I hear a new one! That is definitely a new one. I'd suggest to the mom that rather than pull him out of scouts, she tear up his fireman chit so that he has to earn a new one, then send him on the next campout where you and his Patrol leader will reinforce da lessons on fire safety that he missed. Scoutin' is a partnership, and she's done her part by lettin' yeh know, so that you can do your part in reinforcing the lesson. I take it there's no dad in the picture? Beavah
  4. And do you think Obama would call a stop to the tax now that we left Iraq? Once they get their hooks in our skin, the barbs only get bigger. Yah, doesn't matter, eh? If our troops are at war, we have an obligation to support 'em, regardless of whether we feel that a future congress will try to keep the tax in place. Of course, I note with dismay that da members of both parties have renewed the "Authorization to Use Force" this past month, with all of its odious provisions, even though we admit we've destroyed the original Al Queda and have left Iraq. If we're not stopping the spending on war, then we shouldn't stop paying for it. Oh wait... we've never paid for it. B
  5. Yah, I think times have changed on da hat thing. Only took a few centuries. . I was out tonight at a moderately nice restaurant, and counted no fewer than 5 men in hats. Ballcaps and those Scottish golfer things. Not talkin' kids either. Older fellows the lot. None of 'em low -IQ day laborers either. The fellows near me were an engineer and a pilot buddy. I was goin' to go 'round with Mrs. Beavah and see if any of 'em stood up or doffed their cap for her, but Mrs. Beavah said she'd have no part in such foolishness. B
  6. Yah, hmmmm... What CalicoPenn is not mentioning is that Social Security is funded by non-negotiable, non-exchangeable, valueless bonds that are effectively just an "IOU" between one part of the government and another. And a "default" on social security IOUs is not the same thing as a default on da sovereign debt, since the government cannot demand payment from itself (or can simply discontinue Social Security). What really happens is that tax revenues come in, and some of them are paid out in Social Security. As of a year or two ago, the Social Security payroll tax no longer covered the expense obligations, so we paid for social security from other general revenue sources. That may or may not have stabilized, but it points out that effectively social security was robbed back in LBJ's day, and that goin' forward it will be an ever increasing drain on the general treasury. Only the internal IOUs run out in 2037. That's the bankruptcy-on-paper date. The real bankruptcy, the burden on the general treasury that causes us to borrow from foreigners to pay for social security has started. Should we panic? Well, no. Borrowin' money is very cheap right now, so we can do that for a little bit. Doin' it for a recurring expense obligation like Social Security is irresponsible and foolish, of course, and a recipe for long term decline and disaster. (As opposed to borrowing for infrastructure and research and education - things that would lead to future revenue increases and economic expansion - which is prudent). Beavah
  7. LOL. I think I was callin' myself da stodgy old coot, Papadaddy. Yep, da flag code codifies protocol, eh? It is the tradition put down in a written form. Not the same thing as a law with penalties and such. Note that the Commander in Chief is authorized to change it at any time and in any manner by simple proclamation without action of Congress. That wouldn't be true of any real law. Beavah
  8. I'm sure you'll also gladly take back the Bush tax cuts too and restore us to the income tax levels of the (gasp) Clinton era? Hear! Hear! I thought those were irresponsible at da time, even before we got into two wars and an unfunded Rx drug program. Let 'em all expire. Beavah
  9. Yah, what TwoCubDad said. Great to spend some meetings on Cooking. Boys will have fun, learn a lot, eat some good food. A Scout Learns is da first step to advancement, and scouts learn by doing. After that, if they want to pursue a badge, the BSA expects that they experience the full individual attention and mentoring of a qualified counselor. So they get a name from the SM (or perhaps a couple of counselors are introduced at a meeting), make appointments to see the counselor, and work toward the badge. By learning stuff at the meeting they're part way along the first advancement step and have built up some enthusiasm, then the MBC helps 'em perfect their skills and learn more, before movin' on to Step 2 and testing them individually on the requirements. Those boys who take it farther than the meeting are da ones who deserve the additional recognition the MB offers, and are da ones that an SPL can turn to the next time he needs lads at a meeting to help teach that skill. That makes learnin', effort, MB recognition and being "cool" and confident all line up da way they should. Easy peasy. Beavah
  10. Some kid (or less than intelligent adult) wears his pants at half mast, so that he can hardly walk, and always has to have a free hand to hold them up ... is he being courteous to anybody who has to look at him? Oh, I don't know. He at least is providin' amusement. An interestin' question becomes somethin' like "If the 'nice' restaurant doesn't have a dress code and is happy to serve some fellows in hats, why should you as a fellow guest care?" I would think a polite guest would honor the decision of his host or the rules of the establishment, rather than be rude to fellow guests. And a part of me feels in the gospel sense: if you have judged your fellow guests even without acting on it, you have committed rudeness in your heart. Now I confess some of my work occasionally takes me to meetings at various clubs and such places, and I do stand to greet folks who come by to a table. Sometimes, though, I'll admit, that can get tedious. At such places it's quite common for me or those I'm with to have passing acquaintance with many fellow guests, and by about the 3rd or 4th time my meal is interrupted by standing for some drop-by well-wisher, I begin to wonder about the propriety of standing and greeting every such impromptu visitor. I know that personally when I drop in in such a way, I'm mindful of my timing, and I tell those I'm greeting to remain seated rather than expect them to discomfit themselves on my account. I reckon if I interrupt someone mid-bite, then it's my own dumb fault if they greet me with food in their mouth. All things in balance, of course. I do tell the boys that "when in Rome" they should act like Romans, so when they're with a bunch of stodgy old coots, they should be mindful of those norms. Not because da norms make any sense, necessarily, but because sometimes it's good to be kind to stodgy old coots. Now, in the stodgy old coot department, I reckon I feel like Papadaddy a bit on da shoes thing. As a guest in a culturally American home, the taking-off-shoes thing feels to me like the host is saying something between "you're too dirty to enter" and "my carpet is more important than you". Beavah
  11. I think folks under 45 should be able to get out of this mess called Social Security if they want to. Folks under 35 should probably be excluded entirely. Can't have that, BS-87. That would mean all us old folks wouldn't get our social security. We need all you young people payin' in, because that's the money that's goin' into our pockets. If yeh want Social Security to be around when you are an old furry critter, it'll be up to you to lay a heavy burden on your grandchildren and their young families. All we can do is show you the way. B
  12. When teenage boys sit down in a restaurant with their mother or grandmother, they should know the that the hat comes off. Yah, things are slow, so this seemed as good a spinoff as any. I'm always a big fan of real courtesy. Thanking people for a kindness, takin' your turn, goin' out of your way to be polite. And I think it's just fine to teach young folks social custom, so long as we don't get too uptight or parochial about it. I always get a kick out of da folks who mix the two up, though, especially mixin' courtesy up with clothing. Yah, yah, no doubt that on certain rare occasions, clothing can be an expression of courtesy. Wearin' cut-off jeans and a tank top to a church wedding is probably a deliberate statement of disrespect. Aside from that, though, I've always felt clothing was just clothing. Doesn't have much to do with courtesy, and tryin' to remember da local protocols is nuthin' short of amusing. In my state, if yeh don't show up in suit and tie for a meeting in da city, yeh might be considered discourteous. If yeh do show up in suit and tie in da country, yeh might be considered discourteous. Don't wear a hat indoors. Unless Jewish, or Islamic, or a Catholic participatin' in an official function, or a Boy Scout, or a westerner (particularly if wearin' a cowboy hat), or a food service or other worker, or a person sufferin' hair loss from chemo, or under arms, or if you're royalty wearing official headgear, or if you're at a high school or university graduation, or... Good grief. The "hats" rule goes back to da days of chivalry in the west when people wore helmets, not hats. Personally I always roll my eyes a bit at da folks from my generation who get their knickers in a twist over this sort of thing. Customs change over time. Da timeless rule should be "courtesy demands that yeh not act like a snooty old coot about other people's choice of clothing". Summer camp is my favorite. No matter what camp yeh visit, there always seems to be someone who thinks it's OK to holler at some poor lad for wearin' his hat into the mess hall. Honestly, I think da kids have it right. If you've been wearin' a hat all day, leave it on. Nobody wants to look at your skanky, sweaty, matted hair. Now, a more interestin' question is whether it's impolite to wear shoes indoors. :) Beavah
  13. Yah, cynical as I have become of da thing that passes for the Republican Party these days, even I didn't figure that these nutters would throw unemployment relief and the payroll tax into uncertainty right before the new year. Used to be there were businesspeople in the Republican Party. Say what yeh want about taxes, but far more than taxes da success of business depends on not havin' too much uncertainty. When things are perpetually up in the air, no prudent business can invest for da long-term growth which supports the real economy. My hope is that the Senate and the President just let the cuts expire. Yeh can only be taken hostage so many times, and much as this will badly hurt the families of the long-term unemployed and be devastating to Medicare providers, the rest of us can afford to pay our part of social security. B
  14. Yah, just couldn't resist stirring the pot with this one. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431182_1_fox-news-results-show-viewers Some shots at MSNBC in there, too. Wish they had taken a step back and just tested whether watchin' TV at all makes yeh dumber . John Stewart seems to come out OK, provin' that fake news is better than a lot of da real news shows out there. Beavah
  15. Yah, hmmmm... I always get a bit queezy about these home-grown trainings at the district level, eh? Usually they come from one person who has a perspective from workin' in one particular unit about the "right way", and conveys what is really local knowledge as a form of gospel. What's hard is to find district level folks with perspectives from a lot of different units, who can convey how to use da Methods in different ways dependin' on a unit's needs and goals. I also think that a powerpoint is about as good at teachin' how to do a BOR as a powerpoint would be about teachin' how to tie a knot. A wise district trainer who really wants to take this on will spend most of da session in some "mock" or "live" BORs, not on da screen. Remember EDGE, eh? Yeh only want a short bit of time on the first "E", usually followed immediately by demonstration and practice. For that purpose, 58 slides worth of Explanation is way, way too much. Half yeh can cut right off the top because they are more about advancement in general than about conducting a BOR. The rest yeh should consolidate. People learn not from what you say, but from what they do. A few corrections by slide: 6: the list of reasons I find a bit odd, and gives the impression that there are different types of BORs, when in fact there aren't. More holistic to say BORs should be held periodically to give and receive feedback from the scout on his progress and da unit's performance. In some cases, if the review finds he has met all the expectations for a rank, he advances. In other cases, his progress is discussed and encouraged. In #1, the review is held after all requirements are met. SM Conferences do not always have to come last. 8: this is often one of da hardest things for inexperienced volunteers to understand. Wonder if yeh could add to it in some way with examples or somesuch? 10: again, there aren't different types of BORs. 11: this should be changed to reflect the new G2A. The purpose of a BOR is "to determine the quality of his experience, decide whether he is qualified to advance and, if so, encourage him to continue the quest for Eagle or the next palm." 12: probably best to include da new rule that unit BORs can use non-committee adults since that is a change that folks need to be made aware of, not just in a footnote. 13: huh? No need to have it in a separate room (separate from what?). Some units may not have access to separate rooms. In some ways, da separate room thing I think makes scouts less comfortable. Turns it into more of a formal thing rather than an easier conversation. 14: What's with step 2? No retesting on Scout Oath. I like puttin' 4 ahead of 3. Conveys the method-not-a-goal thing better, and breaks the ice. 15: Needs some work. I know what you're tryin' to do here, but this can be handled lots of different ways in different units. You're tryin' to convey da "no ambushes" principle. Best to treat it as situations in which a BOR member should consider recusing themselves. Again, there's no such thing as a "rank board". Scouts should be given BORs periodically, and advanced at some of them. There's nothing necessarily wrong with a lad not advancing at a BOR. Where it becomes an "issue" is only when people are gettin' too focused on advancement as a goal. 17: No. Especially with young lads, starting with a discussion of the "ethical pillars of scouting" is not a good way to put 'em at ease. Better to start out talkin' with 'em about recent outings and fun scoutin' stories. Then yeh can tie ethics to action. 18: Delete. None of what's here corresponds to da G2A materials. 20: Not sure what you're tryin' to accomplish with this slide. Da PPT is about BORs, not about advancement more generally. This sort of breaks up the flow and doesn't add anything here. 21: Be careful about statements like "[scout spirit] is normally signed off during the Scoutmaster Conference". That may be how your unit does it, but plenty of other units have the PL sign it off, or do it at some other time. 22-27: Delete. These aren't about boards of review. Keep your focus tight to helping BOR members, don't get bogged down in all the other aspects of advancement, even if you happen to be interested in them. 29: Too broad. This will encourage people to go on for an hour or more, when a BOR should be shorter. 30: Be careful about overbroad statements like "always end a BOR with praise". That simply isn't always the best way, depending on circumstances, and can sometimes be "fake." Better to give examples of keeping the board productive and positively focused. 31: Fix this slide to match the G2A and avoid adding your own opinions. 32: I'm not sure this adds anything, and can cause confusion. Best to stick with the G2A and not embellish, but perhaps encourage participants to share examples and have some of your own. 33: Filing reports is not a requirement for advancement, and a boy's recognition should not be held up for paperwork. Remember, there are many units that are a long way from any scout shop or council office. 34: Remember there's no appeal for T-2-1. Delete statement about having a scout deferred for advancement is very unusual. It just depends whether a unit conducts regular BORs, or only reviews when a boy is "ready" for advancement. 35: Delete "in such a way as to not disclose the identity of the Scout". This is almost completely impractical, and will discourage people from sharing important feedback. A BOR is not a counseling relationship. 36: This probably needs more development. I'd encourage yeh not to tell people that BORs should be used to deal with behavioral issues. They really shouldn't, that's a separate process. 37-39: I know beginners love these question lists. I can't stand them, because they get in the way of having a real conversation with the lad. 41f : I'd delete all of these. Eagle BOR training can be separate, but usually those folks participating in EBORs already have a fair bit of experience. This will save yeh a lot of time so that yeh can actually get beyond the "E" in EDGE. These slides again contain a lot of information about project procedures and other things that really don't have anything to do with a BOR. Anyway, that's my read. Hope at least a few things are helpful for your next revision. Despite my initial caution, I do think it's a grand thing that your district is conductin' this sort of training experience, especially if it is broad enough to meet the needs and approaches of different units, and if it gets beyond the PPT! Beavah
  16. No matches, no food, some beer Hey, I always thought yeh taught college students that beer was a food group...
  17. Bart, that is only a little exaggerated from a few things I've observed in real life around this region. Yeh do realize da movie is a parody of stupid college students, right?
  18. Well Beavah, you've convinced me that you're denser than Ed. Go ahead and continue believing that goat entrails are just as valid as the scientific method. Ah, Merlyn. Takes one to know one, eh? I reckon you're so dense yeh have your own event horizon. I don't believe that readin' goat entrails are just as valid as the scientific method. I also don't believe that neopaganism is just as valid as Christianity, and for the same reason. That's the point. B
  19. So how does that play into the fact that the homosexuals will have a great lawsuit using the 14th amendment should the bill be repealed? Why? Grandfatherin' in people who would be affected by a new law is a long-established practice, and consistent with American jurisprudence and sensibilities. Yeh can't really make an equal protection case based solely on that. What's goin' on in New Hampshire seems to be a fairly ordinary legislative response to judicial or legislative overreach. It's just not prudent for thin majorities to pass sweeping changes without developin' consensus, whether it's Obamacare or gay marriage, because da voter backlash can repeal them (as we have seen over and over on this issue) and create a lot of polarization and hardship. It's even worse for da judiciary to make the error. Far better to build real consensus first. Beavah
  20. No. Peer review with a predetermined answer isn't peer review. "In Christendom" implies that the "peers" all agree beforehand what the answer will be. Nonsense. "In Christendom" no more applies agreement among Christians than "in science" implies agreement among scientists. As I mention above, I believe Catholics still have in place the formal system of peer review that was the origin of da current scientific practice yeh love so dearly. And there are, of course, Journals of Theology. The earth was determined to be round within your community by removing people who disagreed from your community. Or converting them to your way of thinking. There are still people who believe it is flat, or the back of a cosmic turtle or what have you. People who claim their view is "scientific". You, however, excommunicate them. You reject their membership in your community, and deny that they are truly practicing science. Thus, your community remains coherent and unified in its belief. And you try to convert them, for their own good. It is exactly the same with religion or any area of human thought. The practice is by no means unique to science or religion.
  21. There is no scientific test that can say ANYTHING about a matter of faith. Period. Nonsense. You're startin' from a fundamental assumption that religion and science are mutually distinct, and then claiming that they are mutually distinct because your assumption says so. If yeh could conclusively identify the corpse of Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth, that would say something very definitive about Christianity, even for us ardent Christians. Now, Bayesian decision-makin' being what it is, it would take a lot of evidence, and paradigms being what they are it would take some generations. But then that's true with deeply-held scientific theories as well. So I reject your foundational assumption that they are distinct. Each is a particular subset or case of rational human intellectual endeavor. It's missing reproducibility and peer review, and results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods. It also looks unfalsifiable. Nonsense. In Christendom, there is all kinds of peer review, eh? Commentaries, analyses. Da Catholics I think still have da formal system of peer review that was the origin of da scientific practice (nihil obstat - reviewer says there is nothing opposed; imprimatur - editor says "let it be printed") Unlike science, most of Christendom from the early days and even now has councils, synods, colloquies and other gatherings that review and pass judgment on ideas. Much more thorough than sending a manuscript to a couple of other random fellows who have their own work to do and then claiming that it is magically endorsed As to reproducibility, that only applies to the very small subset of science which is laboratory-based, and not even then if it is expensive. All those other fields that I mentioned that are observation-based don't have any coherent ability to reproduce conditions and results. Da fundamental flaw in your argument, Merlyn, is that yeh keep excommunicating people you disagree with from "science" - all those folks with "Magic 8-balls". Quite right to exclude them; science would be incoherent if yeh didn't. Problem is yeh then turn around and lump all da folks with "Magic 8-balls" in with religion. It neglects da fact that religious folks also have notions of excommunication, eh? We, too, have a notion of things that are ex- (not) community (part of our community). It's not "science" that makes things coherent, it's the willingness to excommunicate those who don't adhere to community beliefs, norms, and practices. Once yeh allow religionists to define their community in the same way you define yours, then the community is self-consistent and does "converge". B (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  22. OMG. LOL. Thanks, Barthumphries! B
  23. Wasn't referrin' to the name, Scoutfish. Was referrin' to the practice, the belief structure, da epistemology. And no, the science that Merlyn refers to was not "always there". It is a relative newcomer, post-Enlightenment. B
  24. But, charity is not all from a church, ... contributing to charity because of their own faith does not prove God.. Never said it was; never said it did. All I suggested was that it wasn't unreasonable to claim that da tenets of at least Western Judeo-Christian faith have been tested over a period of 3000+ years, eh? That contributing alms is a good thing. That it's best when alms are given out of true generosity, without expecting anything in return. It is a notion that has stood the test of time and multiple cultures better than any "scientific" notion from 3000 years ago, and the link I provided offered evidence that it is practiced more fully by those who are religious than those who aren't. There were lots of "theories" of Christianity in the early years especially. Judaism as well. Most were tested and rejected over the centuries. The gnostic gospels, the letters of Barnabas, on and on. Humanity kept what worked, or God helped to guide humanity, whichever yeh prefer. What's fascinatin' is that people believe that "science" with its short history and relatively paltry evidence base should be privileged. Results from one laboratory in Geneva to confirm the Higgs? Yet religious tenets that have been in practice for thousands of years in millions of settings by billions of practitioners don't constitute "evidence"? I reckon if the first can be taken as the Word of the Universe, then it's not a stretch for the second to be taken as the Word of God. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)
  25. Ah, Merlyn, sorry if I was movin' too fast for yeh. Science is a form of natural philosophy that grew up out of Western culture. Just because it is currently practiced all over the world doesn't mean it isn't western, any more than the fact that American movies are played all over the world doesn't mean they aren't American. Western culture has some traits which you espouse whole-heartedly, eh? A belief in universal laws for one, which arises out of monotheism. And with a belief in universal laws comes a willingness to say that a belief contrary to those laws is wrong or out of bounds. There is a canon of science in your mind; you dismiss alternate ways of understanding the world as "not science", just as da early church fathers of Christendom dismissed alternate beliefs as "not Christian". Polytheistic groups don't come up with da notion of "universal laws" or "right ways to do science" because that would be silly. If the world you experience depends on which god happens to be in the vicinity at the time, why would such laws ever exist? So if you are going to restrict what you call "science" to such a narrow canon, then the proper comparison is to similarly restrict the meaning of "religion" to a similar canon, like Christianity. If you can exclude someone who believes they're doin' science because it's not "real science" then yeh have to allow others to exclude someone who believes they are religious because it's not "real religion." And presto! When yeh do that, yeh discover suddenly that your statement is wrong. There is consensus that there is only one God (among those who practice western religion), just as there is consensus on the shape of the Earth (among those who practice western science). The "consensus" happens only because you have excommunicated those who believe something else. They are "not science." Beavah
×
×
  • Create New...