Yes, because when you're in the jungle you want as much exposed skin as possible. I told those guys at Ft. Polk that they had no idea what they were doing, but they wouldn't listen to me. Even with all the covering up we did, one of the guys in our platoon almost died from a Brown Recluse bite. That's proof that bloused jungle clothing is bunk! I should have been allowed to bear my midriff!

Boots had no boots. Fail.

Near the Dells is "up North" to me in this case.

I wish I had the time and money to hit Granite Peak, but that's REALLY far North to me.

Last year I booked with Expedia. Someone knowledgeable, perhaps you, told me that was a mistake on my part. Please explain how I should book if you know better.

Hey man, those natives in the rain forest with the Moe Howard haircuts run around starkers 24/7.

If It works for the Jovitos, it works for Dora.

That's what I said!! My Drill Sergeants were having none of it, though.

They made me carry all my gear up a waterfall as punishment. Wait. . .

(74 HUMOR pts)

A few weeks ago, an argument started at Ski Patrol, and reminded me of some exchanges around here:

I was sitting at the table in the Patrol Room. The table in the Patrol Room is often graced with baked goods that people bring out of the kindness of their hearts as well as candy from Christmas that they didn't want their children to eat and other such fare.

I have a mouth full of Sweet Teeth, so I often avail myself of the selection. Also, as the last shift of the weekend, we have to deal with clean up detail, and getting rid of the stuff that's left falls to us.

My Shift Lead and another Patroller came in. This meant I did not have to "man" the Patrol Room, and I could go Patrol for a while until I needed to come in. I said something to that effect. The other Patroller, (we'll call him Bob) said, something like, "You're rearing to go with the Sugar High you've gotten off of eating that stuff."

My reply was something like, "There's no such thing as a Sugar High, so that's impossible."

Bob told me that I was wrong.

I told Bob about a study that I saw when I was finishing my Psych Minor. The study proved that the Sugar High was psychosomatic. I had a story about my student teaching days to support it.

Bob railed against the idea. Asking about diabetics, the reaction of sugar in the metabolism, drugs in general.

I told him that common perception of what is and isn't a drug and what is and isn't addiction may have changed since I was taught, but that, during college, I had argued with my Psych Profs in much the same way he was arguing with me and was told by them that in the Psych world, there's a definition of "food" and "drug" and a difference.

Bob works with BD children in public schools. He reminded me of as much and then said one of my "favorite" "argument-ending" statements. "You can't tell me that sugar doesn't effect behavior!"

It was around this point where he got really heated and told me that arguing with me was like arguing with the wall.

I told him that while I might feel very much the same way, I wasn't about to resort to insults like that. He made one of those apologies in statement only. And then basically said that even if I could show the study and several others that I was pulling up on my phone to him, that I could not convince him otherwise because of his personal experience.

It wasn't the first time Bob's gotten like this about something. There was a guy added to our shift last year who just couldn't stop himself from saying something political every damn week when he knew full well after the first two weeks that the rest of us fundamentally disagreed with him on just about everything. At those times, Bob and I were on the same "side", but I saw him get like this before.

The next week, as I was driving to Ski School, which I do before Patrol, I was listening to A Way With Words on NPR and they were doing a bit on phrases for commonly held misconceptions like "Rule of Thumb" and how it didn't come from the wife-beating-stick thing many people think it did. "Sugar High/Rush" was one of the misconceptions. I told my Shift Lead about it when Bob wasn't around.

Anyway, the whole thing reminded me of interactions from around here. I guess I'm not that much better at NOT enraging people offline than I am online.

Did one of the Ski Patrol come in and say "TL:DR LULZ!!"?

This Bob seems like he is a wise man. You should listen to him.

A couple children made themselves scarce. Less Patroller Kids in the Patrol Room is never a bad thing.

Remember the part about us having to clean the Patrol Room? We're basically picking up after the children of Patrollers from earlier in the day, or the Patrollers themselves depending on how you look at it.

Gone are the days when you could expect anyone to be responsible for picking up after themselves. Expecting someone to hold their children responsible for picking up after themselves is a whole other story.

Wow, I'm really having a hard time with the sugar high thing being an urban legend. Two data points:

1) When I eat too much sugar I get jittery (which is not the same as hyperactive, but I could see it being a catalyst in kids)

2) I've seen what appears to be a reaction in kids when they eat too much sugar.

I believe in science, though. I wonder if there's something that explains the things I note above other than confirmation bias on my part.

I assume you saw the part where I felt much the same way, but wouldn't resort to such insulting language.

The difference between Bob and I is that I'm a wall that actually has some backup for his point of view. Maybe that's why Bob thinks I'm like a wall.

Seriously, the statement "You can't tell me. . ." has never escaped the lips of someone I would call wise, in my experience.

I do not remember this part in that terrible movie.

You have to remember that this is the same science which keeps telling us that eggs are good, then tells us that they're bad, then tells us that the whites are good but the yolks are bad.

Science...BAH!

You can't tell me science know everything!