Trevorum

Anyone is welcome to take a poke at UU. Go ahead, it's easy!

ditto

"...the extraterrestrials most definitely left a trace. " The Golden Plates? Not artifacts; I can't pick 'em up or look at 'em under a lens.

From the perspective of informing on human behavior, "trash" becomes an artifact as soon as it is discarded. Even recent trash can be surprisingly informative. William Rathje of the University of Arizona is famous for his "garbage project" - excavating at the city landfill. If you have some time, google him; his conclusions about modern American behaviors are fairly surprising. Under most circumstances an archeological site can not be considered for the National Register unless it is 50 years old. Although strictly speaking it is only applicable to sites affected by federal actions, this bright line has led to general use of the 50 year criterion. More recent deposits ("trash dumps") are still recorded but they are generally not classified as "sites". The problem is that the 50 year rule is a rolling criterion. The trash dumps I sneered at while a grad student are now bona fide archeological sites. Newly discovered human remains are a separate class. If found in anything other than a clearly prehistoric context, our first call is to local law enforcement. Only if the ME decides it is not a crime scene can the archeology proceed. If the remains are prehistoric or are recognizably Native American then interested tribes must be consulted. So yes, context is the most important criterion, not age.

Don't laugh - for the past 30 years I have left a penny in every campfire pit I have built, hoping that the date may help some future colleague. (I didn't mention this at my LNT trainer's course.)

But, John - you don't address pack's question: are Mormons Christian or not? pack - isn't that kinda like asking if Christianity is Jewish? (flop, flop )

Gern, This is actually an ongoing debate in certain circles of futurists. On the one hand we have those who claim the 23rd century equivalent of Manifest Destiny: it is our obligation to colonize every planet, asteroid and rock we can terraform. On the other hand we have the tree-huggers (rock-huggers) who claim we have no right to mess up other biospeheres as well. Personally, I believe that we will ultimately find it easier (and faster) to genetically modify ourselves to live in non-terran environments than to modify those environments.

Does anyone know the scoop on the DAM patch - why is this the only one that isn't a square knot?

Merlyn, I genuinely believe that much of time your accusations of "lying" are mere failures to communicate clearly. Two people on opposite side of an issue will often extrapolate, interpolate, and otherwise interpret the other's message. This is generally not out of malice or any outright attempt to deliberately distort or misportray the other persons positions. It is often due to pure mis-communication by one or the other parties. In a virtual conversation, like this one, nuances of communication are absent, exacerbating the problem. It behooves all of us to try to figure out what the other fellow is saying and why the heck did he say that? I know you disagree with several of BSA's membership policies. I happen to agree with you. However I wish you would accept the fact that individual members are not evil liars. Most of us BSA volunteers are dependably truthful - indeed honesty is one of our guiding principles ("Trustworthy") and your constant accusations of lying are downright irritating to us but, more importantly, do not serve your argument well. It is clear to all of us that you are passionate about discourse and dialogue. Your style is that of a trained debater - itemized rebuttals, black and white premises, and uncompromising verbal sparring. That works well in live forums and may be the style on other discussion boards, but it really doesn't work too well here. No one wants you to give any quarter in your arguments. There are invariably soundly reasoned and to the point. But if you're going to play in our sandbox, we'd really like you to play by our rules - which includes being courteous and friendly to other individuals. (And documented citations of discourtesy, rudeness, etc. by specific BSA officials or volunteers do not change the rules). You are certainly free to engage in any style of dialogue that you want. However, as has been observed previously, in this forum your combative and accusatory style of dialogue invariably looses you any points that you make on substance. I suspect that many, many forum readers have you on "ignore" or routinely skip over your posts - not because of WHAT you have to say, but because of HOW you interact with other posters. In closing, I hope that you will not take this as an attack on you personally or on your positions, but merely as a friendly suggestion from one e-person to another.

FS, sensational journalism is by no means a recent phenomenon. Google "yellow journalism".

A great Festival of Lights to all Scouts and Scouters!

Personally, I got a kick out of those ladies in their yellow blouses cutting little shapes out of construction paper.

Now, now, GW. A scout is courteous.

All very confusing. Too bad we had to schism. But thank you for the explanations. Now I think I could explain it to someone else if the need ever arose.

GW notes, " ...take advantage of some of the opportunities that Venturing offers." Now this just confuses me again. What opportunities? Beav implied there was no real difference in programs between Exploring and Venturing.

Thanks Beav.

These are completely parallel programs? That doesn't make sense.

In our troop, we have the long standing tradition of the "Instructor's Conference" for T-2-1. This is held before the SM conference and is between the candidate and a Troop Instructor. The Instructor reviews each scout skill for that rank and serves as our "quality check". Only after the candidate recieves the Instructor's signature can he request a SM conference. The SM can review a sample of skills, but generally focuses on scout spirit and other intangibles. If the SM discovers a skill deficit, he talks to the Instructor. Our BoRs also review a sample of skills but as a check on the program, not the scout. It works for us.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-owens1707nov17,0,6425543.column Ailing Scout soars with veterans memorial; Boy Scout makes his Eagle and succumbs to acute lymphocytic leukemia at age 15. November 17, 2007 Two summers ago, Simon Sharp proposed a veterans memorial for his Eagle Scout service project. But from the start, time was never on his side. Over the first summer, the senior patrol leader in Boy Scout Troop 125 hoped to raise $15,000, and on Veterans Day dedicate the shrine that would grace Founders Park in Celebration, an Osceola County community. That Fourth of July, Simon sold commemorative American flag pins, which helped net $7,000. The project was well on its way. But the next month, time froze. Simon felt ill, sluggish and unable to hold down any food. Soon, he suffered drenching night sweats and screamed at his mother's touch. Doctors drew blood and revealed the diagnosis: Leukemia. The aggressive kind. Meanwhile, his fellow Scouts soldiered on with his project. By January, they had raised more than $12,000. But the budget had swelled to $40,000. Simon had hoped to bring in enough donations by March for completion on Memorial Day. But fevers, nausea and pneumonia scuttled his plan. Then time sped up. Treatment for acute lymphocytic leukemia typically takes more than 2 1/2 years. Only 15 months in, doctors realized that more therapy would do no good. But Simon wanted to die an Eagle Scout. On Tuesday, his Scoutmaster, Joel Kostuch telephoned the boy he says always wore "these ratty tennis shoes . . . and played old rock and roll songs on his guitar that he thought nobody over 30 had ever heard," the young man who walked slow, but whose quiet example led Scouts to follow in his footsteps. Simon slid down his oxygen mask and through painful coughs recounted his Scouting lessons. Then he gasped the familiar oath that governed his life: On my honor . . . I will do my best . . . To do my duty to God . . . and my country . . . and to obey the Scout Law; ... To help other people at all times; . . . To keep myself physically strong, . . . mentally awake, . . . and morally straight. And in that moment, Simon mustered his final smile. He'd earned his wings. The next afternoon, Simon Alexander Sharp, Eagle Scout, passed away. He was 15. "In the final [analysis], the Scout has to understand that there are things in the world greater than him, like family, love, and duty to God," Kostuch said. "I'm sure Simon did." Two summers ago, Simon launched his Eagle project concerned with leaving a legacy. But in fighting his losing battle with winning grace, he left lessons about the most precious things in life. "We have learned how important family and friends are. . . . We have learned about the power of prayer and the gift of grace," his mother wrote in his blog. "It just blows us away." There still is unfinished business. But Bradley Trowbridge, 15, who often relied on Simon's wise counsel, for one, is determined to see the large stone star memorial stand in Founders Park. "It [will] be a veterans memorial," he says, "but there would probably be an additional piece that would say, 'God bless the founder of this.' " To make donations, make checks payable to Celebration Memorial Fund, P.O. Box 470125, Celebration, FL 34747.

"I would have liked to have asked him to elaborate." One can almost hear the minds being expanded.

GW notes, "Societies that were polytheistic and atheistic." Prior to the 20th century, I don't believe there have been any societies that were atheistic. Most have been animistic, some polytheistic, and a very few monotheistic. Some scholars see a historical-cultural evolution of attitudes about the numinous. As the world moves away from magical explanations for natural phenomena, perhaps there will be more atheistic societies in our future.

Thanks for the link, LB, and also for the quantification. A sublime example of: "Think globally, act locally"

GW makes an important concession and I respect him for it. As much as many people would like to believe that human morality is timeless and inflexible, the fact of the matter is that definitions of morality are constantly shifting, evolving to reflect changes in culture. 150 years ago in the southern US, it was perfectly acceptable to enslave other human beings simply because their skin was darker. 500 years ago in Spain it was perfectly acceptable to burn people alive simply because they had a different religion. Today, both of those actions are crimes worldwide. What will morality be like in the 22nd century? It will certainly be different than today. Perhaps it will be immoral to eat meat. Perhaps it will be a crime to combust petroleum. Perhaps plural marriages will be commonly accepted. No one knows. However, as Gern points out, today the tide has already turned in the US with respect to views towards homosexuality. What our parents generation thought of as sinful or perverted our childrens genertion is accepting as being merely different.

Lisa, For context, please see the full text in the 1st post of this thread.

Aquila asserts, "That homosexuality is immoral is ... a fundamentally held belief." Let's complete the historical inventory, shall we? That women are inferior to men is a fundamentally held belief. That black people are lazy is a fundamentally held belief. That native peoples are savages is a fundamentally held belief. That Jews are conspiratorial is a fundamentally held belief. That Muslims are evil is a fundamentally held belief. That Christians are morally superior is a fundamentally held belief. That Irishmen are hot-tempered drunks is a fundamentally held belief. (yawn) ... Anyone else want to take over?