vol_scouter

Merlyn, Most platelets in this country come from paid donors though the Red Cross and blood banks will perform plasmapheresis for platelets. By your own admission, you do not work with children but rather try to deny youth scouting opportunities in communities other than your own. So my comments are based on what you have let us know about yourself and based on giving patterns have a likelihood for truth. If you donate for the benefit of your fellow man, then I offer an apology. Every organization that I am aware has rules that require interpretation. Since you have never been a scouter, you have no understanding of the interpretation of the DRP. You are not correct in your interpretation as all the other experienced scouters have pointed out. Arguing the point only makes you look angry and silly.

Merlyn, Once again you show your true colors who loses and then insults others. Please quit making a fool of yourself. As to giving platelets, most platelets come from for profit companies who pay the donors - I worked part time at one when I was a resident. So I imagine that you are not doing donating out of the goodness of your heart but for money.

LIBob, You must excuse Merlyn. From what he has said in the past, he is not and has not been a scouter. He has considerable contempt for the BSA and has participated in efforts for scouting programs to lose access to public facilities even though he is not a member of the community affected. He portrays himself as authoritative on these issues but he has no real experience as a scouter and does not know. Scouting requires a belief in a higher power. That higher power could be defined in many ways so from my experiences as a scout and a 20 year scouter, a Taoist would not have an issue.

Calicopenn, This is not an attempt to argue but rather to clearly understand what you are saying. If the scouts built the building, supplied the materials, etc., would they not own the building? If they did not own the land, would they not still own the building? Theoretically (certainly not actually in this case), could they not move the building onto land that they owned? Is the law such that the erection of a structure on a piece of land become the property of the land owner? Can you clear this point up for at least myself?

OGE, Thank you for the information! Please pass on to MDSummer that we are happy that it has been resolved favorably despite the long and arduous process. Also, congratulations to Justin.

Before participating on these threads, I had a positive opinion of atheists though I did not agree with them. Those who accuse atheists of wishing to rid all pubic life of religious expression, I considered overstating the case. Merlyn has been successful in making me reconsider those views. His intolerance, anger, and contempt for those who disagree with him has made me concerned that perhaps some of those reports may deserve some credence. I doubt that he has ever changed anyone's mind to his way of thinking. I sincerely doubt that anyone here does the same thing on an atheist forum (I assume that they exist).

EV, That is why we disagree with Merlyn. I know of no club, group, etc. that does not have some set of criteria for membership. The criteria may be few but they exist. A group of atheists would not want a group of outspoken members of a fundamentalist faith to join their group. The honor society does not want someone who is in the 9th grade for the fourth time and the basketball team does not want someone who is short, cannot shoot well, or dribble. Like several on this forum, I have no problems with any of those groups and the BSA meeting after school. Merlyn does. He has to meddle in others affairs seeing harm in communities where he does not live. That is hard to respect. Beavah is correct - not working with children affects the way one looks at the world. There was an NPR piece on the Villages in Florida. It is a retirement community that does not allow children. That seems a little like hades to me but I like working with youth. Denying scouting to youth by the actions of people not in the community I can only see as harmful to children but you may need to work with our youth to see that.

EV, You are so correct. Merlyn most likely sees himself as enlightened, intelligent, and tolerant whereas those how disagree with him are the antithesis of these. He is of course not correct and has shown himself to be angry and intolerant. He is certainly able to twist arguments in a masterful way for which I give him credit but when applied to him, he gets angry. He is certainly passionate about meddling in others affairs. His disdain for those who do not share his views are palpable. He spends an inordinate amount of time looking up things to argue which could be spent helping others instead of damaging youth programs far from his home because of imagined harm. He is angry with his maker and will not find peace until he resolves his anger.

5scoutmom, The issues between Scoutdad and ASM are understandable - I understand both sides (especially no time alone). The ASM should have been more of an adult and not taken it out on your son but that is done. You are right about going forward with positive attitude. Most adults really want the youth to succeed but occasionally have to be reminded of the reasons that they do scouting. I can only see good things by Scoutdad going on outings! Your boys (that includes hubby) will all benefit - and you will have them all out of your hair!!

Merlyn, In this thread and in a recent thread you displayed an intolerance for allowing a scout group from meeting in a school but saw nothing wrong with an AA group doing the same. Most of the other posters here said that they had no problems with that but you did. You are intolerant. You are clearly expert about twisting the thread and never addressing those things to which you can not respond so I am just copying your own methods. You have shown yourself to be intolerant, angry, and someone to be pitied. I am not lying.

Merlyn, If am not accurate that you support the free exercise of religion clause of the constitution, then show where you have posted that on this forum. You are doing the same thing that you freely accuse others: "And spare me your vile false "pity."" My pity for you is real and not vile.

5scoutmom, I just read this thread and I am glad that everything turned out OK in the end. As I read the thread I was struck most by the actions of the ASM who drove your son home. While I can understand his frustration about having to leave early (that was not the appropriate way to handle the situation, your son should have been allowed to remain on the trip), the ASM had a duty to tactfully and carefully try to understand what had happened from your son's viewpoint. While it might have been appropriate to point out that an elder should have some respect, in general the ASM should have only asked questions of your son. When he arrived at your home, he should have stated briefly what was going on and then asked to speak to you in private so that he could relate both sides of the issue and provide some recommendations as to how the problem could be addressed. That is what I have done in a similar circumstance with good results. The ASM missed a golden opportunity to assist your son on the path to becoming an adult. A second observation is that I do not believe that youth should be prevented from attending meetings and outings for discipline problems unless the offense is egregious or it is a long repetitive string of issues. Appropriate punishments can be determined with the assistance of the PLC that do not take the youth away from a beneficial program. Thank you for being a good parent and a supporter of scouting. I am glad that the resolution is all in all positive.

Merlyn, For the folks who have kept up with these issues, they know that when faced with what Madison said and his actions concerning the First Amendment rights regarding religion, you started calling me names because you were not correct. You are intolerant of those who believe in reading the entire First Amendment and resort to calling me names. I have more important things to do than to do searches to prove that I am correct. In your posts to Beavah, you showed your prejudice and intolerance. You are clearly so full of dislike (hate?) for the majority of your countrymen, that I truly feel sorry for you.

Merlyn, Where have you ever supported the rights of the people to exercise religion in public as called for in the First Amendment? It is painful for it to be pointed out to you that you are intolerant of others whereas those of us on the other side are tolerant. You make up arguments of children being harmed in areas where you do not live and cannot know if that harm is taking place. You are to be pitied for the hate that you have of the majority of your fellow citizens. I truly hope that you can find some peace and happiness, cease meddling in others affairs, and learn tolerance of others.

Merlyn, Your most recent posts reveal a person crusading for a cause. You involve yourself in activities in neighborhoods where you have no contact where no one in that neighborhood has a concern with your issue. There are many politicians that I have strong feelings about but I have never sent support to anyone that I cannot vote for because that is not my business. Whether scouts or any other groups are in the schools in my area is not your business. Your responses to Beavah shows a intolerance and anger with those who do not share your world view. You clearly only care for atheist children. When presented with the idea of schools allowing after school activities for atheists along with Boy Scouts and others, you totally rejected the idea but were comfortable with schools supporting an atheist group. You are not interested in preventing the abuse of First Amendment guarantees except to outlaw public religious expression. I truly feel sorry for you. Such anger for the vast majority of your countrymen and intolerance of their beliefs must be difficult to bear.

We follow the same kind of procedure as NE-IV-88-Beaver. It is important to trust our youth and to make them responsible.

Well said Beavah. As a physician, I entirely agree with Beavah. HIPAA does not apply to the BSA or its' units. That said, in the present climate I would recommend keeping the information contained in the medical forms as private as is reasonably possible. You cannot go wrong in keeping information private since in some cases disclosure may be seen as harmful. However, if keeping the medical information private could in anyway potentially cause harm, then always release it. We are taught to always do what is in the best interest of the patient because it is the right thing to do morally but it is also easier to defend your actions in trying to protect someone's help rather than following any rules. So don't worry about HIPAA, try to keep medical information private but release any information needed to care for someone.

There have been attempts to remove the chaplains (and to limit what they can say regarding religion outside of an actual religious service) from the US military and from the congress (suit by Newdow). So the atheists steadfastly wish to read only one clause of the first amendment and deny the free exercise of religion. The attempt to remove the cross (a WWI memorial) in the Mojave desert could be the first step in attempting to remove all religious insignia from military cemeteries. Atheists appear to wish never to be exposed to any religious expression. Certainly, such comments have been made to me before. Like everyone, I do not wish to see the federal government establish a state religion but I do not believe purging all religion from government and public functions is correct either. The courts have sent somewhat mixed messages and I suspect that the cross in the Mojave desert that is going to the SCOTUS will define the line differently again.

Remember that the Bill of Rights were added to satisfy the anti-federalists who were concerned that the federal government would become dominant. The two clauses dealing with religious freedom were included for much different reasons than most assume now. The majority (11, I believe) of the original states (under the articles of confederation) had state supported religions. The first amendment provisions were to assure those original thirteen would be able to continue to have state supported religions. It was written to prevent the federal government from dictating religious standards to the states. Under this original interpretation, only federal parks, buildings, etc. would be precluded from supporting a religious viewpoint. The phrase about separation of church and state was written by Jefferson (during his term as president I believe) telling a congregation that he was powerless to intervene because it was a states' rights issue. The interpretation of these and many parts of the constitution changed after the civil war when the country was essentially federalized. Thus, the founding fathers would have not had a problem with the Boy Scouts being sponsored by the states (as opposed to the federal government). So to go back to the founding fathers is to reach different conclusions than subsequent court cases have determined. Atheist groups only believe in preventing religious expression in public, they do not support the free exercise of religion which is given the same importance as the non-establishment clause. In my view, totally preventing the expression of faith in public is condoning atheism. That is the government favoring a particular religious view, the belief that all religions are wrong, and should not be allowed as the sole viewpoint either.

EV, Merlyn has memory problems. He remembers the non-establishment clause of the the First Amendment to the Constitution but can never recall the very next clause that guarantees the free exercise of religion. He wants to step on that clause.

Beavah, I believe that several posters here have provided more than adequate information that we are scientists. Your comment is quite right - you seem to be unable to understand science and the process by which science verifies models. Since we are all scouters here, I have assumed that we took each other's credentials as fact. Clearly, if one is not in keeping with certain thought processe then their credentials are discredited. My sophomore honors physics professor told us to question everything in science, to always be skeptical, and to require a high level of agreement before considering any theory to represent a fundamental understanding. Brent, HICO, Sandspur, myself and others are doing just that. This thread has convinced me that science education has been poor much longer than I would have thought. I have seen so many mis-representations of science that it is indeed frightening. It seesm hopeless to me. The others are folks like Gern who believes that his viewpoint of the world is the only proper one and is too bigoted to admit that thoughtful, well educated, intelligent people do not agree with his world view. Bye to all!

Gern, Once again, you tend to allow your dislike of those who do not share your views cloud your reading. I have been reading these threads closely. I believe that the consensus is that there is global warming just as there is warming on Mars. CO2 levels have increased over the last few years (where there is actual data before that the CO2 levels are inferred and could be off by orders of magnitude) but the correlation with temperature increase is poor. The climate models are flawed because they have not been able to predict the northern hemisphere cooling. All have questioned AGW but all realize that, especially with the recent revelations, a judgment is impossible. As Sandspur says, we should not make decisions based on consensus opinion on AGW. Trying to reduce fossil fuel utilization is a good idea from national security and long term sustainability views. There has been no one that I am aware of that says decreasing fossil fuels isn't a good goal. Just do it for the right reasons, not potentially wrong reasons. Once again, the earth has been warmer in the past and life flourished. Greenland still has villages covered by glaciers. The converse is not true. If most of north America is covered by glaciers, most of the world's life will be extinguished. So it is better that the earth is warming rather than cooling. A cooling earth is a major disaster. Some warming is not (before you jump on this statement - the operative word is some). It is interesting to me that Sandspur has not been a major contributor to these threads but you believe him and his credentials without questions. Whereas, you and others have questioned the credentials of others even though they have demonstrated a clear understanding of science. It appears that your clear dislike of people who hold views that differ from yours jades your judgment. Let us keep it on the science and if we do then you now basically agree with us!!

Gern, Several of the posters here that have been dubious of AGW appear to be conservative in their political leanings. However, that does not mean that their understanding of the science is biased. Also, many of the prominent scientists who have questioned AGW are not conservatives. Al Gore has made a fortune peddling AGW and others in the IPCC may see a possibility of doing likewise. Companies that sell offsets have bilked millions of dollars from citizens and companies. Some European governments are investigating. This is not a political argument for me but rather an issue of scientific integrity. As has been noted, none of the climate models were able to predict this winter in the northern hemisphere. That means the programs are faulty, the data is bad, or both. In no way should enormous changes in the economic structure of countries be based on such a model. If it becomes clear in the future that AGW is false, then scientists will be blamed for economic upheavals caused by faulty models. I do not wish to see my profession degraded in such a manner. This is about science for me but it is politics for many. If the country decides to use less fossil fuels and turn to nuclear power for national security reasons, then I will support the efforts. I cannot support the change in policy based upon AGW because the science is not clear.

Scientists with integrity would never say something like: " We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." and It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in. as Lal said. For scientists, the science speaks for itself without trying to make a political point. It is becoming clear that at least some of the members of the IPCC and the CRU have damage the reputation of all scientists by being more concerned with politics than with their science. This really sickens me.

The best way to address dehydration is always water. Anything dissolved in water increases the tonicity of the water leaving less free water. If the issue is maintaining hydration and a source of calories, then hot chocolate is good. As someone posted, many popular drinks cause a mild diuresis (increased urination). The most common source is from the methyl-xanthine group of which caffeine (coffee), theophylline (tea), and theobromine (chocolate) are the most common. Alcohol is not a way to hydrate, especially in the winter. Alcohol causes a peripheral vasodilatation (the blood vessels in the extremities get larger) which results in an increased rate of heat loss. Also, although alcohol can be completely metabolized to CO2 and H2O, much of the breakdown products are urinated as acetaldehyde and acetic acid. These products increase the tonicity of the urine resulting in a diuresis once again. So alcohol in the back country impairs judgement, increases heat loss, and does not hydrate. In my opinion, it is best to avoid alcohol in the back country.