GernBlansten

So would it be inappropriate for Obama, the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America to make a statement? I'd sure like him to.

Ed, You're a piece of work!

This reminds me of the calls for all Muslim clerics to denounce the acts of the few extremists. If some leader in the WOSM is doing something so objectionable, shouldn't we hold other WOSM leaders to denounce it publicly also?

Seems you first need freedom from religion before you can exercise freedom of religion.

All right. Let me pose this question then. Should an organization that allows athiests and gays to be members of it, charter a BSA unit? Doesn't that demonstrate a conflict with the values of the BSA movement? Shouldn't the BSA hold their chartering partners to the same level of standards that it imposes on itself?

I was kinda joking. But come to think of it, why would an organization sponsor a youth group that didn't share its obligations to society, visa vie, membership? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to sponsor an organization that didn't share the same rigorous membership requirements of the host group? Don't we want charter organizations that hold at least the same level of membership standards as the BSA?

I don't think any organization should charter a BSA unit if their own membership policies are more liberal than that of the BSA.

I'll adjust my test. If an organization can legally discriminate based on religious or sexual orientation in their membership, they can own a BSA unit. Churchs certainly can. Social clubs certainly can. So, can a VFD discriminate against athiests and homosexual volunteer fire fighters? I suppose they can if they get no taxpayer money and are a self funded, private fire department. Never heard of one that didn't get funded through local taxes though.

I think its a pretty simple test. Would the VFD exist without public funding? If the answer is yes, then then can charter a BSA unit, if the answer is no, they cannot. Most VFDs I'm aware of would simply dissolve if tax payer money was cut off.

Excuse me? You don't know my background. I know you are a doctor who left your medical practice because of your conflict with your religious/political views. Your previous posting to other threads has convinced me you cannot divorce yourself from those ties. But you have no idea my scientific background or what my field of expertise is. Yet, you obviously know that I'm unqualified to even enter this debate. I do not know HICO's or Brent's professional background. For all I know both work as deli clerks at the Piggly Wiggly, which only qualifies them to tell me whats on sale.

ok

Brent, you only wish to attack the messengers. I have no time for that. I do not wish to debate with someone with as much vitriol as you. Your bias drips from every post you make. Vol, you have shown over numerous threads and topics that you have a strict religious/conservative prism with which you view the world. That has tempered my acceptance of your faith to the scientific process.

Sandspur, I agree with your analysis of the core issues. 1. Is there a general climate warming trend (are glaciers melting, sea ice receding etc)? Obviously, without political bias, there is a trend that indicates the earth is getting warmer. Anyone who denies this, is just sticking their head in the sand. 2. If so, is this related to CO2? That's where the scientists come in. I don't enough about climatology to question them. Most say yes. I don't know if that is because of their political bias, but it makes sense to me given my limited climatology background. So I defer t

So its one of those, "Fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again" things.

What I find interesting is the same conservative posters here that claim AGW is a total hoax and the science behind it is so unclear so we can't possibly effect policy based on it; are the same posters who supported invading a sovereign nation, spilling our blood and treasure on even more dubious claims of weapons of mass destruction and driving our nation into a longterm quagmire. Color me skeptical of their motivations and ability to rationally assess issues without a political bias.

What would you folk like? We've moved from attacking the message to attacking the messenger. You have said that AGW is a hoax because most scientists are left leaning politically biased, fabricated and falsified results to support their claim. That the only true science is coming from a minority of clear thinking politically motivated scientists from the right wing. So who is right? Don't know. Not qualified to second guess. I understand there's bias on both sides. And shenanigans by both agendas. I suppose we would have the same arguments on gravity if it had a politi

The best cathole I've ever experienced was up in Manitoba on a NTier trek. An island in the middle of nowhere, walking across a clearing on moss so thick it felt like walking on a mattress. Found the perfect tree to lean against. The shovel penetrated the moss like a knife cutting the first piece of sponge cake. Extracted a plug just big enough. After finishing, used the plug for personal hygiene and replaced the plug neatly where I found it. So soft and refreshing. Just then, an eagle who I had not noticed sitting on a branch above me, let go and landed a greeting on my boot. I guess

CubsRgr8, That's my point. If the gang of HS'ers is a tight patrol of best buddies, I can see them riding the scouting train to the last stop. But if they aren't, there's not much to keep them, no matter the program. Heck by 16, my son got his Triple Crown in national high adventures. He's been there, done that. Most of his current buds are not scouts. It really is a challenge to get him to re-engage. This is from a scout who attended every meeting and campout from 11 to 15. Venividi, as for shaming the older scouts to stay active, that just doesn't seem like a good method.

My favorite tent is my Mountain Hardware Kiva. Its really just a fly with a single pole in the center like a teepee. Goes all the way to the ground on the edges, so almost no ventilation unless you keep the door open and open the roof vent. No floor. It always condensates. Horribly. But its really a simple tent and only weighs 4 lbs, can sleep 4 and you can almost stand up in the center. I use it in the winter mostly and is almost as warm as a snow cave. Its a bit too warm for summer, and with no floor, all the lively critters are your bed mates.

What's the national average size of a unit? 30 registered? Maybe 20 active? So out of that 20, lets say 5 are over 15. Now those 5 are being pulled in all kinds of new directions. If those 5 are all best buddies and scouting is the glue that keeps them best friends, yes, I can see that unit having active older boys. But how often to kids keep hanging with the same guys? Those 5 might have been their best buds at 13, but now they have new best buds, who aren't scouts. They may be friendly with the other 4, but are they really best buds? Just another thing to pull these guys to things

Stosh has it right, I would only add that while hollowing out the shelter, create a sleeping bench(s) at or above the highest point of the door opening and a trough between the benches to funnel cold air down to the opening. You should also keep the opening as small as possible. Vent holes are only necessary if you plan on using the shelter for several days. First night there is plenty of porosity of the snow to allow gas transfer. After a few nights, it ices up and no longer allows air exchange. I personally don't use the sticks anymore, instead gauging wall thickness on the luminosit

The condensate is due to lack of ventilation. Really drafty tents never condensate. Better tents allow you to control your ventilation. Its a compromise. More ventilation, less condensation, less warmth. Less ventilation, more warmth, more condensation. The higher end tents give you lots of options for ventilation.

You guys are really bad at math. The kids been run through the ringer since he was 2. He's 8 now. Napolitano put him on the list? Please. This is just one more hangover from the Bush Party years.

HEY! I resemble that remark.

We should invoke Blansten's Law in the I&P section. After a thread reaches 10 pages, it should be closed. After that point, the dicussion has strayed from the original intent and becomes meaningless sniping at each other. OGE did the right thing.