Stosh

When you can't influence by debating a person's view point, the next step is always attacking the person. Somehow they believe one can discredit the other person's point of view by discrediting the validity of that person, The same hold true for the issue of homosexuality, race or any other forms of bigotry. Attack the person, not the issue.

If you blast the bear spray into the wind, it'll raise havoc with the cleanliness of your shoes regardless of what you ate in the morning.

Gee, when I was that age, the last thing I wanted was my parents involved in any activity I was involved in. We had our family time and then I needed space the rest of the time. It didn't matter if it was church, scouts, or school. These were areas were I needed to develop on my own. The last thing I needed in my life was having to go to the principal's office and find my mother sitting there.

For me there is very little difference between polygamy and monogamy. Polygamy is defined as one too many wives, and sometimes that is also the definition of monogamy. Seriously, I am not the normal "Christian" who's theology is influenced with a ton of man-made traditions. I am a Scripturalist. If it ain't in the Book, it ain't important.

Gee, if it takes a village to raise a child, then what's wrong with polygamy? There is a lot of credible evidence in the Bible to support it. After all the 12 Tribes of Israel were conceived by 2 wives and 2 concubines. Of course that's the Old Testament, but the New Testament only says the bishops should be of one wife. Only in a country of "freedom of religion" is a territory required to abandon their religious practices in order to obtain statehood. (Utah) Surely a country based on hypocrisy can always find ways to alienate various parts of it's culture.

By-laws are for those who are looking for justification when a fight starts in a unit. There is no need for consensus, dialogue, or cooperation as the world changes and the unit develops. It's kinda like the "This is the way we've always done it, see it's in the by-laws." and that brings to an end any further discussion. Instead of dealing with it and adapting to the needs of the unit, people just move on and find a unit without by-laws and that's the end of any potential growth of a unit. The units which seem to have the biggest problems over the years are those with by-laws and extensive, "written in stone" rules/regulations, and heavy duty inflexible traditions. If one is looking for future problems in a unit, either write up some by-laws, or drag the old ones off the shelf, dust them off, and throw in someone's face you don't like or can't get along with.

I only had two uniforms at Jambo 2010, One to wear, one to wash and lay out to dry. It was hot and the uniform dried out quickly. As a matter of fact at times it got so hot, I washed my uniform and put it back on wet, it felt great! As far as showers go, 2AM to 3AM was optimal, NO LINES and no one else to peek where they weren't supposed to. Water was always nice and hot too.

There are grizzlies and black bears. Look for the hump at the shoulders and if you see one, you have a grizzly. If you don't you see the species - black bear. It can be any color from black to tan, even a red-ish blonde color. If you have never seen a bear in the wild, it's good, most blacks will avoid humans if possible. They tend to defend themselves and their cubs, especially if startled. (They didn't see, hear or smell you coming). Grizzlies tend to be more territorial and if you back off and leave them alone, you can usually avoid a confrontation. Like the blacks they, too, will defend their cubs. While seeing bears in the wild is neat, wearing bells on your boot laces and talking loudly in bear country is often seen as a better option. Vigilance is important and watch for them constantly. Last summer I was in Yellowstone and approached a crowd of people looking at a black bear. When my wife noticed I wasn't looking in the right direction, she poked me and then pointed out the black bear in the woods. I said it was good for her to keep on eye on it, but for a while I was going to keep an eye on the grizzly off in another direction. Qwazse: I too would keep a careful eyeful when standing in the middle of a bear's kitchen stealing their food!

Whenever I have been in bear country, my rule of thumb is: no scents that are associated with human habitation other than human scent are tolerated. Wereas a bear can tell human scent, it tends to be wary and out of curiosity may check you out but leave it at that. You have given the bear notice that humans are in the area (depending on the wind of course). However, if there is another scent that is more attractive, it may wish to check it out further. Food for example can overcome the human scent if it's hungry enough to push the issue. Therefore I would refrain from any scent that could attract a bear enough to overcome its fear of humans. Something that smells like food, I would shy away from big time. One needs food and thus a bear bag of those scents are kept away from camp high off the ground in a bear bag. That's why even the clothing used while cooking is included in the bag. Also scents that can carry further or overcome the human scent should be also be avoided. If it smells berries strong enough to cover over the human scent, his ability to smell human is overwhelmed and his wariness to humans will not kick in. If you only smell of strawberries, you are now food, not a human. If a bear wishes to raid a camp site and there is no human scent to ward him off and all he can smell is food it doesn't bode well for the campsite. Antiperspirants that reduce human sweat but not change the scent does the job without changing the human scent is all I ever use in the back country. While the scent is rather rank for all the members in the party, it still gives bears notice of your presence. Reduce that or cover it up with other scents and it could pose a problem. In all seriousness, the more you "smell" like human, the further the scent will travel and give warning to the bear that humans are nearby. If you reduce that or cover it up, your ability to startle or lure a bear to food is increased. You will need a ton of bear spray if you plan on having a huge bacon crusted breakfast and clean up with all the fruity soaps and shampoos you can haul and then set out on the trail quietly into a prevailing wind. Good luck, I hope your aim is good. You've just created a perfect storm. (I hope your prevailing wind isn't very strong or you're going to find out how powerful bear spray really is, too!)

No one ever in court is ever innocent. Guilt is determined as having a degree of doubt. Innocence is determined by a level of doubt. All members of a jury must have absolutely no doubt before a person is deemed guilty. It was strange in this case that ALL the jury members had doubt. That's a very compelling statement made to the court. In the eyes of the law, no one else's opinion is valid.

Kudu, First of all the only boys I have associated with that had experience with TLT/JLT/NYLT or whatever LT you want to define as the LT du jour, has been with boys of other troops. I had only one boy in all my years of SM ever take any "advanced" LT courses. He told me it was a total waste of time. I assumed from what he said, for him at least it must have been. Instead I have always taught the GBB patrol method. It makes sense and the boys don't need a lotta "talking-to". They just plan out the process and then just do it. I do this all the time. I have always used GBB training of the whole patrol, not just the PL's/ASPL's. Everyone's got a job and all those jobs are directly related to "taking care of the others". Whether it be safety/first aid, cooking, keeping the group on task/trail as map/compass navigator, it doesn't make any difference. You need to do the job for the welfare of others, not just to have a stupid patch and/or gain advancement recognition. In my program, this month's outing has John as PL and maybe next month Pete is going to lead. I found the patch/advancement (carrot/stick) routine never really taught the boys to worry about anything other than themselves. Once they grasp on to servant leadership, then at various times throughout the weekend, the boys are in fact handing off their leadership to each other on a rather routine basis. And it's not just GBB stuff either. I start my boys on servant leadership right with the TF requirement #9 - The Buddy System. No, this is not something for the lakefront, this is an all-the-time expectation in my troop. Taking care of someone other than oneself is the first step in servant leadership. Yes, boys, the world doesn't revolve around you and your cell phone! You're homesick? Too bad, your buddy needs you this week. Your buddy's homesick, better cheer him up, he's breaking Rule #3 (Have fun.) It must have been working, they removed me from the SM position because I expected too much leadership from the boys. The boys that would rather lead by bullying and dictating, found themselves in a minority amongst the boys and finally rallied their parents into the process rather than learn to lead. Kinda like pulling the political string so as to by pass the real process. GBB's patrol method works every easily under servant leadership dynamics, far better than anything else I've "read through" because from what over view I see on these programs, it's not something I feel appropriate to teach. Stosh

Well, I guess the racially motivated, political media is bringing down the Big Top ready to move on to the next town. Next comes the racially motivated, political media's coverage Part 2 (always have to have a sequel to a blockbuster) civil case. NAACP has already been talking about it with the not really black/not really white president. But there's enough racism to get it out front of the media. And the surprising thing about all this? Been there, done that 40+ years ago. Curfews, fires, shootings, riots, etc. and here we are once again. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

It's called fuzzy logic. Scoop up a handful of sand. You now have a handful of sand. Take off one grain. Do you still have a handful of sand? One can argue the point endlessly and never draw a conclusion one way or another. Not very scientific, but most people will believe you still have a handful of sand, but you can fool the people if you don't tell them what you did.

Well, feel free to write your book anyway you want, after all it's your book. Welll then knowledge is also a useless term in your dictionary as well. Like any theory, myth, story, or whatever you wish to use, if it's not proven, it is an accepted belief. Once it is provable then it moves from believing it true to knowing it is true.

But there is a difference and you can't see it. Belief is something that someone accepts as true even when complete knowledge is not available. Like I said, I have a balloon in my hand one has no idea what direction it is going to go without further knowledge. If I say it will go shooting straight up, the observer will draw a conclusion based on the trustworthiness of my reasoning, either they will believe or they won't. Either way they base their belief on incomplete knowledge. Until I release the balloon and prove the direction, then faith is no longer necessary. By the way, until we have full knowledge of everything, there will always be a faith/belief system for everyone. It's merely a game that humans play that incites each other to run around expounding on how their belief system is better than others. I see no difference between the fundamental Christian preaching the gospel and the atheist going on about there is no god(s). We're good at changing one's knowledge base because it is provable. On the other hand changing one's belief system without any provable facts, which is the basis of a belief system, is pretty much a waste of time.

Redefining in mid-discussion really doesn't help much, neither does adding additional trappings to it to create apples/oranges discussions. Nice try Merlyn, never even implied Christo-centricism, but if you want to toss in a few oranges in with the apples, that's okay with me. Kinda hard to sort them out when one comes to the table with a preconceived agenda. Of course one runs into the problem of redefinition when the proverbial wrench gets tossed into a faltering argument. Faith is not a knowledge issue. Thus the rub. If we knew there would be no room for faith. Science is based on knowledge and religion on belief/faith. Putting them together and stirring the pot is nothing more than an exercise in futility. So if an agnostic BELIEVES we cannot know, that in itself is a belief system. And if the atheist BELIEVES there is no god, then that's a belief system as well. And so the "faithful" BELIEVES there is a god, why is it a stretch to think that they are the only ones that BELIEVE? Deal with all apples or all oranges, but don't mix and match to suite one's agenda.

Sure there are a lot of people who will try and dilute the argument. Sure the world believes in many different gods, but they always come back to the idea that there is one of some kind. The atheist insists and believes there is no god whatsoever regardless of flavor. The Pascal's Wager takes into account the 4 extremes and doesn't take into account the variety of different twists that people try and bring into the discussion. Either there is a god or there isn't and either one believes or they don't. That comes to only four possible options. Toss in all the garbage to assuage one's own personal justifications all they want doesn't alter the 4 options. I might believe in a blonde haired, blue eyed god that has a long white robe. Big deal, the argument stands that I believe in a god. The only part that really is a mystery to me is the fact that atheists actually do BELIEVE there is no god, and that is in fact a faith based decision. So according to standard definitions, the only true "un-believer" is the agnostic who doesn't know what to believe one way or the other. So lets draw the for Pascal boxes and say that there are those who: 1) Believe there is a God and God exists 2) Believe there is no God and God exists 3) Believe there is God and God doesn't exist 4) Believe there is no God and God doesn't doesn't exist Toss the agnostic somewhere on the point where the two lines intersect on the Pascal chart. The point being everyone believes except the agnostic. One cannot say they know God exists or doesn't exist. Even science can't show evidence, but like a good scientific theorist, I can see a ton of evidence that our existence here in the universe is far more convincing than a lot of other unprovable scientific theories. Maybe in a billion years from now mankind will have all the answers scientifically, but we haven't even scratched the surface of scientifically figuring out but a small fleck of what is out there. So the next time someone tell you that stars exist, just remember, if they burn out, implode, or do whatever they do, we here on earth may not know if for billions of years. So in fact there are stars in the sky that for whatever reality one wishes to accept, that really don't exist.

Ever wonder why gals of today want to join up in Venturing? They want adventure just as much as the boys do, and the push is to have girls in Boy Scouts because GSUSA isn't providing what many gals want. If the GSUSA model is anything goes in a unit, then volunteer and get a group going that the girls really want. Ever wonder why gals want in on the BSA program? Turn the tables, how many of these threads are based on sewing patches, cooking, cleanliness, etc. all roles historically relegated to the gals. Well, the playing field is leveling. Nothing wrong with boys learning how to sew (I know my way around a sewing machine, I make all kinds of scout stuff with it) and gals learning how to camp, hike, and trek as well. I always get a kick out of hearing about the skill level of the male SM's vs. the female SM's. My wife spent many years in Alaska as a crew chief for the US Forestry Dept. and her kids worked their way through college as Alaskan commercial salmon fishermen. She has 3 girls and a boy. Her oldest girl is in New York as a highly paid business consultant, another girl is a medical doctor, the third girl is a research doctor in the biomedical field and her boy just graduated in electrical engineer who passed up a couple of jobs just to move to Boulder CO. What did the outdoors do for any of them? You be the judge. I would be willing to bet that my wife and/or any of her kids could run circles around most SM's in today's BSA. I'd say that any gal that wants a pocket knife and backpack isn't going to be set back one bit by any tom-boy stigma today's society might peg them with. To this day I still remember vividly my youngest girl sitting on a rock up in the BWCA touching up her polished fingernails because she chipped a couple on the last portage.

There is something to be said for cub scouts camping in someone's backyard. There also something to be said for Webelos scouts camping in a city park. As the adventure progresses, then we have boy scouts doing back country backpacking, canoe camping, and Philmont. Not all adults can effectively follow their boys through the program and not all units have adult leadership skilled enough to provide opportunities for real high adventure. Like the boys, the leaders need to get the training and skills to be able to not only push the envelop for themselves but to provide opportunity for the boys to push. Is it any wonder boys don't find adventure in car camping and the 7th trip to the local scout camp? Where are the boys that fit this situation? All over the place. Since I left the unit leadership, the first thing I noticed is the level of adventure I am doing now at 62 years of age is higher than 95% of the troops in my area. Stosh

The question was tools for understanding leadership and how to train to that understanding. Greenleaf has been around for a long time and has endured the slings and arrows of many critics. As a philosophy of leadership and how to develop it, it's been my model for boy training. While I don't have the boys buy the books and learn the details, I do use the dynamics in all that I teach. If one is going to develop leadership of the patrol leaders, one has to develop a sense of being able to take care of the boys once he gets them out into the woods. If he can't serve/lead in such a way, the boys will not follow and if they do they'll have problems. If the PL announces he's going to take his patrol out into any adventure and he doesn't know where they are going or whether or not they can handle any and all situations once they get there and return safely, maybe my mom and dad might have reservations, but so do I. My willingness to follow such a leader is directly dependent on his ability to take care of everyone on the trek. Surely such requirements are necessary for any PL that wants to truly lead. How does one put that into a 8 1/2" X 11" booklet? I don't know, it's not something that can be drilled down to such simplifications, but as a tool for training, every trainer needs that information in the back of his mind. It's kinda like the fact that no one has ever written a successful book on being a parent. There are underlying guidelines, but nothing in print. Greenleaf's book is not for the scouts, it's for the trainer training the scouts correctly to be effective leaders. BTW... One can always tell those who don't understand servant leadership, those that give it lip service and those that teach/use it. Does it work? Well lets just say that the original books of Greenleaf are selling for twice the price of the cover price on Ebay. Oh, and can it be taught? Yep, my Eagle Scout who thought NYLT was a waste of time, but always wanted to learn more about leadership than what was in the BSA program, just was promoted crew chief in the USAF in less than a year's time of enlistment. Yes, some boys really do pay attention.

If the ultimate burden falls on the CO for legal responsibility for ISA's, then why would national BSA worry about it, they don't really have any skin in the game except maybe PR and if someone gets thrown under the bus, so what?

There are only 4 options in life: 1) I believe and there is a God. - Well in that case I have it made in the shade. 2) I believe and there is no God - In that case I've wasted a lot of time and energy in this life, except maybe I was a bit more "moral/ethical" than I would not normally have been. 3) I don't believe and there is no God - It's a wash, life was good/bad or indifferent, but that's all there is to it. 4) I don't believe and there is a God - I'm screwed. Everyone takes their chances. How's it working out for you? Take all the scientific knowledge we possess and lump it all together and still the human mind has no idea of how this masterfully intricate existence has coincidentally came into being. There is far more we don't know than what we do, scientifically. Our high-tech medical knowledge/practices will be barbaric 200 years from now just as it was 200 years ago. Science is not the journey, it is only a wayside along the route. If I have a balloon in my hand, one can never scientifically tell if it will rise up, float away or fall to the ground until AFTER they have analyzed, probed, and tested it. Well we have not yet been able to analyze, probe and test everything everywhere. Until then one has to place their faith in what I say the balloon will do.

I might be able to answer your question if I understood your point.

THE SERVANT AS LEADER, by Robert K. Greenleaf, The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 770 Pawtucket Dr. Westfield, IN 46074 (http://www.greenleaf.org)

I just got back from the 150th Gettysburg Reenactment, and there there isn't any flaming arrows, but a ton of stuff exploding, cannons, aerial burst fireworks and musketry all over the place. The Venturing crew boys seemed have a good time. Duh! If there isn't any controlled danger, then where's the adventure?!