skeptic

Well, I guess you really need to get zeroes in place when looking at these things. Am pretty sure this story http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112680093/human-skull-migration-082212/ was the one I read, but maybe in the L.A. Times. As I often have done, I then have poked around at related things and came to a connected discovery of what they were calling "modern humans" that discussed them beginning from a range of 40,0000 to 80,000 years ago. But you have to get that extra zero on there to make sense. Too little understanding of something can really confuse you. Still do wonder though how much relation there is to modern man's evolution to cultural thought and the writings of religious materials. Whatever, just proves that the "experts" still are really far apart on their interpretations of our heritage, whether "modern humans" or the relations and how much overlap and intermixing there was. So I am chagrined that I got this as mixed up as I did. May I claim old age?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

I will try and track it down. Always a possibility I misunderstood, or just remember mistakenly. The main point was when did the human species start keeping records of their lives and happening within them? The article I believe was in the L.A. Times, so I will see if I can find it.

In regard to the age of the earth and so on, I found myself thinking recently that some of the misconceptions for the short period of existence would likely relate to when our own species actually showed up with ability to learn and expand knowledge. Recently some archaeologists found some bones and a skull that they think may be one of the first actual homo sapiens; they estimated it to be between five and six thousand years old. Not very far back. Just a thought for some reason. I am not pushing it as reality, just pondering.

Well, I contacted National by replying to their survey email directly. I got a response this morning apologizing and telling me I had been put into the youth, (is that a compliment?), and she has removed me. She also asked me if I wanted to be in the Leader survey list. In response to that, I indicated yes, as I hope there will be more interactions between the real membership and National through these kinds of programs. Went further to not a few of the concerns recently posted here and through the Scouts-L list about the new medical form. Already got a response back, including her forwarding my concerns on the medical form to the Health and Safety group. So, at least they are trying.

It is asking me to take a survey for scouts, not adults. When I went to the actual survey, after ascertaining it was not likely Malware, it asked a few questions about levels of participation, cubs and scouts, my age range; then it told me the survey was for scouts only. When they approached me for these things, I had to identify my scouting level. They should have known I was an adult, and would not qualify. So why did I get it?

Received an email as noted below. Please understand that I did sign up for surveys and so on, but I gave them my membership info as well. So what is wrong with this survey? Now, having checked to make sure it was not a scam, or something, I went to the link. After the first page, what do you think happened? "Hello xxx, To continue to improve the Boy Scouts program, we invite Scouts to complete the following survey. The survey includes descriptions of proposed merit badges under consideration. As a Scout, your feedback will help us determine which ideas should be developed into new merit badges. Based on responses to previous Youth Interest surveys, the following merit badges have been launched: chess, robotics, geocaching, welding, and game design. At the end of the survey you will be given the opportunity to enter a drawing for one of the following: a $10 Scout Shop gift card, a $10 iTunes gift card, a $10 Walmart gift card, or a $10 Target gift card. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey. All responses are due by Tuesday, September 11th. Follow this link to the Survey: Take the Survey Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser: http://scouting.us.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_DL=411psjbKO70rAzP_5BAOhWWJrSfYT6B_MLRP_d4GZnT9Xf4KNJpH&_=1 Follow the link to opt out of future emails: Click here to unsubscribe"

NJ, we ask ourselves that regularly, especially since they are as useless as the federal reps. It is going to be interesting this fall when the "you know what" hits the fan if the governor's tax proposal is voted down again. Of course, even when something is passed by referendum, it is immediately sent to the courts where more often than not, it seems, the omniscient judge(s) throw it out. But the weather is great most of the time, and doesn't everybody like a bit of "shake and bake"? It helps that I am old, was raised by lessons from the depression that I took to heart. You know, there are needs and wants; if you can afford the needs only, that is what you do.

Base'; so non OA scouts can put something there that fits, showing they are members of the Tote -n-chit lodge. Learned my lesson a long time ago about even suggesting an error to any scout other than my own unit. Was made to understand in no uncertain terms it was none of my business, and he (the leader, at least in camp said that is where it goes). Oh well; grit teeth and as noted persevere with what is important.

Yep, I can agree with that. Shout, but do it about something real. Don't hold your breath. They also should absolutely allow other party candidates to be there if they choose, period. Guess they are afraid someone might think a third option might be better.

It would be great if we could have a couple of "real" debates. What they call debates is nothing but a programmed shouting match most of the time. But then, anyone who has actually debated, knows how shallow and superficial they are. Unfortunately, most people watching them are like sheep, and already have their herders pushing them around.

In today's world, we have many misperceptions based on the society willing to accept an absolute minimum of effort, as long as they at least come in contact with the requirement, or someone told them, and they wrote it on the requirement sheet. I am fairly certain that is why I have so few come to me for citizenship badges, as the word is out that I might actually ask them to explain the material they wrote down in their own words, just to verify they actually grasp it. Not sure what we can do about that, other than just explain to a disgruntled parent that just writing it down does not show an understanding, and I still expect them to understand and be able to show me they do. Of course, while I prefer the parent sitting across the room stays quiet, once we had an interesting discussion between her, her son, and me regarding the meaning of rights versus license. We do what we can do and hope we succeed at some level. Thanks to all that take the time and try to assure a scout learns something.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

The ballot results on this are particularly telling, in that we have such a poor level of actual participation. Has to make you wonder where that other 60% or so would come down on the issue if they exercised their franchise. But, as we have been told numerous times here; the voice of the majority must take a back seat to that of the minority when it differs from those in charge or with powerful agendas. Of course, what do I know?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

One of the Eagles we all have been most proud to have on our list of accomplished scouters. Might wonder if we should move this to a different forum, as it dos not seem to fit here, at least to me.

Actually, he planned at least a couple, and is a patrol leader now. The unit he is with is one of the most active outdoor troops in the council and is 85 years old. They have as many as 4 summer options, including high adventure as one, either a National base or Sierras, though they have done some in Oregon and Utah. Definitely not a do the merit badge at troop meeting troop, nor LDS. But, it really does not matter. You are making value judgments without any real knowledge of the boy other than what little I have noted. Frankly, I am disappointed in your responses in this thread, as they are really not fair to the scout. I fully understand your opinion on leadership and age, and even concur in many instances, as I have met numbers of the shallow young higher ranking scouts, and they are becoming more common. This one does not appear to be in that category. So, I will refrain from any more discussion on this, as it has become tedious.

Let's clarify. The young man was not in my troop, I simply sat on his board. He from one of the largest troops in the county who does have many Eagles, most over 16, and quite a few under the wire. This young man came in with the younger age allowed, prior to 11. He has been on over 50 nights of camping, about a quarter backpacks over 5 miles. He has never missed a meeting, and barely any other activities. One of his stated goals was to help others coming up, including his 9 year old brother who is still in cubs. The parents are not helicopter; he made the goal and accomplished it. He also has earned two of the four Catholic religious awards and is active in the church. Still, we will see. There are exceptions to everything, and this one "seems" to be one. But, please, enough nonsense. He met the requirements, and is working on improving his leadership by attending leadership shops in school, as well as scouts.

None of the above if they are made to be a focus to the youth directly. These are private matters, and therefore should be kept that way as well as possible. Once it becomes a "disruption (there's that word again)", it needs to be addressed. And sometimes, addressing it will lead to upset people, accusations, and possibly even the destruction of the unit. So, if is better to try and keep these life decisions as private as possible. At least that is how we try to work in our unit, and those others in our area with which I am familiar. In the many years I have been with the unit, we have had maybe a half dozen serious incidents that required various levels of committee and CO handling, IN PRIVATE. And only two had anything to do with sexuality; the others were related to abuse (verbal or physical, one being a parent), alcohol and drugs. We once also had to discuss with a mother the repercussions apparent to her son from a very nasty divorce; fortunately, she worked things out with the ex and made sure it was kept from the unit after that. None of these things are ever easy. And we often second guess ourselves later. Ultimately, it seems to me we did the right thing in most cases. But it did have negative impacts in a couple on the youth who were NOT to blame in that they were jerked from scouts. It is interesting though how often these things that are adult issues in the youth environment bring surprisingly strong bonding by the boys around the one whose parent is an embarrassment or worse.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Beavah; remember, the political rabble-rousers already got to the Girl Scouts, so why should they annoy them by pushing for girls in BSA? Many of the legal cases revolve around atheist issues rather than (directly) Gay issues, due to the Dale decision. But, atheists have yet to mount the long term, extensive campaign that Gay rights groups have over the past couple of decades. Of course, other than the name, having girls at ALL levels would not really be a problem anyway, other than assuring additional leadership needs were met and allowing units option of one or both, on the "local option" plan. For me, you can NEVER separate a generic belief in a spiritual entity or power beyond ourselves, whether you call it God, god, something else. That is an absolute cornerstone of Scouting, from my perspective. That is NOT saying atheists are bad people necessarily, simply that their beliefs, or lack thereof, do not fit the basic program parameters. We have beat the "changing the program to fit me" idea has been beat to death already, even though some here and elsewhere seem unable to grasp the ill-logic of that. Simply my personal views and observations. Those few who seem inclined to diss anyone with whom they disagree, please simply leave it, as I already know how you feel, and you will not change my opinion with irrational or hyper-sensitive comments. Let us simply disagree and get on with it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443989204577603341710975650.html?google_editors_picks=true This was recommended to me by one of my former scouts who is now a Lt. Col in the Army. It sort of fits with the current back and forth here. Make sure you get the "whole" link, as often the highlighted ones leave some off for some reason. Did find it interesting.

I too have seen some of similar age that never met the apparent promise. This one struck me as not being like that. And, being as he plans on attending the tech high school in town if possible, or the Catholic school otherwise, as well as playing water polo, things could change. But only time will tell.

Well, now you people are simply reaching to the point of foolishness. There is a difference between simply living your life within the view of others and making it a public issue. If you cannot see that, then you are not as bright as you seem to think. As far as the specific case, and a number of similar ones, they have obviously been prompted by the political arm of the Gay movement to keep the controversy regularly in view. He did not have to make this decision and immediately go to a reporter. The exec in So Cal did not have to come out and immediately bring in the reporters. The Gay rights groups have actually published their plans, as has been linked in these forums; and they have done an admirable job of keeping the pressure on. And because they do this, they continue to affect the youth and leaders who really do not care about any of it, but simply want to run their units and have fun. The groups most in the forefront of all this could care less about the actual BSA. They simply want to force changes to a group that they mostly do not even want to be part of, simply for a political cause. And, their methods, especially accusing the scouts of teaching hate and suggesting they actively look to keep boys or adults out is nonsense. We continue to come back to the fact that being a Scout, or and Elk, or a member of Toastmasters, or many other groups is a choice. Hopefully National will evolve soon, or simply return to what was in place before the Gay rights groups took on the issue for whatever reason, which was local option with the CO approving the leaders. That is why it did not really cause problems until it somehow became the cause celebre of the ACLU and other PC proponents and forced National to make what most of us agree now was a poor decision on how to respond. As I have said before, I just hope that you do not spread these attitudes to the youth in the program. I will now try and not let these things push my buttons for a while, but there really is NO reasoning with many here. There is simply no middle ground.

First of all Lisa, I am a proponent of "local option" as well. But, I am really skeptical of the way these things are orchestrated by the political arm of the Gay rights movement. It does far more harm than good to local units, as we then have to deal with the idiots that do not understand we simply do not discuss it with scouts. A conspiracy? No, I think it is a politically oriented attack that is not necessary or constructive. He chose, supposedly to "come out" publicly; then he feels the need to tell the world how mistreated he is. Sorry, but currently that is the exact thing that would happen; it is not like it should be a surprise. It is much like the similar "coming out" of a Santa Barbara executive a few years back. It was orchestrated to fit into the agenda of the local groups. BSA did not make it a public thing; he did by his own admission. It is the continued politicizing of the issue that annoys me; because their goal has little or nothing to do with the best interests of the units or the members thereof. This is how I see it. I do not hate Gays; I do not discuss the life styles of adults with the scouts; I do not try to determine if a scout may be struggling with the issue of sexuality. These are not part of the program; they are personal things that should remain personal and within the families. Certainly they should not be used as political clubs to the detriment of the scout members. The problem with these kind of stories, and the slant the press uses, is that a few ultra radical individuals feel the need to verbally, and even occasionally physically attack the youth and that is unacceptable. And please do not tell me I am making this up; I have seen it happen personally more than once. No one says people do not have a right to their own opinions. But the rights go both ways. JMO of course.

Since I tend to be a "skeptic", I find it interesting how once again we conveniently have one of these supposedly "pick on the Gay leader" stories, just in time to make sure it does not lose visibility. Those that say the Gay activists are not actively orchestrating this seem to me to be naive or blind. But, then I am skeptical anyway, so perhaps I am a victim of misperception.

Unless he is a very good con, he was not forced by any means. Plans on adding palms, working with troop, joining attached Venturing crew when old enough, and wants to work on camp staffs. So, appears the second is not a problem either. Of course, since also is a water polo player and swimmer, as well as involved in his student government while 4.0 student, high school could alter his views and time availability. We will see.

Just returned from sitting on an Eagle board for a young man just starting 8th grade tomorrow who turns 13 on Wednesday. For those going on about young Eagles, I guarantee you this young man more than fits the role of Eagle. He is the sort of "young" man or "boy" man that proves the rule so to speak. Better spoken, better prepared, and simply all around exceptional example of what we hope a scout will become by the time they reach Eagle, superior to many much older whose boards I have sat. Gives you hope each time you do one of these boards, but especially when you have one so young with such obvious promise.

"That makes no sense; the plaintiffs aren't controlling access to public property and excluding the BSA, the BSA is excluding the plaintiffs." Maybe you should get the facts straight. The plaintiffs were never denied access, as they chose to not even try because they might be exposed to some small indication of religion, according to them. Apparently, having to book use through the scout office was too much contact with a supposedly "religious organization". But, since apparently atheism is also, according to the ruling you quoted, then they really do not have much on which to base their argument, even if you discount the fact they never even attempted to book it, nor were actually turned down. Your court.