Jump to content

Rooster7

Members
  • Posts

    2129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rooster7

  1. Barely old enough to remember the Kennedy assignation (mostly because of the reaction of others around me) and appreciate the moon landing, but young enough to not understand the fuss over Marilyn Monroe singing happy birthday to the President and to miss out on the "free love" of the hippie dippie movement. 44 - Considering the possibilities, I'm happy to be this age.
  2. Since no one else is showing any "better judgment": The act itself, and/or the embracing of those desires, is immoral. It isn't a generalization to say a group is immoral when they openly embrace and defend the immoral act.
  3. Leader and follower do not belong together??? Did I hear right? Someone is trying to redefine the English language here. I understand the points made by Bob White and Dan, but I cannot agree with the idea that we should divorce these two terms - or put a negative connotation on leader when using it in conjunction with follower. That's really ridiculous. These are complementary words. They are mutually inclusive. The use of one logically proclaims the existence of the other. If there is a teacher, there must also be a student. If there is a doctor, there must also be a patient. Perhaps, one can argue as to what the leader should encourage the follower to embrace but certainly an effective leader knows how to create followers. Otherwise, hes not a leaderHes just a resounding gong waiting for someone to acknowledge his message. A leader inspires people to become followers, to learn and to follow his example*. *Note, follow his example does not necessarily mean imitate his every step or thought. It means imitate him to the degree that it is applicable to the lesson. If a SM teaches his Scouts to be reverent and sets the example by showing them what he does within his faith, it does not mean the Scouts must convert to his faith. The Scoutmasters example should be demonstrating his level of commitment and devotion to God. This is what the Scouts should be imitating not his specific religious practices. A good leader and mentor will make this clear. Nevertheless, to say leader and follower do not belong together is straight out of 1984. Its not only illogical; its kind of scary that someone would embrace that kind of thinking. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  4. Okay, I will follow dsteeles recommendation. However, I will make one last pubic post before I do. First, I invite everyone to read those threads constructed back in March of 2002. I have reread the specific posts that NJ has referenced. I stand by my comments made back then. While I do not agree with Dedicated Dads graphic descriptions, I understood many of his points (not necessarily all of them). I think he did cross the line by injecting NJ and TJ into a hypothetical partnership defending gays and pedophiles, whereas he graphically describes their potential clients. Nevertheless, I never claimed to support every thought posted by Dedicated Dad. Second, I did accuse NJ of dishonesty, but it was in reference to his debating style. If my posts are read in context, I think that point is clear. Obviously, I feel he has not changed much since then, which was a secondary point (or maybe the primary point) of this thread. In regard to this BSA policy, he likens those who support it especially those of us who support it on moral grounds to self-righteous hate mongers. This is not only false, but does nothing to bring value to his position. Lastly NJ these are your own words: Those of us who choose to debate here should be able to handle what goes on, or we can leave. Im not trying to attack anyone on a personal level, but I cant ignore debating tactics (such as inferring hate as a motive) that impugn me personally. Its a tactic thats employed by people who dont have logic on their side, and I wont ignore it. I will call you out especially if my silence can be misconstrued or distorted as passive agreement.
  5. "Be a man." Since I cannot physically reach you, I don't see how you can compare me to a schoolyard bully. The analogy doesn't work. I think you're smart enough to know, I meant it in terms of being ethical. If you want to accuse me of something - such as being hateful or mean-spirited in this forum, then quote me. I don't even mind if you expound so long as you make reference to a specific quote and not a twisted interpretation of the same. Who knows? I might even agree with you. I've said things in the past that I wouldn't say today. More tomorrow...not enough time or energy today.
  6. "No Ed, I have no wish for them to follow me..." I hate to pile on, but I have to ask you Bob - Isn't a good Scoutmaster suppose to be a mentor? In fact, are not all adult Scout leaders suppose to be mentors? A mentor is someone who not only teaches (i.e., leadership skills, good character, etc.), but he is also someone that teaches and leads by example. The whole premise of a mentor relationship is to encourage the "student" (for a lack of a better term) to follow the example of the mentor. You should be encouraging the boys to follow you - at least figuratively if not literally speaking. Where do we part ways in this line of logic? If this is being done properly, at some point, after a boy has been trained and mentored, he should progress to a leadership role and become a mentor himself - for the younger/more inexperience boys. So, when a Scout is young and experience, he learns what it is like to be a follower. As a follower, he learns by his leaders' successes and failures, enabling him to become a better leader - later after he's acquired the necessary skills and training. From what I've heard and understand, this is the natural process that Scouting encourages.
  7. Mokgamen, Thanks for the clarification. I figured as much. But in today's world, one cannot be too sure. So thanks again for your patience.
  8. The other thing that needs to be said is that there is no official "removal for life" (although for serious pedophiles, that is practically the effect). People who have changed over time and demonstrated improvement in character have been reinstated. I'm probably reading too much into this statement, but here are a couple of observations: 1) Is there any other kind of pedophile other than "serious"? Is there such a thing as a casual pedophile? I'm hoping the author meant known, proven, or convicted, as oppose to serious. When speaking of pedophilia, there's no such thing as a non-serious offender or offense. 2) Has the BSA ever reviewed the history of a pedophile (to see if he's "changed over time and demonstrated improvement in character") and concluded that he was a safe risk? Lets hope not. Did the author mean to infer leaders and Scouts who were ousted for an offense other than pedophilia? I cannot imagine any childrens organization, much less the BSA, allowing a known pedophile (reformed or not) to become a member. Thats like allowing a reformed alcoholic to become a bartender.
  9. NJ This thread is for you because 1) I know you cant get enough of this subject and, 2) I am compelled to respond to your not-so-subtle accusation. Smearing someone doesnt make your stance stronger. Truth be told, you only degrade yourself when you misrepresent others. Find all the posts you want. I havent been hateful. While I am repulsed by the homosexual agenda and the political pawns who promote their life-style choices, I have never condone hateful attacks. As for my word choice, if I thought homosexuality to be something other than a perversion, I wouldnt be defending the merits of the BSA policy. I use this word because I think it accurately describes sexual activity between two men. However, in my dictionary (and in my mind), perversion is not linked with hate. I also think people with fetishes are guilty of embracing a perversion. Nevertheless, my opinion of these peoples behavior doesnt cause me to hate them. Perhaps that is your problem you cannot disagree with someone elses choices in life or their opinions in regard to serious issues, without hating them. Thats a sad state of affairs. As for my support of previous posters who may have stated their opinions more stronglySo, its guilt by association eh? When I support a posters viewpoint, Im usually pretty specific. I tend to do this (be specific), because I know there are people such as you who want to discredit my position not based on logic, but by associating me with people, words, and acts which are contrary to my stated beliefs. Again, this is a tactic, which many liberal politicians embrace without conscience (apparently most of American has started to realize this too, because the dems seem to be losing more and more seats in Congress and elsewhere). If Ive made a post that you disagree with, then quote it specifically and point out where your disagreement lies. I know you said that you werent going to do that but why? Is it because its too much effort, or is it because your argument is weak? If I support another poster, its because I saw the value in some of his/her words. It doesnt mean I support everything that a particular poster may have said. NJ, be a man and argue against my position based on its merit or lack thereof. I cant respect you if all your arguments end with you pointing an accusatory finger of hate. From another recent thread on the same subject: NJ, Of this I am guilty: I dislike the homosexual lifestyle. (They live in a very dark world, which is consumed by their so-called sexuality. On average, the homosexual has dozens of partners. Few of them find happiness. Their suicide rate is high.) I dislike what they do. (They are driven by their sexual desires. They debase themselves and others in a futile effort to find companionship.) I dislike their politics. (They defend their practices knowing full well how sick they truly are. They try to force everyone to accept their lifestyle and viciously assail those who oppose their agenda.) However, contrary to your allegation, I do not thoughtlessly approve of anything "that constitutes an attack on a gay person." That is what I call a "liberal smear". Very typical your indignation was predictably pious. I simply support policies and laws that treat homosexuality for what it is - a sexual perversion. So, for example, while I support laws against thievery, I do not want to see the poor attacked. I have sympathy for the poor and their plight. Similarly, I pray that all homosexuals seek out and find compassionate, trained counselors. Unfortunately, it appears most will not. Even if theyre strong enough to fight off their own denials and come to grips with their ugly and sinful lifestyle, they still have huge, almost insurmountable hurdles such as homosexual activists who harass them as traitors and/or bait them back into the fold via their mutual yet depraved desires; Or worst of all, heterosexual liberals who flock to their side in a self-exalting attempt to convince them that they are not sick, just victims of Christian conservatives. Their struggle is truly horrific, the likes of which, few outside their world can appreciate. Meanwhile many banally contribute to their downfall. Its very sad. I would never condone attacks, but nor do I condone the behavior. They need help. In the meantime, I believe the BSA policy is the prudent course of action. The BSA is one of the few remaining non-religious organizations that has the guts to stand up for something other than the bottom line.
  10. ...when it has been clearly obvious for decades to anybody with any knowledge of the law that his actions were unlawful. Sorry, that dog don't hunt! ;-) Like you've never heard that before - eh? Hunt, It's not clear or obvious. In fact, if anything, I feel the clear and obvious stance is quite the opposite. Prior to the 1950's, our Supreme Court had an entirely different point of view. Since that time, there has always been a large contingent (if not a majority) of Americans that believe the current thinking that inspired the distorted mantra of "separation of church and state" (and the rulings of some previous Courts) is un-Constitutional. There is a huge distinction between the state forcing the practice of religion upon a willing citizenry and public references to God or even to a particular faith.
  11. NJ, You're priceless. Yes, I have real heartburn when I see homosexual activists going after the BSA. I also get a little irritated when they attack the Catholic Church, Christians in general, Republicans, and a myriad of other conservative groups. However, despite your implication - we dont hate gays. Were just tired of the never-ending drivel. Your discernment about members of this board being hateful, is just another example of an aspiring activist whos willing to say anything - about anyone - no matter how untrue - no matter how insulting - just to gain sympathy and/or to garner support from naive wannabe tree huggers. Sadly, youre probably having an effect. Stay the course bro. Attica! Attica! Attica! Youll do your mommy proud. In a few years, maybe theyll name a library after you. Personally, Id rather not have that kind of a legacy. Id be happy if I could simply raise my kids as I see fit, associate with the groups of my choosing, and embrace the values that God guides me to, without harassment from outsiders who want to reform the world to their own liking.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  12. Actually it's just a minor annoyance. And if readers would like to evaluate which of us has had his nerves struck, I would point out that I am not the one who started his post with the word "Aargh!" Yeah...I'm sure that I was the only one. Youd think I would be more tolerant. BTW, do you have a professional relationship with any of these homosexual activists? Your never-ending "pursuit of justice" for "the oppressed" has made me curious, if not nauseous.
  13. Acco40, Thanks for so tactfully pointing out my typo. Im not sure what I was thinking, but I stand corrected. In the future, I'll try to show you the same courtesy. ;-) NJ, Does my appeal to "move on" really strike that big of a nerve? Apparently so. I wonder why. But, thanks for pointing out my legal options. I hope you dont intend on billing me for your professional opinion.
  14. Arrrgh! Another thread turned into a debate on homosexuality. I have my opinion (see the previous 2,000 threads on this subject), but let's move on...This has been beatened to death.
  15. Bob, Going back to the topic at hand - Yes, we are supposed to find ways (i.e., use the methods of Scouting) to ingrain values and good character in the boys. However, as I said before, the desired end result does not happen over night. It's a process that may take years. Rules are a way of keeping order and ensuring everyone is kept safe, until those boys embrace that good character. As for the snide remarks - if you think that by making generalizations or by not addressing a specific person, you are not being snide to anyone, then you are sorely mistaken. Youre as guilty as the rest of us when comes to being snide, so please dont pretend otherwise. OGE, If a scout cant keep the 12 words of the scout law in his heart and mind, how will he remember the plethora of rules a troop might whip up? Its not a matter of remembering the 12 points of the Scout Law. Im sure most Scouts can do this. Its a matter of knowing how to interpret the appropriate point or points of the Scout Law for every given circumstance. Many new and/or young Scouts are not going to be able to do this. Or, for some boys, it may be a matter in which they rather ignore the Scout Law. Rules give new Scouts specific dos and donts. They establish boundaries and consequences. No, rules dont accomplish the mission. But, without rules many troops would become dysfunctional and the work of the mission would become near impossible. Consider this analogy A doctors mission is to heal his patient. Rules are the painkiller. Painkiller wont heal the patient. But until the medicine does its job or until the doctor performs the appropriate procedure, painkillers are necessary to keep the patients pain under control. And believe me, some Scouts can be a real pain when theyre out of control. ;-) (This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  16. Bob, It doesn't really matter what you call it. Whether it's a mission or a goal, my point remains the same. The boys don't start off from day one in a troop living the Scout Oath and Law as if its ingrained in their very being. I hope future posts can address the discussion without further snide remarks about me personally. Would you be referencing this statement? ...those adults in the BSA who lack the total understanding of the Scouting program that you posses, created these monsters through their ignorance and/or negligence. Judging by your previous statements, in and out of this thread, you seem to be of the impression that the latter is very possible. I have to admit, it was somewhat snide - But it is based on numerous responses from you on a litany of subjects whereas you have inferred exactly what I have stated. And you continue to do so, by closing your last post with this little gem: They are those who admit to not using the elements of scouting as they have been developed and then complain that the program does not work. How would they know if it works or not if they do not use it? They also tend to write an awful lot of rules. If you don't like snide remarks, then don't make them yourself. I don't mind exchanging a barb or two - I'm a big boy and can handle anything you dish out (which is plenty). But don't pretend to be a victim, when you're the one intent on throwing out insulting insinuations indiscriminately as if it's your given right as an institutional pillar of the BSA. Hope this helps (okay, that was snide), Rooster7
  17. I agree with Scoutingagain. Be confident in the way you sit, speak, and present yourself, BUT - be humble. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. Don't brag. Don't act as if you're already have it in hand or that they owe it to you. Be very respectful and polite. However, when giving your answers, sit up straight, speak up, don't slur your words, and present the information as you know it to be. That brings me to this tip - Start thinking about all the different things that they might ask you and the answers that you might give. The answers should reflect what you feel to be true, not what you think they want to hear. You might want to talk to some Eagles in your troop to get idea of what they might ask you.
  18. actually I have had dozens of groups of great kids. I can't image how anyone could do this work for 27 years and have only one group. The troops and packs I have served have changed each year as new scouts come in and older ones graduate. All have been great. Some started great others became great as they progressed. We are there to make that happen. When I said, perhaps you are blessed with a truly unusual bunch of boys - by unusual, I meant a large group of boys whose always thinking of others and their well-being. Ive seen that quality in a few boys, but rarely in young and/or new Scouts. Occasionally, Ive seen the majority of a troop act in such a way. But never to the point, the troop had no need for rules. BTW, just so theres no confusion, plenty of great kids have passed through the units that Ive been associated with. Interestingly, many of these great kids obeyed the rules but most of them found a way to break a rule every now and again. Does that mean most of these kids are imposters? I dont judge a Scouts ability to live up to the Scout Oath and Law based on an occasional lapse of judgment. Why? Because living up to the Scout Oath and Law is a goal. Its not something that a boy can keep in his heart and mind every moment of the day Especially when hes being distracted and tempted by some outdoor fun with a bunch of rowdy boys. We build a moral conscience in youth, the inner voice. We do not do it through rules we do it through methods and rule making is not a scout method or skill. Yes, that is the goal. Although, I dont think we should take personal responsibility or credit for building that moral conscience. Rather, I think its our goal to point a Scout in the right direction. We should encourage him to seek standards that go beyond his own selfish being. But a goal is simply that a goal something to reach for, something to strive for, and its not accomplished so easily simply because we (the adult leaders) desire it to be true. While we are using these Scouting methods to move towards that goal, we including all of the Scouts, still live in the here and now some call it reality. If we pretend that the goal represents reality, then we are being Pollyanna and thus creating a situation, which will lead to chaos. Many posters seem to use rules to substitute for leadership. I find that to be an insult by inference. I dont think you have any quotes from this board that indicate the person advocating rules, believes or wants the rules to relieve the adult leaders from mentoring the boys. That last statement seems to be a reflection of your own bias. Rooster I have been a unit leader in 4 troops and 2 packs (due to job transfers) NONE used any rules outside those defined in the scouting program. No one to this point has yet given any evidence as to one we need. Conversely, there are many on this board including myself who have had experiences much different than yours. The need that youve apparently have never witnessed before, is to address a bunch of boys whod rather have fun, which includes (on many occasions) not thinking about others before they act. I dont know Bobmaybe were all horrible leaders who want to use the rules as an excuse not to lead Or, maybe this collective behavior in boys that I speak of, is only seen in boys that are beyond hope Or, maybe those adults in the BSA who lack the total understanding of the Scouting program that you posses, created these monsters through their ignorance and/or negligence. Judging by your previous statements, in and out of this thread, you seem to be of the impression that the latter is very possible. If you want to control a scouts behavior, forget about making new rules, teach scouting! Its a goal! I agree but while youre working on it, there needs to be controls to keep things in place. A question for rooster ed and some others who believe unit rules are needed. Rather than tell those of us who deliver scouting without a bunch of extra rules that it's impossible, why aren't you asking how to make it possible in the units you serve? Simply stated, your experiences do not reflect reality, at least not the reality that most people I know experience. I believe you may have been a part of some really outstanding units. But if what you say is true, then I think you were really fortunate to have a group of boys that allowed those units to function as they did. Did you ever consider the possibility that most of these boys were pretty close to the goal before you even tried to influence them with the methods of Scouting? Otherwise, I dont see your examples as being typical. Wouldn't you rather be able to get the results of scouting without all kinds of unit rules? Sure. But most things worth achieving dont come that easy. Id also rather gain the results of the cross without the realization that I am a lowly sinner who deserves condemnation. But if it were not for the laws of the Old Covenant (the rules) and Christs sacrifice on the cross, Id never realize my need for repentance or the need for a Savior. Nor would I strive for a righteousness that pleases God, because Id still be in the dark. Creating a well thought-out set of rules for the troop will set boundaries and establish consequences for the boys. It also helps ensure that all boys are treated equally. Whats wrong with that?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  19. A Scout is humble. I would like to see humility embraced and taught more. This trait allows a Scout to put himself in another's position. He's not as apt to judge others who have are in lesser or unfortunate circumstances. He's not as apt to seek the spotlight (as some Scouts seem to do with political issues lately). He's not as apt to brag about all of his achievements (which I see quite often). He's more willing to help others because he realizes that other person could be him or someone he loves. In fact, if "humble" was added to the Scout Law, we could probably remove a couple of the others.
  20. How often did I say that the only rules needed are already in the scouting program? This is the exception, not the rule (no pun intended). Typically, most boys especially 10, 11, and 12 year-olds - and others who have not been exposed to Scouting for very long (and in some cases, some boys who have), are not going to intrinsically connect a Scouting value (or rather one of the points of the Scout Law) to a behavior such as no running around the campfire. In theory, by all means, this is the goal but its not realistic to say the Scout Law and Oath is all a new Scout needs to know if he wants to be respectful and safe around others. When these boys have been in the program for four or five years and/or when they have matured into men, then I can see them calling to mind and interpreting the Scouting Oath and Law on a regular basis. Although, I would think that the values from their religious faith would rein supreme over the Scout Oath and Law and accomplish the same end. That thought brings me to this analogy: Jesus taught us that the two greatest commandments are these: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:38-40 If we could keep the love of God in our hearts 24/7, there would be no need to have any other laws (or rules). However, I dont know of anyone who can do this. And, I dont know of any Scout that keeps the Scout Law and/or Oath in the forefront of his mind 24/7. We have proved that scouting works, and additional unit rules are unnecessary, you just need to use the scouting program. And Christians have known for two thousand years that believing in and following Jesus works but many fail to follow the program. The vast majority of our forefathers believed in Jesus and his teachings. Yet, they created laws why? The same reason troops create rules. Its not realistic to believe that every person (or rather every Scout) is going to keep these teachings in his heart 24/7. We do not have a rule not to run in camp, we have an agreed up decision that running in camp is dangerous and can break things. Scouts refrain from running not because of a rule but because each scout has made an ethical decision based on the values of the Oath and Law. Now thats just plain Pollyanna. I suppose that its inconceivable in your mind that in another troop (where the leaders follow the program) the majority of boys disagree that running in camp is dangerous? Or, what if two or three boys disagreed and decided that it was not unethical to run? How do you reconcile this without a rule? I know - you have a group discussion and in the end, they all agree. Sorry youre not on the same planet that the rest of us live on. I do not volunteer time to make and enforce rules. I am here, like most scout leaders, to teach character through the methods of scouting. We are not hall monitors. Perhaps you are blessed with a truly unusual bunch of boys. But theres no way in **** that youre going to convince me that your troops implementation of the Scouting program permits your troop to function without any other additional rules. I believe in teaching good character to young boys in my mind and heart, this is the primary reason for Scouting - its why I have my boys in the program. But it doesnt happen overnight. Troop rules are necessary if no other reason to keep the new Scouts (and those who refuse to be taught) in line. If anything, Ive seen too many troops with not enough rules (AND consequences). Theres another reason why I like to see rules consistency. I want to know what the consequences are up front and see the rules enforced fairly for everyone. Double standards are alive and well in many troops. I think a troop that embraces the Scout Oath and Law should do everything in its power to treat all boys equitably. In my years of experience, due to the lack of rules and established consequences, I have seen much inconsistency when it comes to the treatment of Scouts (by boy and adult leaders) who violate the Scout Oath and Law. Relying on the Scout Oath and Law without any augmentation (i.e., rules and consequences for common behavior problems), leaves it wide open for interpretation, whereas the severity of the violation seems to have as much to do with the Scout's personality and his status with others as it does with the offense. This is not uncommon and I've seen it many times. I'll be willing to bet that most folks on this board have seen it as well. BTW, making and enforcing rules is a part of leadership training - something we should be teaching the boys. And in fact, they are the ones who should be enforcing the rules, if not making them.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  21. Perspective Let's get some. We all understand the goal. Everyone agrees that we want all Scouts to follow the Scout Oath and Law - all the time (even when we're not looking). It's certainly an admirable goal. But, do you honestly believe that there is no need for rules? Do you think that all Scouts should hold the Scout Oath and Law so near and dear to their hearts that they don't need to think about consequences - They should always comply because they know it's the right thing to do? Admirable! But it is hardly realistic. Christians have been teaching good character for two centuries longer than the BSA - But unlike some BSA leaders, most pastors recognize the human condition. Were all prone to sin. Rules are not an admittance of defeat. They're a dose of reality. Necessary - even for most Eagle Scouts, I dare say.
  22. I think there are two sides to this coin. On the one hand, I understand Bob's point. If a unit is running well, the need for these kinds of rules decrease dramatically - they may in fact be unnecessary. I believe it is possible to have such a troop. Given the right leaders, the right attitude, and the proper methods, I believe that it is possible that the boys will respond accordingly. Frankly, Id love to see it. But I also think you have to have the right boys. Generally speaking, there are always a few, if not quite a few boys that are intent on doing their own thing. So, on a more realistic note, I think more often than not, some rules need to be in place. As much as we would like to believe it to be so - Our skillful and dedicated implementation of the true Scouting program does not always bring about the results that we desire or expect. Some boys dont listen. Some boys dont care. And some boys will do as they please, even to the detriment of others. Consequently, I see a benefit in having a good set of well thought-out troop rules and appropriate consequences. At the very least, these rules serve notice to the boys as to what specific consequences they should expect if they choose to ignore the Scout Law and Oath. Perhaps, for the older boys (because they have learned and grown from their Scouting experience), these rules will seem silly. But I imagine, even the older boys can understand why the new boys need to have a set of specific boundaries.
  23. I never made it to Boy Scouts. I kept joining Cub Scouts (twice) thinking I would be camping, fishing, and swimming in a few days - only to find myself building bird houses from popsickle sticks. I lost interest eventually. I did make it to Lion. Isn't that the Webelo equivelent? As an adult - 2 years Cub Leader, 2 years Assistant Webelos Leader, 2 years Webelos Leader, 2 years Assistant Cubmaster, 2 years Cubmaster, 8 years ASM. Had the most fun doing the Cubmaster bit. Worked the hardest as a Webelos Leader.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)
  24. Okay...since this thread has already been high-jacked...What's the best candy bar in the civilized world? When I was about 10, I would have said - Baby Ruth. By the way, they're also very effective if you want to clear a pool in a hurry. Now that I'm 44, I say it's a tie between a Butterfinger and a Health bar.
  25. Sometimes I feel like a nut! For some reason that popped into my head. I don't know if it was inspired by the candy bar talk or the conversation before that. Either way, for this particular thread, it seems appropriate. Oh yeah... And someimes I don't!
×
×
  • Create New...