DeMann

E Man, Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Those guys are on burnout, and just don't know it. When things collapse around them, they will come running to you for help. And, they will collapse. In the mean time, just remember it is going to happen. Guys like that don't make it for long. In the mean time, get a copy of your favorite guidebook (activities, camp promotion, training, etc.) and make a few copies and then ask the new boy wonder to read it and explain to you how that is being implimented in your district. If he still won't see the roses, he won't make 253 more days, either.

thanks!

I had a friend recently give me a book, and am curious as to it's value. It is a GS book, but their threads appear to get little attention. The book is "The Girl Scouts Triumph, or Rosanna's Sacrifice" by Katherine Keene Galt, 1921, the Saalfield Publishing Company; Chicago, Akron, New York. It is in superb condition. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Did I say it was a YPT violation? No, I said to treat it like one. LIKE one. Let's say you do 'card' the boy- whatever that is. and, next month he does it again. only, this time he gets the keys to the SM's truck and drives it into another tent. HMM..... Do you think some of the adults here are gonna be considered LIABLE? most attorneys will say yes. a lot of juries will too. What I said is that the Scout Executive will guide you through it. I did not say that anybody will get kicked out of scouting, although they just might. Personally, I would be furious with any adult that allowed it to happen, or was too slack in observation to have allowed it to happen. I would consider it a serious risk to my son. and, if the boy was simply given a card (again, I don't know what this means, but it does not lend itself to serious consequences by the sound of it)I would move my son to another troop the next day. Who wants to defend someone who has put a boy at risk? What are you scared of when it comes to talking to the Scout Executive? Are you scared of protecting a boys safety? think about it. The Scout Executive is trained in this sort of thing. And, he probably wants the boys to ALL stay in Scouting and become Eagles.

Land 'o Goshen!!! (Can I say THAT?!) Merlyn, DUDE!! Man! check this out: every application has the declaration of religious principal on it. Don't like it? Don't fill it out! check this out, too: "For similar reasons, I regard the national office of the Boy Scouts of America to be a thoroughly dishonest organization" "and that only covers the more egregious things, some of which are actual crimes. " Hey, guy.... If you don't like it here, leave. Lord forbid(I did it again!) you be a part of an organization that is so corrupt. We won't make you come back! and... if it is your tax money that has you so worked up about... well... tell us what your address is and we will send you a check. Really. We will. won't we guys?

Treat this like a youth protection thing- call your scout executive about this one. He will coach you through it.

gentlemen! let's stop spitting! I am willing to bet that a) the committee is not active or in charge of the unit, b) the Chartering Organization is unable or unwilling to step in, c) the leaders are not trained, or else went to training not to learn but to get a patch (unless they have ignored what they have been taught), d) the leaders don't have the personality or ability to attract new parents/boys( they may be running the program in a way that is attractive only to themselves and not in an ideal fashion), e) no one on the district level is getting their hands in the mess in an active, understanding, and noninvasive way. can it be fixed? sure. You could go to the principal and get a special join-night just for the weak pack, but I am willing to bet that the weak pack will not be able to retain the boys recruited. You describe a rather common problem. all Scout units will rise and fall with time. It is only because of the leadership they have- it surely is not the program. it is the people. pure and simple. do you need another pack? sure you do. they all develop personalities, and each one is different and will attract different people. the average pack is around 20 boys. if you want more boys in the program, you need to give them more opportunities to join. hence, you need the other pack. I just hope somebody will get their hands dirty with this problem before some boys fall out of Scouting and never come back. visiting here won't get the job done....

Publication 14-630 says that he is to provide professional coaching (to all those guys and gals that call him at all hours of the day and night, as well as propose plans and agendas for all areas of the district structure, suggest action plans for recruiting district personnel, and to give encouragement and inspiration to all scouters in the district. He is also expected to maintain regular contact with the heads of chartering institutions, keep district records up to date, arrange for council office services such as mailings, meeting notices, etc. and provide behind the scenes administrative skill. He also has to develop and maintain his own work schedule and work with and support all volunteers. what is not mentioned is that he is responsible for everything that happens in his district- good, bad, or whatever else it may be. He is ultimately responsible for every unit, boy, adult, and FOS dollar raised. If he keeps the district growing, he gets to keep his job. If a volunteer screws it up for him, he gets to become unemployed. If he screws it up for himself, he gets the same thing. He is expected to work at least 50 hours per week. Many weeks the expectation grows to 70 or more. Well.... I wonder how he gets it done?

gee whiz.... I am glad I am not the new guy. By your own admission he is green as a gourd. If a member of the district committee or commissioner staff cannot recognize that, then they have no business being in their position. Talk to the Council commissioner about replacing a commissioner, or if you are the District Chairman, fire the committee member who plans to give him grief. Let the guy grow up on his own. The public will tell him about his handshake or beard. It seems to me that you folks are more concerned about a new guy than doing your volunteer jobs. Shouldn't you be concerned with next years FOS campaign and this fall's membership recruiting? Hey, this guy knows very little about how to get the boys signed up, and probably less about raising money. Show him who the best around are, and get them on the trail asap. His professional counterparts are going to work with him as well, but they will tell you that volunteers can be the best teachers. Focus on what we are here for. the rest will fix itself.

the walnut hulls have the most dye- you can even use them green. the more you pound or boil them, the more the colorant is released. you can boil steel in the stuff ( like a knife blade) and allow it to cool, and if you have put enough colorant on it, it will look like a well seasoned pot. and, the blade will not rust except where it has been sharpened. a stroke of wax will make a knife virtually waterproof. yes, it will dye leather very well. you can actually paint on the color, and when air dried, it will stay with it. good luck

As I recall flint, chert and agate are all made up of superfine silicon crystals that precipitate out of the sea which was responsible for the formations you are talking about MY POINT EXACTLY! Now, please explain how the shapes got there- there is virtually NO superfine deposits in the strata. Look at it with an open mind. You will see a blob of flint more than a foot thick, and extending ten feet across, and within the strata that contains it there will be no loose formation if flint. Just limestone on limestone. If precipitation is the correct mode of deposit, why is it in thick blobs or balls? In fact, why does it not show the shape of an aqueous deposit? If it is a silica-type microorganism shell deposit, why does it not show (when viewed with a microscope) the shells of microorganisms? If it is indeed a true deposit from an aqueous solution, what is the solvent for rendering it aqueous? --- answer? You have absolutely NO CLUE! Science has no answer I have ever heard for this. In other words, modern science can only discount things like this, not add anything of value to the question. I am not sure how you got the processes so balled up. The formation of granite is the exact opposite. It is an igneous rock that cools slowly to form the characteristic crystals of mainly feldspar and quartz with some mica or horneblende. Again, I ask you, can you melt granite and not change it chemically?answer- NO! in which case, it was not formed in the way you speak of. After you asked about these you seemed to go on a total flight of fancy involving the big bang, punctuated equilibria and atomic explosions. ok. You missed it. The atomic explosion thing was to remind you that science requires us to prove something by a test that can be measured and reproduced. The atomic explosion is the closed thing to the Big Bang that man can come up with, and it never renders anything except shattered and smashed bits. Certainly you saw the puntuated equalibrium as a cheap shot- I really should apologize for it. I simply tried to make it obvious that the common beliefs of science defy the common beliefs of how to prove such things. when it comes to the formation of the earth, modern science has way too many loopholes in the purported 'facts'. Sir, your science cannot and I dare say never will be able to replicate the beginning of life or this world. Your beloved science can not begin to explain the wonder of life, if even found only in an amoeba. And, be sure of this, your science can never explain why life reproduces or dies. For anyone to believe that God had no hand, or even just a small part, in the formation of life and this earth, is for one to refuse to render to God the just due that is His. I, sir, would not want to find myself filling those shoes. One day you will look into the eyes of a human and will see that we are no accident. You will see that life has purpose, and it is much higher than you have ever known. And be sure of this, you will one day wish you had not held to the ideas of a mere mortal man rather than the truth of the living God. Ask any person who knows that death is near.

Dung beetles are interesting and so are the theological ideas that the Egyptians had about them. Their concepts, however, have no scientific validity I agree- except that they did not differ Science from religion; they commonly believed that praying to a dung beetle would change the weather and such. A very obvious mix of science and religion. Since you like to speak of not mixing the two. Even granting the Book of Job an age on the old side, say 700 BC, that can in no way compare with stella from say the first dynasty in Egypt to around 3000 BC. ok. Lesson time. The first literature did not show in Asia until about 2400 to 2800 b.c. that is about the time the old kingdom of Egypt showed up (2800 to 2250 bc.) commonly known as Dynasties IV to VI. This is the time in which their religious texts first begin showing up. It is also when the pyramids begin showing up. Their famous literature (classical if you will) showed up in the XII (that is the twelfth for OGE and other slow ones who cannot follow me ((nothing personal OGE- I like you)) ) dynasty which ran from 2000 until 1780 B.C. While this time is obviously before Abraham, I do think that I said that the book of Job is thought by some to predate Abraham. If I am correct, this would indeed predate Abraham. It is well within the realm of possibility that Job was originally written 2400 years BC. Since no known king/country/state is mentioned, the text does not rule this out. Once again, there is the suggestion that you read Aramaic and have done your own readings and translations of the original texts. yes, is school I did learn to read it. But it has been many years, and I am very rusty. However, I can still struggle with it, and do have access to an authority on the language should my textbooks not give me the clarity on the subject at hand. think if the answers are yes, then both sides probably have a BUNCH of questions they'd like to put ot you! :-) Is it worth me dealing with your questions? I do not know. You have not entertained one thing I have said to date. I can only see this leading to more debate. While you and I will not change our ideals and beliefs, I can only hope to shape the ideas of those who read this thread and do not have concrete beliefs. It would be fun to chase these so very many rabbits, but time is not a factor of which I have much of.

Actually, acceptance of an old earth was almost universal among both scientists and the clergy. Hogwash. The clergy has never, as a whole or in majority, accepted the idea of the very old age of the earth. Those who believe in the literal word can trace the lineage of mankind back from the time of Christ to Adam, a period while questioned that still remains in the area of 5 to 7 thousand years. And, that is to the very first literal day of this earths existance. No, sir. It has not been universally accepted. Acceptance of the transmutation of species was also commonly accepted. Where do you find this one? This is also the stuff commonly found in hog wallows. The clergy has held to the literal translation of the Bible, that is not some new thing. The idea of evolution has been held my a small minority, my friend. Not the majority.

an interesting thought! erosion is just what it is. Why could it not be a part of God's plan? I am assuming (am I correct?) that you are also thinking of longterm erosion- like glaciers, breaking rock into sand, etc. I CANNOT speak for others, only myself. I don't think that some of those things were created over millions of years. I personally think that they were created in a radically different way. We will get to that later, though. Please be more specific as to what you mean in your question.

Rooster, could you explain how men influenced the sheep's behavior? Let me speak out of turn here. I dont know where these sheep originated from, nor do I know how they were raised. I would bet they had been run through some kind of commercial sheep operation. And I do know that I have shot a pile of Synovex into the ears of calves, and they dont always act like normal little guys after that. Sometimes, they get limp wristed after getting a dose of the stuff. FYI, Synovex is a VERY common growth hormone used in smaller calves to make them grow faster and muscle up better. We know that the addition of growth hormones in chickens is causing quite a concern for those who consume them. And, yes, sheep get their own dose of growing stuff, too. I have a feeling that we will not get to know all the details of this scientific study; you know, it is probably being done by some guy who is ultimately trying to prove the evolutionary theory or something. , the act seems to be forbidden to men only. I await further scholarship... the term man is commonly used to refer to mankind in general. See there, I did it. In our language, we have the word mankind to show that women and children are included, and they did not. Hmmm. This is where we must use the context of the text (no pun intended) to determine the true use. Ps. Please dont use the excuse of not knowing the original language. There are more than enough translations out there. You dont have to hide behind the excuse of some hypothetical mistranslation of the original texts.