GaHillBilly

Well, Beavuh, it's nice to know where you stand: " But outside of the urban slums, yeh don't quite see the same tone of anti-intellectual culture that seems to be da stock of the old south. " My Southern accent doesn't always show, and the last time someone said something like that to me, he was assuming that I was also a Yankee refugee, stranded in the land of Dixie. I let him wax on fulsomely, in the same manner as you were, before I dropped the hammer on him. Your faith in those with higher degrees is rather touching. Does that faith include Yale's Pete Singer, who takes the

Ho, "Merlin the King" (aka "Merlyn le Roy); You write: " You're as bad as people who say evolution is a hoax because if people evolved from apes, why are there still apes, or who say the moon landing is a hoax because space travel through a vacuum is impossible." Given your bent toward fancy and fantasy (as evidenced by your nom de Forum), I have to ask: Can you identify ANYONE who says either of those things? Or is this just another of your fancy fantasies? I'm pretty close to the evangelical community, and some of the weirder things believed by fundamental creationists, a

Hey, Eagle92. I think if you're reread my post, I wasn't knocking OFGs; I was knocking OFGs without skills! But BSA National has just decided to use "fat" as a surrogate measure for unskilled and unfit. Obesity is a serious problem all on its own for many, including myself! But, it's not the core problem with Scouters, even if it's a contributing issue. If BSA National really wanted to do something, they could return Wood Badge to its roots as a SKILLS development training program. But, that's not going to happen. There is far too much inertia in the form of legacy

OGE, you're asking the age-old question: "Have things gotten bad enough, so that it would be worth it do something drastic?" I think the answer would be yes, from the boys' view, But I'm afraid it would be "No!" from the Scouter's point of view. Scouting seems to have confused "management", which is done from behind, with "leadership", which is done from the front. The District can be 'managed', the Council can be 'managed', even BSA National can be 'managed'. But, boys who are Scouts need to be led. And, the *real* issue is functional skill, not excess fat. Most fat guys simpl

On several levels that have nothing to do with political viewpoints, Drudge is nothing like The Daily Kos. It's not often somebody does something really novel or unique. Bill Gates did it, when he turned MS on a dime, and made IE the focus of the company overnight. I'd bet that's the fastest strategic move by a big company ever. Google did it, when they set out to index the Internet . . . and did. Alta Vista was good in its day, but never had the vision or tech. My boys find it difficult to imagine living in the world I did at their age, with a single immediately accessible ref

Again, thanks all. I'm finding this very helpful and instructive. Beavah wrote: "Da "brand identity" of Scouting is dorky and uncool. Ridiculous uniforms. Kowtowing to fat, foolish adults. Lots of lectures and rules. Boys aren't rejecting our values in the least - they would be Harry Potter or Eragon or da modern G.I. Joe in a heartbeat. They're still ready to fight for right and freedom, same as always." That sums up the conclusion I'm reaching. And, it explains why I'll provide info on nearby troops home schoolers could enter, but focus on Lone Scouting. I was amazed at

@ packsaddle: Thanks -- that was an interesting summary. I file it away -- stuff tends to become un-findable on the Internet over time, and now that terabyte drives are cheap, I can save and index everything I find interesting. I did note that it was a wind energy association document, so I assume it was best-foot-forward data for wind power. As such, it wasn't what "vol" was talking about. @ vol: Still would like your data too, if you can lay hands on it, or find a link. @ eagle92: Thanks for the UK Telegraph link. I'd missed that one, even though that guy has been the

"At any rate, your argument hinges on the idea that sexual predation is a major issue among gay youth when they are with their non-gay, same-gender friends." Not at all, as I think you already know. My "argument hinges on the idea that" there is no functional difference between letting a male hetero in a girls shower room . . . and letting a gay guy in a guys shower room. Y'all are acting like idiots. I don't think ostriches ever actually do put their heads in the sand. But y'all -- it wouldn't be safe to take y'all to a beach. So many suffocated SMs would be hard to explain.

"The total energy generated in the expected lifetime of the windmill is approximately equal to the energy required to fabricate and construct the windmill." Vol, you don't happen to have access to a source document or link on that, do you? If valid, that's a very cool statistic. But I don't think I have to tell you that no one advocating "Go Green, All Green!" would believe it without support. GaHillBilly

HiLo, you are posting utter nonsense! You wrote, "Putting a gay boy with a non-gay boy does not make it any more likely." This is logically identical to having said, "Putting a girl with a boy does not make it any more likely." . . . which is simply idiocy. If that were actually true, YPT would only apply to adults. Gern, I can make up stupid insults too, but there's no point. We're not on the playground anymore. Lisa, since I posted another explanation did occur to me: psychological denial. HiLo seems to be an example. I should have thought of it -- I've done more PC resc

Lisa, I didn't say what you said: "But, I'm coming to realize that many gay advocates, outside this forum, wish no such thing: they plan for, and actually prefer, that teens be sexually active and 'experimental'. I'm not sure that all are completely conscious of this, or of the contrast between their goals and those of others here. What I've noticed, HERE, is that the idea of Scouts having sex together, at camp or on a campout, whether it's homo or hetero sex, seems to fall into the 'ho-hum' category for the gay advocates. If I'm right, they may be 'downplaying' the negatives because they

"Not to worry, I've seen plenty of Eagles who couldn't do the basics such as hunt, track, stalk, skin, butcher, make leather, smoke meat, plant a garden, can, sew, cook, raise meat animals, chop/split wood, work a forge, harness or shoe a horse, fell trees, lay out a plat, make molasses, buck hay, or communicate in Morse Code... " Wow, Voyageur, after all your talk about Indians, I would have thought you and those around you had real skillz. I guess you are a fan of 'virtual Indians'? Does that mean that all your facts about Indians are just 'virtual facts', too? Merlyn, I judg

Miller/Urey, not Miller & Levine. The ref was to an experiment described in textbook(s) not a particular textbook. Here's a Wiki: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment ] The article seems be generally accurate, but have been largely written by a fan-boy who minimized current problems. Elsewhere, in the same texts that contain Miller/Urey you can usually find info on early atmosphere conditions, and they aren't the Miller/Urey conditions. GaHillBilly PS: Sneering at 'idiots' not present in the discussion doesn't really further the discussion.

HiLo, gotta a link to uniforms? I Googled, and got to the Scouting Australia site, but couldn't quickly find a link to pictures of your current uniform. I could have looked longer, but I'm lazy, and if y'all's site is at all like the US site, finding stuff can be real hard. GaHillBilly

Thanks for the info, skeptic. I remember 'old' drive-in camping, though not the first time I went (June 1955, b4 I was a year old!). And you're right. Drive-in then was much more remote than hike-in is today. That area now is the province of hunters, and 24-pack swilling off-roaders. Not fun. And, yeah, I'd forgotten that bit from "Follow me, boys". Of course, that movie does bring something interesting. In the 50's and 60's, 'nerdy' was not as 'nerdy' as it is now. I wonder, if the extreme importance on fitting in is also one of the negative outcomes of the 60's & 70's?

"We don't have a problem with boy on boy sex." Wow! Do you really mean that? GaHillBilly

Dates, guys! Please, I'm trying to timeline this thing. Kudu's not speaking for himself currently, but I'd guess he might suggest that Scouts as nerds got a big boost after the '70's switch to teaching "management" rather than outdoor skills. I'd be real interested to know if Scouts were nerdy in the 50's and 60's, too. GaHillBilly

"Are there really many people today who actually believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time?" Sure . . . just like there are people who believe in a 'confluence of spiritual power in Sedona' or in re-incarnation or that Al Gore is an honest man! But, I gather that there may actually be some ambiguous fossil evidence that could be interpreted to support the man + dinosaur conclusion. You also have to keep in mind that most mainstream journalists LITERALLY have no idea what's wrong with the statement, "due to acid rain, the stream's pH had risen to 8.6". So, when

"Well, I was one of those nerds/geeks in HS" Not to be nosy, but how long ago was that? (I'm curious how long Scouting has been 'nerdy', and also, whether it's nerdy in all countries.) GaHillBilly

"I strongly believe that advocates of the various homosexual social goals tend to HEAVILY DOWNPLAY the negative aspects of homosexuality. I think we know them, or many of them, and yet choose to ignore our reservations simply because no one wants to be perceived as 'mean' or 'unfair.' " I think that's true (the downplaying) in part. But, as I've read through some of the pro-gay-Scouting posts here, and have started collecting data on the top US gay advocate (Kevin Jennings, asst. US sec. of ed.), I've begun to change my mind. I'm beginning to suspect that pro-gay advocates do not vie

"my point was that in biology today, and to some degree in physics, opportunities are governed, NOT by scientific rigor or skill, but by groveling submission to the current PC notions." packsaddle asked: "GHB, is this your opinion or do you have actual evidence? Perhaps you could be more specific. If you do have evidence, please share. What you just described does not occur in any department with which I've had interactions." It's an opinion but not just mine. It's backed by a number of observations, again not just mine. But it's OT here. However, what I said here triggered some fu

HiLo: "I suspect that the membership slump and recovery reflect several things. Scouts had become very introverted and nerdy looking to outsiders. We got some new chiefs at the top with better media and PR skills, a new uniform - dramatically different, some great TV ads, and some good PR around the centenary" Its OT in this thread, but I'd be interested in knowing how & why Scouting became "nerdy" in Australia. That perception is a huge impediment in the US, but I didn't realize that it transcended national borders. Has Scouting ALWAYS been 'nerdy'? My perception of 'old-t

""You can be that way." Excuse me, sir, but I don't believe you know me well enough to make that kind of value judgment. One of the reasons I gave the caveat of "anecdotal" is because, unlike some people, I *am* cautious of presenting my personal opinions as hard facts." What I wrote was ill-phrased. I should have said something like, "You can adopt that way of thinking about it." or some such. Actually, that doesn't sound much better; regardless, I didn't mean it the way it came across. I was trying (and failing) to say -- in a colloquial manner -- that anecdotal evidenc

Dan, my mother followed the same sort of 'reasoning' process. If I told her that I'd read that 3 out of 100 people in Georgia had serious stings over the course of a summer, she'd say something like "That's interesting" meaning of course, "That's boring, but you're my son." On the other hand, if she happened to get badly stung during a particular summer, then there was a "serious problem" that "somebody ought to do something about" (besides dispatching one of us to deal with the particular nest). You can be that way. But it has nothing to do with a reasoned examination of the probl

@ DanKroh " I have anecdotal information from various relatives about increased cancer and birth defects among both the human and livestock populations, as well as pictures of interesting mutations of plant-life in the area." Dan, I'm pretty sure you are well enough educated to know how reliable such information is, in assessing actual magnitudes of effects or risks! Some years ago, I did an experiment in social psychology, but just once! It caused way too much trouble to repeat. I've worked with commercial swimming pools of years, and have been very involved in the chemistry