DanKroh

And CC is something you do in an email, and AOL is an internet service provider.

Why are some abbreviations ACCEPTABLE, but NOT others? I think we all knew what it meant...

First, to answer some of the many questions, I am the Cubmaster for the pack. No, I'm not in the OA myself, but there are ways of finding out all those things that are used to verify membership, especially when you are in an environment where most everyone assumes everyone else is an honest fellow.

I have not, and am not planning to, "quiz" this fellow about his credentials.

I'm not "out to get him" or part of any "secret police".

I actually consider this fellow a something of a buddy. For a while, he ran some trainings for the district, and I often helped him out. My take on him is that he is a rather competitive person, and doesn't like to be "left out". I think this is a self-esteem thing, not so much a real issue of deeper dishonesty or predatory behavior. (Not that'd I'd be willing to bet my professional reputation on that, mind you.)

He once mentioned (sort of a preemptive explanation) that the council he was in as a youth was absorbed by another council (which is true, he grew up locally), and implied that the old records were not maintained or properly transferred to the new council.

Lisabob, you are correct, he has already told me the about his Eagle project, and of course, it sounds perfectly plausible, and I have no way of verifying the veracity of that, either.

I've had this suspicion for about 3 years and haven't pursued it, because I do feel he is a good leader with his heart in the right place. And I don't think it's appropriate to go snooping around in someone's background. But comments on another thread about a national database for Eagle got me wondering just how easy it would be to check things like this if it did become warranted.

Just every now and then, I get a little...unsettled by the idea that this fellow may be misrepresenting himself, especially to the youth, and the kind of message that would send if it ever came out. And of course, there are people, probably in my own pack, who would think this is grounds for extreme action. So I'd rather not discuss it with anyone who could figure out who this fellow is, as I do not wish to damage his reputation on a suspicion.

Thanks for all the comments and advice.

Ok, I need some advice about a fellow leader.

This fellow's son joined cubs about the same time as my younger son, and (being the old hand I was with scouting at that point) I remember that in talking to him, he didn't seem to know much about scouting. Yet, when he became a leader in the pack, he suddenly had knots for Arrow of Light, Youth Religious Emblem, and Eagle on his uniform.

Now, after not seeming to know much about Wood Badge when I was going through my course (I just got my beads), he is suddenly wearing a Wood Badge taupe necker and beads. When I asked him about it, he says that he went through the "old course" just after he had aged out as a youth. Makes me go, hmmmm.....

Edited to add: Oh, yes, and the fellow also claims that he was inducted into the OA as a youth, even though, again, he didn't seem to know much about the OA when I first met him.

I have a strong suspicion that this fellow is wearing all these awards dishonestly. So my questions are several here:

1. Is there any way to check on whether he actually received these awards, other than asking him, in a way that isn't going to get back to him that someone has been checking up on him?

2. While it bothers me that someone might be claiming accolades that they didn't earn, this fellow does seem to be a good leader, and should I just swallow my suspicions and let it slide?

3. What would you do about this?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Nope, not going to get down and wrestle in the mud with that pig (metaphorically speaking). I'm done here.

Pack, it boggles the mind, doesn't it?

On a related note, does anyone know why "ignore user" doesn't seem to work in a consistent fashion? I've found that in some threads, the comments from an ignored user are squelched, but in others they aren't. What's up with that?

(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

" Sir I will go out on a limb and say I will NEVER murder someone."

TheScout, I really truly wish you good luck with that. I really pray you never have to chose between the children you would happily welcome into the world and into your life, and the woman you love with all your heart and soul. I hope you never have to hold her hand while she makes that decision, either, or while she fights the pain of dying from cancer.

Meanwhile, sir, I will go out on a limb and say I will NEVER call a woman fighting for her life from cancer a murderer.

Good day to you, sir.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"I feel so strongly about this that I would never get one myself. Even if I could."

Gern, I hope you have better luck with that stance than I did. Before we were married, the wife and I agreed that our feelings were that if we ever had an "oops" pregnancy, we would find a way to fit that child in our lives, no question about it.

However, when it came down to a choice between an unplanned pregnancy and treatment for her cancer, we chose the treatment, in an attempt to save her life.

Never say never. Circumstances have a way of coming around to bite you.

I did my WB as a Cubmaster, and all my ticket items were for the pack. The pack committee liked the idea of awarding the beads during a pack meeting, but we've been having a devil of a time making it happen. No one from the course could make it in October. November, we were holding our meeting off-site at a local food pantry. We were all set for December, but we got hit with that big ice storm and everyone cancelled. January, we were off-site again at the town library. The brings us to Feb and the Blue & Gold. I didn't really want to do it then (I wanted it to be about the awards for the boys, not me), but it looks like that is when it will be. At this point, I'm just kind of anxious to get it done with, as my ticket has been complete for almost 6 months now!

a good ol' Owl

Just watched the Obama interview from Nightly News, and I think it's pretty classy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29002023#29002023

"I'm here on television saying I screwed up, and that's part of the era of responsibility. It's not never making mistakes; it's owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them and that's what we intend to do."

That's certainly a change that I can believe in.

Come on, Gern, isn't it obvious what's changed?

Those were our soldiers, these are foreigners.

ASM915 wrote: "Dan & OGE, The term your looking for is D&C."

Actually, no. A D&C is the term for the procedure done in early terminations. Terminations done after the 5th month (what the anti-choicers are calling partial-birth) are actually "extractions" (hence the X in D&X), not curettage.

OGE, here's the thing about the D&X termination. You will be hard pressed to find someone, even the most vehement pro-choicer, who doesn't also think it is wrong, except in cases to protect the mother's health. But from the way the anti-choice folks talk, you'd think that the majority of terminations were done that way. It's a total straw man.

OGE, let me give you a couple of morsels for thought from someone who's been on the other side.

Just because an egg has been fertilized is by no means a guarantee of a live birth. The standard statistic is that only 3 out of 4 pregnancies are successful, but that statistic may be lower as we have the ability to detect conception at an earlier and earlier stage. There has been some counterbalance as we have also been getting better in being able to salvage pregnancies that would have otherwise spontaneously terminated. So when something only has a 75% chance of actually becoming "life", perhaps some people only see abortion as possibly doing what nature would have done anyway.

A significant percentage of abortions are procured by married women who have had at least 2 children, and, despite their best efforts at birth control, find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. What exactly is a married woman to do if she doesn't want any more children? All birth control has a failure rate. Even so-called sterilizations (which many can't even get because insurance won't pay for it) fail. Should she force her husband into abstinence? Despite the jokes about the (non)sex life of married people, there are plenty of marriages where that would be a deal breaker. Many people talk about adoption as if that's an easy thing. That is not an easy decision, either, especially if there are already children at home.

Again, contrary to the stereotype promoted by many anti-choice groups, the decision to terminate is not easy for the vast majority of woman or couples who chose it. It is an agonizing decision, even when one has a very valid medical need.

As someone said in the other thread, and was my first answer when asked my stance by my parents long ago, I wish we lived in a perfect world where no woman or couple had to make that decision. But because we don't, there are too many extenuating circumstances, and too many complex variables to make me comfortable with a blanket ban on abortion. And because we also can't write laws to take all those circumstances into account, I think the decision is best left among the woman, hopefully the man, their doctor, and their god(s).

And again with the partial birth abortion meme that gets brought up frequently by anti-choice groups. Do you know the percentage of abortions performed as D&X (the actual medical term for the procedure)? It's estimated at less than one percent of total terminations. And usually, it's done because of a medical necessity (death in utero or threatened maternal death).

I, like most people who favor choice, have no problem with restrictions on timing of terminations (with medical exceptions). And we could probably eliminate almost all terminations outside of the first trimester through better education and (ironically) better access to terminations. Most women who wait do so because they didn't know enough or didn't have access.

There are those who support abortion bans who would force a woman battling cancer for her life to attempt to carry a pregnancy to term, even if it meant she could not undergo essential treatments for the cancer. Did you know that many drugs used in cancer treatment interact to negate the effects of birth control pills?

I would much rather see the time, money, and energy spent trying to find ways to reduce abortions through better support, better education, better access to birth control (including research on better forms on birth control).

Ed, Jews believe in God, but many if not most of them also believe that it is profane to write the name of God casually, especially on something as base as currency, at least, that is how it was explained to me by my in-laws.

Gern,

Don't forget "Blessed Be".

I did a Dutch oven lasagna for my patrol during Wood Badge. I found that adapting a basic recipe worked just fine. One suggestion I would make is to use the no-boil noodles. Makes it much simpler and tastes great. The other thing I do to make life easier is use jarred spaghetti sauce.

If you want to make vegetarian, SctDad, leave out the beef, but add in some veggies like spinach and mushrooms (just chop and throw in between the layers, it'll cook when it's baked). Gives it a little more texture and flavor.

"How do we know that the instinct to engage in adoptive behavior by these male penguins is evidence of gayness? The article does not describe any other behavior that would be clearly homosexual. I don't know how hetrosexual penguin couples have sex, but unless these two male penguins tried to have sex with one another, I'm not at all sure that I would call the reported behavior gay."

First, since when does sex define a relationship?

Second, the article may not mention it about this couple, but there are observations of other gay penguin couples engaging in sex. Yes, their anatomy is compatible. Google is your friend.

so do I, especially when they do it inaccurately

Personally, I find it kind of sad that gay penguins in China have a better chance of becoming adoptive parents than gay human beings in some states in the U.S.

"The real issue is the behavior. That's not the same thing as an individual characteristic like skin color or autism. And because it's not that kind of characteristic, it's disingenuous to pretend it's the same sort of civil rights issue."

And herein lies the major disconnect between the two sides of this issue; the definition of homosexuality.

A homosexual person is still homosexual even if he or she never engages in a same-sex relationship. Homosexuality is an identity, an inherent personality trait, independent of who one has sexual relations with. Just as a bisexual is still bisexual even if he or she is currently (even permanently) in a heterosexual relationship. It *is* an individual characteristic, and it's disingenuous of heterosexual people to insist that they understand what make homosexual people tick better than homosexual people do, or that their sexual orientation is a "choice".

What people who object to "homosexual behavior" are in essence saying is that gay people are acceptable as long as they pretend not to be gay. That the only way for them to be "acceptable" is to be a total and lifelong celibate, or to engage is a lifetime lie of self-delusion by pretending to be heterosexual. Sorry, but I think either of those options is a travesty of the human condition.

Beyond the fact that homosexuals do not exhibit the pathology of disordered thinking (despite what Benedict may say) like people of true sexual disorders (perversions if you prefer), I have to say again, another difference is that healthy, adult, consentual relationships that happen to be same-sex do not cause harm. That should be the guide for our conscience, not the cherry-picked verses from a book of religious law written several thousand years ago that some have attributed to a deity.

"Especially when it sure seems like a genetic trait that should be strongly selected against."

Actually, not all traits present at birth are genetic. The best current theory (and has been for some time) is maternal influences in the womb. Which means that there is no influence of natural selection on it. Even if there were, there are many other traits that seem like they would be selected against, which persist in the population for some reason we cannot fathom (cystic fibrosis anyone?). Research doesn't look at a "side" of homosexuality. To assume that kind of bias is a great disservice to a field full of honest researchers who are interest in the science, not an agenda (unlike some of the religious-driven "research" by places like the AFA and FRC).

NJCubScouter, I do sympathize with the feeling of banging one's head against a brick wall. I have also checked my impulses to post on several occasions, but still feel the need to weigh in when gross misinformation is put forth as gospel truth. It's not so much that I think I will sway those that post these things, but I want to keep an unsuspecting reader from thinking that a lack of response means that these statements are true.

"Much like da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality which is well documented."

The multi-partner nature of male heterosexuality is also well documented. So what's your point?

Given the ever-improving understanding of homosexuality as a characteristic determined at birth, the idea of recruitment is generally recognized as the farce that it is.

I help young men and women explore their sexual and gender identities so that they can be true to their natures and be happy. So tell me, do I also "recruit"?

"The homosexual community tries to redefine terms so that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth is something other than homosexual. That is dishonest."

No, they understand that any relationship between two people of the same-sex is homosexual, just as any relationship between two people of the opposite sex is heterosexual. That's just semantical definitions. What they object to is the comparison of a predatory same-sex relationship engaged in by a pedophile or ephobophile to healthy, consentual relationships between two adults of the same-sex. Yes, both are homosexual because they are same-sex, but that is where the similarities END.

"I have no ready data showing that homosexuals are more likely to abuse a child than a heterosexual when adjusted for the prevalence in society. However, homosexuals are responsible for most same sex abuse of post pubertal children."

That's because there isn't any. As far as your second statement, that's because you define anyone who engages in a same-sex relationship as a homosexual. Such sophistry doesn't advance your argument. That's why there is a push to use pedophile, to differentiate people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children from both homosexual and heterosexual adults who engage in healthy, adult relationships.

"Except for an adult male crime of control, which can be either heterosexual or homosexual, same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal child is a homosexual relation."

Again, sophistry and semantics. Different-sex relations between an adult a a post-pubescent child is a heterosexual relation. But it's not a relationship that is of interest to healthy heterosexual adults. Just as post-pubescent children of the same-sex are not of interest to healthy homosexual adults.

"In my opinion, relations between older adults and children is always a crime and should be punished."

I agree. I also agree on the "Romeo and Juliet" exception for a minor and adult only one or two years apart, on a case by case basis.

Beavah, ephebophile may be obscure to your mind, but it is a well defined pathology in my field, as well defined at pedophile. And again, I use that term to differentiate those people who do not desire/cannot maintain healthy adult relationships from those who do.

Also, "recruitment"? Wow. Now there's a stereotype I haven't heard dragged out for a while.

"Pedophilia is actually well defined and it is the name applied to people who desire or have sexual relationships with pre-pubertal children. Most pedophiles have heterosexual relationships with their victims. They are following the route forged by the homosexuals by working within the psychiatric community to convincethem to change the description from deviant as was done in the fifties in the APA after many homosexuals had become members. Like homosexuals before, they wish to change the activities from illegal to legal and to change from some tolerance to acceptance."

Yeah, well, good luck with that. It isn't going to happen, it isn't even close to happening, and this is a major straw man that is usually pulled out to elicit fear of homosexual equality. That's like saying accepting homosexuals and giving them equal rights is going to make murderers demand that murder be made legal.

"It should be pointed out that post-pubertal children who are victimized by same sex relationships with an adult are victimized by a homosexual and not a pedophile."

Actually, any post-pubertal children who are sexually victimized by adults are victimized by an ephebophile. And, like pedophiles, most of them are heterosexual relationships. Another straw man.

"The homosexual community realized that this issue would harm their desire to move from tolerance to acceptance, so they have tried to imply that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth were pedophiles. That is not true. These are homosexual relationships. So they have largely succeeded in changing the view of this crime by society."

Unless you have references to back this up, I'm going to have to call bull on this one. If anything, it seems more likely that heterosexuals who want to have relationships with teenage minors to have done this, since they make up the majority of people involved in adult/teenage relationships.

All of the above, Beavah, all of the above.

It really is awful stuff, so I have to admit it hasn't been a real hardship not to have it.

"DanKroh, you are right to not buy Domino's Pizza because they donated to McCain."

Actually, funscout, my personal little boycott of Domino's has nothing to do with McCain.

Nothing wrong at all with voting with your pocketbooks. I've never bought a pizza at Dominos, and never will. I also try to stay out of Wally World as much as I possibly can. I like sites like Buy Blue where I can see how corporations spend their money influencing politics.

But I agree that it makes a lot more sense to look at what issues corporations actually support, as opposed to who the people in their geographical region voted for. That said, I've always been skeptical of the actual impact of any boycott.

When you are making up your list of approved, red places to shop, Kingfish, don't forget Rexford, Idaho.

http://www.2news.tv/news/local/34274374.html#idc-container

There are observations of homosexual behavior among many species (and not just mammals) other than bonobos.

"I continue to find it enormously ironic that if you abandon Judeo-Christian ethics, which value homosexuals as men capable of repentance, you are left only with philosophical and scientific ethics which do not value them at all!"

Excuse me? My religious ethics value homosexuals as human beings. Just as they are. Unless you are going to tell me that the ethics of my religion are really Judeo-Christian.

"And, if they are right about the genetic basis of homosexuality, can they doubt for a moment that, once full manipulation of fetal DNA is possible, that proto-homosexuals will be utterly eliminated right along with embryonic Down's and spinal bifida babies"

Yes, like many other cultures that are based around physical/cognitive traits, there is concern for the future of homosexuality, just as their is fear among the deaf community for their culture, among the Asperger's community for their culture, etc. However, personally, I don't see the elimination of homosexuality by science in our near future, certainly not in "a generation or two".

So, I'm starting to wonder a bit what any of this has to do with gay marriage? Urloony seems to want to deny them marriage equality because homosexuals experience (gasp!) human failings and foibles in their relationships and in their parenting (because no married heterosexual couple would ever screw up their marriage or their kids). Are you suggesting, GAHillBilly, that we should deny gay marriage because they are all just going go away eventually (perhaps soon) anyway?