skeptic

Sorry Gold Winger; don't know where the GB came from. Now, on to the incredulous comments. Actually, there are many scientists that indicate they eat spiders, along with lots of other bugs, but also other types of things. Even the source you quote indicates they are opportunistic eaters. Anyway, here are some other sources: HARVESTMEN ECOLOGY Average Daddy Longlegs eat a wide variety of foods, including: aphids, caterpillars, beetles, flies, mites, small slugs, snails, earthworms, spiders, other harvestmen, decaying plant and animal matter, bird droppings and fungi. One in a terrarium will survive on tidbits of bread, butter and fatty meat as well. If you watch one eat, notice how after each meal it draws its legs one at a time through its jaws, cleaning them. Birds are among its enemies. Daddy Longlegs release a stinking odor as a defense against predators. Every ten days or so the average Daddy Longlegs molts. It splits open its body case, or exoskeleton, then takes about 20 minutes to drag its long legs from their old casings. Once you watch Daddy-longlegs long enough, you might notice that there's a smaller-bodied, long-legged form, and a larger-bodied, shorter-legged one. The small-bodied, long-legged one is the male. There are over a hundred Daddy-longlegs species in North America north of Mexico! What do Opiliones eat? "Everything", almost. There are many kinds of Opiliones and some seem to have distinct preferences in what they eat while most seem to be less choosy and eat almost anything, especially animal matter. Some species are predatory on small insects, snails, worms, etc., whereas others walk around nibbling on plants, fruits, and dead material that they find. In captivity, you can try feeding your Opiliones freshly chopped meal worms or other juicy insects. Oatmeal, a little piece of fruit or nut might also be eaten. Daddy-long-legs usually are inactive and hidden during the day, then at sunset, they begin to wander about searching for food. Many Opiliones feed on live insects, especially aphids. Other species feed on dead insects or plant juices. ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/pdf/2060B.pdf daddy longlegs Britannica Concise Encyclopedia | Date: 2007 [or harvestman] Any of the 3,400 arachnid species constituting the order Opiliones. Daddy longlegs differ from spiders in having extremely long, thin legs and a spherical or oval body that is not divided in two. The body is approximately 0.051.0 in. (122 mm) long; the fragile legs may be 20 times the body length. Males are smaller than females. Adults have a pair of glands that secrete a foul-smelling fluid. Daddy longlegs are very widely distributed in temperate regions and in the tropics. The U.S. and Canada have about 150 species. They feed on insects, mites, spiders, carrion, and vegetable matter. crane fly. (This message has been edited by skeptic)

Time for a serious editing here. Possibly more. JMHO

Funny, when I first came back to the program, I felt embarrassed every time I was singled out for something, such as a plague or certificate. When I was awarded the DOM, it finally dawned on me that deep down, it really made me feel good. Still, as noted, the best feeling is the awe in a young scouts voice when he looks at his first real starscape, or the pride in the boy that accomplishes a feat he has worked really hard to do. We all, I hope, keep the focus where it belongs most of the time; but we still enjoy the recognition. JMHO

GB: You might consider adding daddy long-legs to your list. They prey on other arachnids. Believe it or not, my understanding is that they are not actual spiders, but deadly cousins. They are not harmful to humans, other than scaring many half to death.

Cannot help but think part of the problem is we tend to have little faith in the big corporations being responsible; fear that they will cut corners for the sake of profit. Most environmental nightmares that are pointed to as evidence why we should not drill, or build nuclear plants were due to carelessness and cost cutting at the expense of tight safety procedures. If we could almost guarantee that all needed restrictions and fail-safe options were in place, we might find more receptive audiences. There is always risk; but doing it right, and taking precautions as necessary, will make it far less likely to cause problems. Nothing will ever be "absolutely" safe and fool-proof.

To me, this smells of PC influence in the background. Not that that could happen.

Sometimes it seems trivialities are more important than the reasons behind them. It could be clearer in many respects, but once read carefully, it is obvious BW is right (technically). Most boys will still call it a rank, as that is how they see it. And, in our council, we are supposed to file an advancement report to record it; so where does that leave us? It really does not matter that much in the long term. Some people's houses must be wall papered in red tape. That is their choice; let it go.

Interesting comment regarding positive actions towards others. One of the things that has always impressed me is the logic behind the wording of the Scout Law. It is a positive statement: "A Scout Is", not a scout does not. It assumes the best from the boy rather than dictates against something. Properly reinforced, this becomes a very good lever for responsible action and self pride. Hazing, as noted, is difficult to define; and what a small minority calls hazing, is often thought of as simply good fun amongst friends in many cases. Brings us back to making rational decisions based on valid concerns, rather than reaction to inuendo or hear-say. For example, most boys always enjoyed snipe hunts, and even the so called victims generally not only had fun, but look(ed) back on their first one with amusement and laughter. But, it was important that the leaders made it clear that a boy was not "forced" to participate. That is where the line may have been crossed in some cases. That is where the vigilance is so important; we need to let "boys be boys", so to speak. Yet we also need to be the silent guardians, ready to step in when necessary, either directly in a severe case, or by pulling boy leaders aside and doing a bit of counseling in regard to an observation. IMO, much of the apparent paralysis we are beginning to see in many youth when confronted with unfamiliar or discomforting situations is that we have skewed the natural learning curve of growing up. Just my thoughts at the moment.

Not sure why the physically able requirement should be an issue. The levels to be attained are not particularly high. The only ones that will be affected are those who are morbidly obese, or have other major issues. The upper plateus are fairly high it seems to me. Maybe I am missing something.

"Today it seems the OA has lost it's shine. I've had scouts called out and never bother to go to the Ordeal (adults, too). No one goes to chapter meetings, unless we call and remind them, AND pick them up. Lodge-wide, participation is low. 80% of the members are just "flap-wearers" and have no other participation." This has been tossed around in the OA section off and on. Over the years, as the mystery and more restrictive election qualifications have been eroded, the Order has become "common". Basically, become first class and have camping days and you have about a 95% chance of being elected unless the leader holds you out for some reason, or you have something going on at the troop level to keep you out. But, the idea that OA membership is special has been diluted to the point of being just another thing at a certain level. There will always be some who take the Order seriously, and work enthusiastically within their lodge and beyond. But, the specialness of it has, IMO, been watered down to the point of "ho-hum" for most who get elected; and the traditions have lost much of their luster. This has happened in many areas of the program, not just the OA. Hopefully, there will be another sea change that will shove it back to some degree towards the honorary and mystical. One can hope anyway.

Cannot help but be reminded of how much respect often is exhibited in scouting that is not in general society. Way back in 1979 I had a crew of 5 at Philmont (the era before 2 deep). It happened that there were a lot of extra hikers from outside the U.S. due to the cancellation of the World Jambo in Iran and the opening of Philmont to many of those groups. We ran into a full crew of scouts from South Africa (still Aparthide then)whose crew leader was black, but all the rest were white. The leader appeared to have the absolute complete respect of all the others. Said a lot to me, and impressed my crew as well, as they were old enough to understand the apparent anomoly.

Had to do it mid week last year for the first time in more than 30 cmaps. The really sad thing was that not only did the boy have a Jekyll and Hyde personality that he played people with, but the mother (no father involved) refused to come for him. We arranged a ride with two adults who were going back, and told the mom to please be waiting, even though it was late. She informed me that she might or might not be there and that he had been a #%^& since he was 2 and we could turn him over to the authorities. Obviously, she is part of the boy's problem; but he has learned to play things also. Home schooled due to problems, dictates to mom often (she just allows it), on all kinds of meds which mom says he can decide to take or not, etc. He came back at the end of summer, but I had to finally simply tell the mother he was no longer welcome, as he caused more issues and started harrassing other scouts by phone, including one's mother. The whole thing ruined camp for me, and has made me wonder if I am still able to do this. Maybe I am burnt out, or maybe the kids have more issues today with which I am not familiar and able to cope well. Still, I hope to continue. This year's camp was great, which really helps. And, there is always a glimmer of light that may have gotten through to the boy. Years ago, I gave a scout obviously on something at a meeting, a choice. He chose to leave. A number of years later, he appeared working behing a counter, recognized me and told me his more current story of programs and struggle to get clean. More importantly, he made it, and thanked me for giving him something to refer to in the struggle. We never know when it might all of a sudden kick in.

Merlyn: I cannot fathom how a seemingly "educated and knowledgeable" man can be so unwilling to allow for variations in definition. God(s) mean different things to different people. The term is subjective and flexible. Ultimately, the DRP is, as Beavah notes, belief in something greater or outside of our own egocentric world. Your obdurate insistence that it "must be" black or white seems to me to simply weaken all of your many well-reasoned comments.

We have had one I know of for sure, and another they called on, but clarified by phone. The one sent back had conflicting dates on it which required going back in old records on merit badges. Fortuneately, they had simply put dates in the wrong place, and the records were available. But it delayed the whole process by a couple of months. Board date stayed the same.

Date of rank is date of completed BOR. No awards may be issued or worn until the "official" National certificate and related paperwork is received. HOW MUCH CLEARER DO WE NEED TO BE?

Years ago, I went through a period where I considered not wearing knots, as when I was able to wear more than a row, it kind of embarrassed me for some reason. But, my own scouts told me that if I expected them to wear their insignia as earned, and wear it properly and proudly, then I should do the same. They even convinced me once to wear all the medals at COH, just because it was "formal". I only did that once, as they clank and get caught on things. Still do wear the Eagle and God & Country on occasion, as well as the Beaver at the annual meeting. We all know people who have tried to earn or obtain as many knots as possible; and they mostly are pretty good scouters, but seem enamored of the knots. As has been pointed out, they do not hurt us, other than occasionally our feelings; especially the rare ones that started this part of the thread. Do what you feel comfortable with, and don't let pettiness blind you. MHO

"The US military agreed back in 2004 to stop chartering BSA units in response to an ACLU lawsuit" Another one of "your" prouder accomplishments I suspect.

When it became painfully obvious that there were a few truly obese boys becoming Eagle, the personal fitness merit badge was reinstalled in the Eagle requirements. This was surely directly aimed at that element of final advancement. Since then, few scouts become Eagle who do not a least meet a minimum standard of fitness; even though some might do the badge early in their scouting, and then become less fit. So, then we come back to the idea that a more specific requirement would be put in place for showing duty to God and reverence. But one can be fairly clearly measured, while the other is very subjective, and ambiguous at best. No easy answer. But taking taking it out is not it, as it is part of the backbone of the program. As the scouts progress, make sure that this element is being addressed, and they understand that eventually they will need to address the best they can.

Merlyn: "chain", (pull it, repeat ad infinitum). Sort of like the silly scout skit of the arcade quick draw game.

Merlyn: Of course you are correct; but you see, that "awful majority" sometimes hopes that rational responses will actually occur, rather than selfish ones. Please do not wear yourself out regurgitating your never changing "facts" and so on. We all know how you feel.

Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids.

In yesterday's paper there was an interesting article about Jefferson and his "view of God". As has been noted, he was a "Deist", and as such very skeptical about many elements of religion. Still he believed that Jesus was real, and that his very basic tenets were worthwhile. Early in the 19th century, Jefferson basically cut and pasted what he considered to be the most relevant parts of the New Testament and Christ's teachings. He called this "wee little book" The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth. In a letter sent to John Adams from Monticello in 1813 he calls this 46 page book "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man". Jefferson is finally quoted as saying; "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one". On-line reference for the bible is "

For some posters, everything is either black or white. No nuance or room for wiggle allowed. And, if it was stated once, even if since has been motified or clarified in some manner, it matters not. The statement was made; so it is fact and cannot be questioned except in a negative way. No sense in arguing with a wall.

You know, I often have wondered if we took the time to design, then spent the money wasted on "disaster after-the-fact" on its completion, why they could not build canals or underground spillways away from the large rivers that would take the water to areas that could use it. If we can bring water from Northern to Southern California via an aquaduct, why not from Missouri to say Georgia, with stops along the way to replenish aquafirs? Probably all kinds of challenges, but just seems that we have so much water going where we don't want it, but there are areas that could use it. But, I am not an engineer. But, you would think that the cost eventually would be outweighed by the benefits.

http://view.email.scoutstuff.org/?j=fe5c1576776102747411&m=fef616777c6304&ls=fdf811717d67057a70167577&SRC=ET&ET_CID=history070108&Page=View+as+a+Web+Page&ET_RID={c8e9df99-0c98-4560-a937-2abcf2a91529} Personally, while this looks like possibly a great item; it is truly way over the top. I am afraid it supports some of the critics who feel National has lost sight of some of the basic foundations of our movement. Even with the items indicated, this is a rip off, in my opinion. I am truly disappointed, and have sent a message to them indicating such. Not that it will likely get any response or consideration. On top of the overpriced Eagle book, this is very sad.