Adrianvs

Rooster, I was quoting Scoutldr to refute him/her with the excerpt you took from my post. You would do well to read an entire post before quoting it. While I do not agree with every detail of your post, we are of the same opinion on the subject of abortion.

"I consider decisions between a physician and a patient to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." Does this extend to hit contracts? "I consider decisions between a hitman and a customer to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." It is not the child's doctor. The "patient" is not the one being killed. It is the child's business and responsibility alone. Not yours and not the abortion industry's. I find your logic intriguing, however. Let's extend it for a while. On capital punishment: "I consider decisions between an executioner and a government to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." On child abuse: "I consider decisions between one parent and another to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." On segregation: "I consider decisions between a police officer and a shop owner to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." On slavery: "I consider decisions between a task-master and a land owner to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." On genocide: "I consider decisions between an army and a dictator to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's." The issue at hand is the rights of the third party whose life is being threatened, not the working relationship between those who conspire to take away those rights. Medical procedure... How many medical doctors did Auchwitz and Dachau employ again?

"No, I am not "for" abortion. But neither am I "for" bringing an unwanted, unloved child into the world, to a "parent" who cannot care for it either financially or emotionally." Abortion is not allowing an unloved child to enter the world. It is removing an unloved child from the world. That is a huge difference. Encouraging the notion that coitus is a recreational activity or a psychological need may be considered bringing unloved and unwanted children into the world. Killing the socially, circumstantially, mentally, emotionally, economically, racially, or physically "defective" is not an act of mercy. It is the fullest manifestation of human evil. Let us ask those who were born to and/or raised by poor unwed mothers whether they shouldn't have been. Just curious, how many defective people do you know? Have you thought about what your little world would be like without them? When you look at a low-income "problem" scout, do you secretly wish that he had been killed before it was too late? Those who were born to poor, young, single mothers will never accept your alternatives to life. Trust me, I know.

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered. I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean. The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion. To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice. When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws. Love means loving the unlovable - or it is no virtue at all. It has been often said, very truely, that religion is the thing that makes the ordinary man feel extraordinary; it is an equally important truth that religion is the thing that makes the extraordinary man feel ordinary. Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. There is a case for telling the truth; there is a case for avoiding the scandal; but there is no possible defense for the man who tells the scandal, but does not tell the truth. You cannot grow a beard in a moment of passion. For it is a sin against the reason to tell men that to travel hopefully is better than to arrive; and when once they believe it, they travel hopefully no longer. -All quotes by G.K. Chesterton.

Long underwear Aristotelian logic Gerber folding knives

Long underwear Aristotelian logic Gerber folding knives

The Gnostics borrowed from Christianity in that they attempted to explain Christ in terms of their spiritual teachings and copied many of the sacramental practices of early Christianity. For instance, they began referring to their demi-urge (the evil 'halfgod' who made matter) as YHWH of the Old Testament and Christ as a spiritual being and their pure god or his representative. It is not uncommon for an older religion to "copy" from a newer one. Hinduism's use of Buddha and explanation of his philosophy is another example. It was the termonology and outward signs that the Gnostics copied, probably because of the religion's growing popularity. Christianity's use of pagan feast days such as Mithras' birthday and the feast of Oestre by "coscheduling" are similar, but different phenomena.

I have found that there is some ambigous middle ground between folding and rolling. What looks best to me personally can be described as a light fold or a loose roll. I usually fold the neckerchief about three times but don't crease the edges like a fold generally implies. I find the neckerchief then takes on the classic Norman Rockwell look that I prefer. I then tie the neckerchief rather than use a slide. I don't consider rolled neckerchiefs tacky, however, and am glad that there are different options and techniques for neckerchief wear. I usually wear the neckerchief under the collar unless it's large enough to be worn over (to my comfort). Admittedly, I don't turn the collar under, but the neckerchief has to be large enough to envelope it so no one sees anyhow. I realize that wearing the neckerchief under the collar rules out it's role as sweat barrier. I find it more effective as a scarf to keep the collar warm anyhow. That's why tend to wear it more in cool weather. It also makes uniforming more visible when participants are wearing coats.

Just curious, I know that the Chief Scout Executive and the National Council are the "head" of the BSA organization, which includes Venturing, Cub Scouting, Sea Scouts, etc. I was wondering if there is a body analogous to the Venturing directors who run Boy Scouting specific programs. What I mean is, does the CSE and National Council oversee the Boy Scouting details directly, and the other "branches" indirectly (with specific directors) or is there another body? I know it is confusing because the organization as a whole is the BSA and the "default" uniform is the tan one used by troops. So one sometimes has to use "Boy Scouts" to refer to the whole organization and sometimes to refer to the branch that has troops, etc. For instance, what is the relationship between local councils and the national Venture office? Does Cub Scouting have a program-specific national office as well or is it handled in parallel with "regular" scouting? The closest analogy I can think of is the Marine Corps and the Navy, but I don't know enough details about either to effectively compare. Adrianvs

If national happens to change the policy on honorary OA members, then Austin may have a chance for next year.

hehehehehe...

Very good points, dsteele. The parents should be aware of uniform policies, but it shouldn't necessarily be them who instigate and inforce the scout's compliance. I don't know how this situation should be different in Cub Scouting and/or crossover situations as opposed to new boy scouts joining the organization "cold."

"When I think of a Scout, I see a boy (actually, I hope to see a young man), who refuses to be enticed or bullied into striking out. I see a young man who is respectful towards adults even when one of those adults may be acting like a horses rear end." This is very true, but we shouldn't forget that the same thing should be expected of an adult. When any scout becomes an adult, he should be respectful towards adults even when one of them is acting like a horse's rear end. The respect that youths should show adults doesn't prevent them from asking a troublesome adult from leaving a meeting any more than the respect that adults should have for adults would prevent them from asking the intruder to leave. One may disagree that it is ever the place for a youth to reprimand an adult, but it has little to do with respect. There are tyrant adults who need to be stood up to and it should be the moral and ethical guidelines of the youth that determine when that is acceptable. Of course, I do not know exactly how you handled the situation when you "told her to excuse herself from our meeting," but simply the fact that you are a youth and she is not does not make your actions wrong. I tend to believe that you did the right thing, although the scoutmaster should have handled the situation before it could have happened. If she is not a registered scouter, then she should not have been staying at a resident camp in the first place. As far as regular troop functions go, visitors should be silent and respectful (within reason, of course). In youth sporting activities, parents sometimes harrass the adult staffers, but they never go out onto the field and confront the players directly. In scouting, it seems the opposite. I consider this a carry-over from the Cub Scouting model. Parents of Boy Scouts (and some Scouters)need to be briefed on the differences between the two programs. SPL_T15: If you handled the situation with tact and respect, then you did the right thing. If you didn't, you won't be faulted by me for I have been known to share the same weakness. Consider it a learning experience in leading with respect and courtesy.

hahahaha, packsaddle, I HAVE met Bob White. But I suppose that's another issue.. I found it interesting that after a series of posts describing incompetent eagles, Machiavellian parents, negligent parents, and even other posts about scouter parents.. ("It's both but the adult leadership allowed it to happen but that's probably because the adult leadership is usually the parents. I don't know if all parent really want "what's best for their kids." They often claim and even think that want what's best for their kids but often what they want is what will make them look good...How many of these parents are really doing it for the kids? How much of it is for their own egos?") ..after all this, it was my statement.. "As I said, it is unlikely that parent scouters will ever be as concerned or involved with other's advancement, but they should try to narrow the gap, especially with those youth who do not have scouter parents." ..that provoked a personally defensive response? I consider the above statements much more potentially inflammatory to any scouter parent. (I also consider them valid statements and questions.) I just find it interesting that one statement was taken as presumptuous because it was a 'call to arms' for parent-scouters instead of a blatant attack on scouts and/or parents. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." I think I did strike a nerve, Twocub, and it was unintentional. In fact, it took me a long time to figure out that OGE had taken the "Parent-Child Attention Theory" personally. Perhaps if more nerves were struck, scouters would be more likely to engage in introspection and realize that perhaps some of the problems we encounter aren't due to everyone outside the club. If my statements are false, then they should be struck down with the truth. But when more extreme statements of the same thing are ignored, I can only wonder what the criteria for presumption are. packsaddle, your statment of "I have never seen a parent who is not a parent first, regardless." is all I have been trying to say, albeit less directly. Thanks for your understanding.. and your smiley. Twocubdad, I think your 1-10-100 ratio is pretty good. And I think you are right in describing how advancement differences can come about simply from the atmosphere of a scouting home (like a sporting home or a religious home or a farming home, etc). Everyone should just remember that not every kid has a scouting home. That was never a critique of parent-scouters. It was and is a mission for scouters.

I guess I am saying that parental support given by scouter parents can tend to be more helpful (in a pragmatic sense) to advancement than parental support given by non-scouter parents. This boils down to the statement that scouters are more proficent at scouting than non-scouters. I apologize if I made it sound like a deliberate scheme. I realize that I did describe cases where scouter parents did give unproportionate assistance to their own, but I in no way meant that this is the norm or even common. I just used it as an example of, well, nepotism that I have personally witnessed. Most scouters are parent-scouters or former parent-scouters and I did not intend to insult or demean the thousands of devoted volunteers who assist thousands of boys not their own in meeting their goals. I was so focused on the tumor that I suppose I forgot to describe the health of rest of the patient. Again, my apologies OldGreyEagle. I am presumptious about you, but I presume that you are an experienced and effective scouter. Adrianvs (Who sometimes allows his words to paint the wrong picture)

OldGreyEagle, I'm surprised at the statement you objected to. It was, in my opinion, the least controversial of the statements I made. I threw it in because I thought people would consider my opposing sentiments too unrealistic. I didn't mean that parent scouters give conscious special treatment or noticably different treatment to scouts who are their own children. When emphasising that scouters should try to give every scout an equal experience, I meant that parents have a special bond with their children and cannot help but see them differently and think about them more often. I am saying that parents love their children. They love them in a way that is different from how they may love other children not their own. Does anyone consider this presumptious or false in any circumstance? Even if there were cases where a parent thinks of other kids the exact same way as others, I was referring to parent scouters and thus parents as a whole. I really don't understand your opposition to my statements unless you thought that I was saying that parent scouters always or even tend to give special treatment to their own kids or consciously devote more energy to them. On the contrary, I said that "Most scouter-parents do an excellent job of fair expectaions and interaction with scouts." We just have to be careful that the scouting guidance that parent-scouters give as parents is also available and given to non-scouter parents. My thesis is thus: 1. Scouter-parents have knowledge and skills that assist in advancement which non-scouter parents don't. 2. Scouters generally do a good job of giving the same program and guidance to all youth as scouters. 3. Parents love their children in a unique way and have a special bond with them that influences their involvement and cannot be duplicated. Presumption? I don't think so. The specific statement you quoted boils down to the notion that parents think more about their own children than others. This is a clinically verifiable fact that has no direct control on how well scouters can deliver a fair program and assist all scouts.

"is in the very simple measurement of did you earn it or didn't you and no one knows for sure except the wearer." I was asking if it was earned. You responded with the implication that since it is earned, one who is considering wearing it is of suspect personal integrity. Some camps give berets or other headwear to staffers. Yet these are not exclusive to the program or earned in any real since. I wouldn't refrain from wearing a black beret because Camp Sakima in St. Louis gives them to staffers. Nor would I refrain from wearing a FDNY cap if given to me because I was not a member of the city's fire departments. I simply asked if the situation was like these or if it was an earned patch. I wouldn't have even considered buying the patch and sewing it on, but was asking because it is already present on an article of clothing that I have yet to wear. I am sure that a person of your illustrious knowledge can stoop to conceive of the state of mind of an ignorant individual such as my self. That the jac-shirt began as a specific camp tradition and became standard national wear while the felt bull began as a specific camp tradition and stayed camp exclusive is not a priori knowledge and it is not obvious that the bull's historic association with Philmont makes it earned while the jac-shirt's historic association with Philmont doesn't. Philmont jac-shirt and Philmont bull. Not an obvious distinction to the uneducated. I understand now the difference and the nature of the bull. The reason to wear something IS based on the depth of the meaning of it. The campaign hat is associated with the military in a weak sense and the jac-shirt is associated with Philmont in a weak sense. The bull and the arrowhead are associated with Philmont in a strong sense, indeed a specific sense. The depth of meaning in the Philmont grace dictates that any scout or scouter may say it without deserving a lecture in personal integrity from his or her fellows. The depth of meaning of the arrowhead dictates differently. Native American regalia is associated with the Order of the Arrow in a weak sense. The "flaming meatball" and current arrowhead sign as well as the sash are associated with the Order in a strong and specific sense. It is not true that mere association always dictates a specific meaning. REPEAT: I understand that the patch is earned and will not wear it because I now know exactly what it represents to others. Adrianvs (Who asks for meaning and defends his integrity) Just a note, the example of the black scouting beret and Camp Sakima was hypothetical. Please do not lambast me with the hard facts as I do not recall if black berets were ever offical or what the Camp Sakima staff uniform consists of.

"Adrianvs, I can't speak for the others but I have never seen a parent who is not a parent first, regardless." Granted. I agree with you. And I repeat: "it is unlikely that parent scouters will ever be as concerned or involved with other's advancement, but they should try to narrow the gap, especially with those youth who do not have scouter parents." I don't mean to assert that parents can ever really neutralize their parental affectations or should. I just wanted to emphasize that there may be boys who could use the often scouter-specific assistance as to "this is signed here and then this needs to be filled out this way, etc." that non-scouter parents can't give their difference. Most scouter-parents do an excellent job of fair expectaions and interaction with scouts. We just need to be sure that boys with nonscouter parents can have the same scouter "expertise" given with parental concern that scouter parent boys have. Scouter parents do an excellent job at giving youth the same program but there seems to be a qualitative difference in advancement, particularly Eagle Scout advancement. BTW, am I mistaken or is OldGreyEagle mocking me (good naturedly) for presuming Proposition A , while packsaddle questions my suggestion of Not Proposition A? OldGreyEagle quotes my statement of A and questions my ability to know it, implying he believes ~A. Packsaddle then questions my ideal goal of ~A and states A. Shouldn't these two be debating themselves? I am trying to express the middle ground here.

What I want doesn't have to do with parent scouters being harder on their sons or being mediocrely interested. I think that scouters should be AS interested or at least as involved in the projects of scouts who are not their own progeny. When they wear the uniform, they must be scouters first and parents second. As I said, it is unlikely that parent scouters will ever be as concerned or involved with other's advancement, but they should try to narrow the gap, especially with those youth who do not have scouter parents.

Thanks for taking the time to see what I was referring to, Twocubdad. I agree with you that the bull is more like an event patch than a Philmont cap or coffee mug "carabined" to one's belt. I honestly wanted to know if the bull was a stylistic embellishment associated with Philmont (like the jacket itself), or had a more specific meaning. I understand now and plan to remove it as I don't want to misrepresent anything. I ask because these things aren't always clear. When I was a youth, I thought that red bolo ties were for Order of the Arrow members alone. I was mistaken. When I was a youth, I thought that jac-shirts and campaign hats could be worn by adults alone. I was mistaken. I know many youths who think that a blue neckerchief with a red, white, and blue ribbon border represents the eagle scout award, despite the commonality of this design in other settings. It was not clear on the bull so I asked. I did not intend to devalue the ranch or those who attend it. I am glad that I was answered, but could have done without the insinuations about the state of my personal integrity. Yes, Bob White, it is the personal integrity of a leader (youth or adult) that makes them wear a proper uniform. That is why I asked the question. I always wear proper uniforming at every scouting event. I have been called a uniform "fanatic" not because of any critiques of others, but because the uniform's constant and correct presence on my body. Sometimes that's difficult, as when I turned 18 and felt it proper to remove a patrol patch that had significant meaning for myself and members of my troop. I'm sure that you had a similar experience when you removed your Wood Badge patrol patch after the training. I believe that you are a man of integrity, Bob White. But please take care to interpret the intent of those less knowledgable than yourself.(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

I am joking about the elk, of course.

I was wondering exactly how set or official the Philmont felt bull has representative meaning. I know that the bull represents having been to the ranch and there are some traditionettes as to how the bull is sewn on the jacket. You see, I have aquired a wool jacket from another scouter and it has the the felt bull on it. I intend to wear the jacket, but don't want to wear any insignia which would indicate a false accomplishment or experience. I wouldn't wear the Philmont arrowhead patch or some award or training patch that I hadn't earned, but I have worn a Leave No Trace patch from a jamboree I hadn't attended. I received the patch at a high adventure base where I had received LNT training and just liked the design. My real quesion is, does the bull say I HAVE PAID MY FEE AND HIKED AT PHILMONT or is it just an emblem of the ranch and say "Hey, Philmont."? I wouldn't have any problem wearing a leather belt with one of the emblems on it to represent the national scout ranch. Is the bull more like the arrowhead patch or a coffee mug with a logo on it. Where I live, there isn't really a big Philmont cult like there may be in other places. It isn't exactly sacred ground in our council or the emblems "sacred vestments" like the Wood Badge paraphernalia. What are the views of every one else? What is the official designation? I will probably end up taking the patch off before I wear the jacket, but there will likely be an obvious lingering imprint. Perhaps I will modify or replace the bull with an felt elk to represent my experience at Elkhorn High Adventure base. Oops.. I'm bordering on sacrilege..

"The BOR does not make the Eagle...never has...never will...IF THE ADULTTROOP LEADERS ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO AND DOING IT WELL. It is the troop leadership that knows the boy well enough to know that he is, or is not qualified for and deserving of the Eagle." We always talk about parents pushing a scout through the advancement program or more accurately dragging him along it, but we have to understand the position of the scoutmasters who sign off and advance these youth. In most cases I have seen, the scoutmaster receives the paperwork from troop Committee Chairman (Mom), signs it in the presence of Assistant Scoutmaster (Dad), and then forwards it. In almost every case, the Scoutmaster has a youth of his own and expects Committee Chairman to do the same for him. Is it any wonder that the 12-13 year old Eagles are all the children of the active leadership. It's an obvious and exclusive club. This is not to discourage parental activism in a child's scouting career, but I think that parent scouters must not use their training and position as exclusive advantages to their own children. If Johnny needs to work on some merit badge requirements, make it a troop opportunity. If a scouter is continually thinking about their son's prospective eagle project and assisting in every matter and they don't know if other Life scouts have even considered a project, then there is a problem. That scouters who attempt to devote their energy equally to all youth in a troop will put their own sons at a disadvantage seems unlikely. The youth whose parents aren't scouters rarely receive directional guidance in meeting scouting goals. Their parents help them to meet those goals, but I think that most Eagle Scouts would agree that the most difficult part of an eagle project is the planning and leadership aspects. These are the most important parts of the project and the parts most likely to be handled by the "expert scouter" parent. I have seen troops where EVERY 13-14 year old eagle is the son of a scouter and EVERY 17-18 year old eagle is the son of a non-scouter. I think the trend begins in cub scouts where the youth can bring their book home and the parent goes over the requirements and signs them off. That simply cannot be done with eagle requirements. Sorry if I've oversimplified the situation, but I've just seen too many parent-scout teams blatantly state that their primary objective in scouting is something which "looks good on a resume." Because of this, I won't even put in on mine.

Lord, preserve us!! If ASM hadn't given a source for his story, I would not have believed that such a thing could have happened in this country!!! That people could be arrested for engaging in paintball is a humanitarian horror!! I mean arrested!! For an activity as obviously benign as simulated modern combat!!! I know for a fact that such actions would be permitted in any other nation, especially the enlightened Islamic ones. In fact, I group of friends and I have enjoyed camo-clad paintball games in Iran for the last three summers without any harrassment by law enforcement authorities what so ever. Damn the US!! Evidence for my claims, you ask? Lambs to the slaughter!!! Lambs to the slaughter!!! How ignorate you are!! You who object to righteous mass-murder and torture in other nations fail to protest even more heinous arrests and dirty looks in you own country!!! Unbelievable!!!

While several modern groups may call themselves gnostic, the term generally refers to an ancient sect in competition with early Christianity. The word gnostic comes from "gnosis" meaning "knowledge." Gnostics believed that knowledgs of things spiritual was given directly to specific indiviuals. The gnostics had set beliefs about the nature of things. They should not be confused with the modern agnostics, whose name suggests we have "no knowedge" of things spiritual and divine. The gnostics believed that the God of the Old Testament who created the physical world and was evil is different from the God of the New Testament. They taught that the mission of Christ was to free people from the imprisonment of the material world. The body was seen as evil and the spirit as good. I believe that the gnostics were donatists, meaning they saw Jesus as a purely spiritual being who only appeared to have a body. Certain groups, such as the Albigesians of the middle ages held similar beliefs and I have heard some modern "wiccans" profess similar beliefs regarding the physical world and it's creator. Pure gnosticism, however, is generally extinct in the modern world. I assume that le Voyageur was referring to agnosticism, since extreme doubt about our ability to know spiritual truths could be considered related to atheism, which states that there are no gods. There are, however, important distictions between these two positions and agnosticism is as different from atheism as from theism.