TheFourGuardians

And to clarify: I mean that the council should be able to recognize a lack of participation. I don't, personally, see that trend being reflected. The summer camp is well attended, and although some council events might need improvement, I'd expect a bit more warning from the council that they need improvement as opposed to this. It's fishy, I think. You'd expect a well documented trend of decline and not a sudden surplus to debt situation.

"So when I say Support your Council, I dont mean for you to get up and cheer for them. Hopefully its a call for you to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Go out there and be a part of your councils program. If it isnt up to your standards, then be a part of making it better. Participate in the Popcorn fundraiser, do summer camp in your home councils camp, invite FOS to your unit. " Exactly...that's what everyone seems to be doing. I'm not trying to say more can't be done, but it certainly seems strange to go from a everything is fine stance to this. I'd expect my council and not someone outside of it to be able to tell us what needs to be done. Either way, they've obviously failed at something.

"How many of those people who are now _itching and moaning did not participate in the Popcorn fundraiser?" Our troop doesn't generally do popcorn, actually. We have other means of making money. "How many of those people who are now _itching and moaning never support district or council events?" Not sure what that means, actually. I believe many scouts attend some of these events, but I can't say I've ever even seen an invitation to a parent to help out. "How many of those people who are now _itching and moaning never attend the in-council summer camp program / or day camp programs?" What do you mean by this now? I know my troop generally does a whole lot to help out at our summer camp, adults especially. Day camp programs I know nothing about. "There are regular audits done of the council's financial records and they have an executive board, it's simply too easy to cite bad management as the cause. If the membership of this council showed loyalty, and actively supported there own efforts, this would never have come to pass." That doesn't seem like it actually means anything. What do you mean by "support the council?" Is it like supporting our troops? It just doesn't make sense. I'm a scout, so I don't know the details behind the scenes, but I'm not so certain that I can figure out how the loss of over 1,200,000 can be due to a lack of support.

Hmm, I have a meeting today, so I wonder if I'll have to deal with this. I'm not sure what, exactly, council is spending this money on, but I don't like them selling off the program. Well, I'll see what happens tonight.

I'm actually from that council. I think it's embarrasing, actually. Anyway, I'm not sure what they've been up to with those funds, but I have seen the new building. Fairly large, with a new national shop(I personally prefered the locally run thing. This one is crazy with paperwork. The other guys were fine to trust what you said. They're not bad guys, just very beaurecratic. I'm not exactly sure where that money is going to though. Likely management, but I suppose it might be going to something else. I haven't personally been told of this yet, but I did read about it in the local newspaper. I imagine we won't pay it out of our pockets. Out of the troop's funds, I imagine, but not by begging the scouts. I'm not going to do that, anyway. It's still very silly.

From BrentAllen: How does suppressing homosexuality benefit society? 1. Society suppresses behaviour the citizens find repulsive, such as spitting in public, picking your nose in public, etc... I would wager a large majority of the population finds homosexual behavior repulsive. BTW, I was not taught that homosexual behavior was repulsive - it must be in my genes that I feel that way. First, I don't know of any laws against those things. More importantly, you can do all of those things in private. 2. Monogamous heterosexual couples are the bedrock of a stable society (financially, emotionally, raising a family). Suppressing homosexual behavior promotes heterosexual behavior, i.e. gay men who are married and have families. Actually, I'd say that leads to even more divorce and heartache. Look no further than NJ's former governor for evidence of that. It's a silly proposition, and if it is genetic, will only lead to more of the same. 3. Sexual diseases, including AIDS, are spread much more quickly and widely by those who are not monogamous, both hetero and homosexual. My assumption is that one of the reasons AIDS spread through the homosexual community so quickly was because they did not practice safe sex as much as hetero couples, since pregnancy was not a concern. That's no longer as large a concern, and considering the lack of control by many heterosexuals, it seems worthless now. STD's have led to safer sex for both groups. 4. Society, with the exception of the MTV crowd, generally views sexually promiscuous behaviour (hetero or homo) negatively. Whether religious upbringing or not, we are taught that girls who sleep around are sluts, etc... Right or wrong, we see gay bars as evidence of widespread promiscuous behavior in the homosexual crowd. But the same is true of nearly any bar. How many college students are now virgins. Better yet- how many high school students. It would be nice to have less of this, but that starts at home and not in any other way. 5. Similar to #4, society does not care for public displays of freakish behavior. Anyone who has been to a Gay Day parade has seen plenty of this. I've also seen far more horrible behaviours at sporting events, schools, and any protesting organization. 6. No telling how many deaths have been caused due to people coming out of the closet; how many hospital visits from gays getting beaten up. In addition, how many discrimination cases have filled our court houses. How much money has been spent on litigation. How this issue has divided the country, and families. I'm not pointing a finger at either side or placing blame - I'm simply listing the costs to society, in lives and dollars, of not suppressing homosexual behavior. Eh...I can easily make the arguement that such repression is leading to the hatred and the entire "comming out of the closet" situation. The arguement is similar to saying how many people were being harmed durring the civil rights movement. I personally don't equate gay rights to that, as there is so little legislation against them it's fairly silly to even compare it to the plights of minorities in the sixties, fifties, and before. It might cost a bit(far less than any of those things previous) but that's all voluntarily paid by both sides. If a man kills another, he has volunteered himself for the restitution and of course jail. If a man goes to jail for speaking his mind, he has found it worth the risk, etc.

Well, my troop does elect almost all positions(aspl, asl, and Jasm not included) and it does set up some problems. For example, the harder jobs rarely get good candidates and thus fall into disuse. As for a team, well I've been SPL for a while and my only allies have been my aspl from rare time to time(I chose him for the purpose of relaying my messages to scouts who will listen and for his participation. Sadly I don't get much respect from much of the troop) as well as two friends who sometimes help(and sometimes hurt, but that's to be expected.) On the other hand, there is some sort of motivation for voting, but I'll have to stress that importance next election. It's good for trying to show them what needs to be done, but it doesn't work without boys who want to do it!

"his teacher will say "We don't know exactly what caused the changes - that is not a question science needs to answer. The one thing I can tell you is, the change was NOT caused by any type of Intelligent Design, or by God. We can't prove that God or ID didn't have a hand in it, but we can't acknowledge that as a possibility" That is where I have a problem. " I have never, in a public school, seen a teacher say as a fact(and never an opinion, either...) that God does not exist. I've had a history teacher talk about why he believes in a religion(it was on topic, relating to something or another, I forget now...) My teacher for biology, if not with just a touch of...not so much contempt as an almost humerous statement, did state he was not trying to upset any religious beliefs. I'm sure if you asked him why, he'd go on about cellular structure. If you asked why all that happened, he'd say either what he felt(and would ensure that it was known as opinion, or say that science was not responsible. Well, at least I'll make the assumption that the above is the conventional answer(if not, probably "I don't know, that's not science, it's personal, etc.") I just can't imagine the state saying that the possibility of any religion cannot be acknoledged. Now it isn't part of science, but it is always acknowledged. In fact, denying that religion would be a violation of the 1st(and XIV) ammendments It would, in effect, establish a religion, specifically atheism.

I have heard this arguement against ID in classrooms before, and while it is a touch simplistic, I think it might explain why teaching ID as science is a wrong location. Teaching it anywhere related is fine though... The point is as follows: If ID were to be accepted into biology curriculum, what with the test questions be? Would it simply say that there is an unprovable possibility that an intelligent designer built the universe? Because that sounds philisophical to me? Would it say that there are some who believe, because that signifies historical, social, or philisophical studies to me. Would it use some horrible rehash of the laws of thermondynamics to mislead children, because that is simply poor science. Now, if we had something, anything, scientific in nature supporting ID, I think it might be plausible. As it is now, and how it will likely forever remain, ID is not science.

From Brent Allen: " This is probably overly simplistic and repetitive, but the problem us "believers" have is their is no room in science for a religious explanation, which directly conflicts with our religious beliefs. Christian students are asked, in effect, to study and believe material which goes against their religious beliefs. We are not asking that science teach religion, we only ask that science acknowledge religion, so that we don't feel we are being asked to choose between the two. " Brent, I can't speak for everyone, but there are some things I can say. 1. The education system as a whole exists as it does due to the voters decisions. Sure it likely will never be voted out due to twelve years of acceptance by most voters, but I would note that it is, in effect, a majority will. If you wish to change what school your children are forced to go to, I might suggest looking into either private options or politicians supporting voucher programs. 2. Science makes no effort to disprove religion. Surely, I admit, there are some strange scientists out to do that very thing, but they are the rare exceptions. If the majority of people on Earth are religious in some way, and if the scientific body is any representation of that, I doubt the demographics are skewed to any side save perhaps away from any fundamentalist religion. 3. Many religious views have no conflict with science. In fact, I'd say most don't. If science interferes with your views, it is your responisbility to resolve it, but it is illogical to force that same view onto others. I resolve it with the ID version of evolution etc. being the agents of God. There is no way I could consider that biology, that's a resolution of my own. It holds true for all of us. And, considering especially the 1st ammendment and the 14th, we can draw the conclusion that it is wrong for a school to make any bias for or against any religion. By all means it can state theories, but by no means can it say this theory proves you wrong. From BrentAllen "firstpusk states: 'The random part of evolution is the variation of genes within a population.' My question is - what caused those variations? Can you prove what caused them? Maybe it was God tinkering with the species? Can you rule out the possibility that ID caused this variation?" Science doesn't, to my knowlege, rule out things in that sense. Rather it simply goes to where the most evidence lies. If it changes, so does the world view(look at atomic theory for that!) Now, we do get conflicts where evidence is not easily quantified into importance, or where we get inconsistancies(two theories with equal but conflicting evidence- Relativity/Quantam/Superstring might be an example), or theories that just both explain with equal evidence. Anyway, it is not science to make those claims. We believe variations come from processes durring meiosis and fertilization(and others) but to say God did or did not create it, is simply not science. It's not wrong or right, it's just not science's domain. And as a philosophy, that's fine. Just not science. "Those models used to calculate the formation of the universe 13 million years ago - are they the same ones currently being used to predict global warming? Are they the same ones used to predict the weather 24 hours from now, and do so with such high precision? All you evolutionists want proof of ID. I consider myself living, breathing proof of ID." That's very good for you...but only you! That's what I mean. You can't objectively say to a scientist that you are proof of ID. There is nothing but opinion and personal revelation there. It simply won't apply to everyone. "Do evolutionists celebrate Thanksgiving? If so, who do they pray to, giving thanks? To the particular gene mutation or variation that caused them to be created? I would like a copy of that prayer, please, so I can be scientifically correct next Thanksgiving. " Well, I suppose it would depend on the religion of the evolutionist. Most of my prayers are silent thanks type prayers, but sometimes they say grace. I suppose it really depends on the religion. I can't see how a Jainist might celebrate Thanksgiving in a conventional sense, but certailny he or she might have a non-meat dinner and thank someone, although I cannot say I know enough about the Jainist beliefs to understand. However, I'm guessing, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that you are likely a protestant simply because you are in America where that is the dominant religion. Likely there are prayers such as the Our Father you could work with. But forgive me, I don't know your religion off hand, so I suggest saying the same prayers as always. Yes, so after all of that, what I'm trying to demonstrate is simple. Evolutionists aren't all atheists. They aren't mainly atheists. The Catholic church has accepted evolution, and as it is the largest denomination of Christianity(worldwide, not US) and as we can assume that most Catholics do believe in the words of the church(or else, I suppose, they aren't Catholic) that's a good 900,000,000 evolution believers who are also religious. Heck, let's take out one hundred million who disagree, and another three hundred for those who don't know, and that's a lot. http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp Note: I only bring up Catholicism due to its large numbers and being one of very few religions I know of that is centralized and has such a definite stance on the view of evolution. The source I have is fairly good, although there are others. I apologize if the above seemed odd, but by responding in the way I did, I think I drew attention to the facts I wanted to, specifically that evolution and religion are not simply opposites.

From Rooster7:I've always thought that scientists were supposed to be open to all theories that could not be disproved. Well, that's true when it is indeed a theory. Unfortunately what you have is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. One I believe, of course, but not a scientific theory. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/dinoscience.html Section 4

Thanks for the kind words. Rooster: I think you misunderstand me. I've never believed that science and religion are unworkable together. That's why I like ID.

If I may, perhaps, share some views and information with the board. I'll admit I'm only a high school student, but I have a good background in science and have debated/listened to these debates before. As such: First off, I believe in the general concept of Intelligent Design. It fits much of what I personally have seen. However, I should note that, according to that brilliant definition given above about religion/philosophial type views of the world being equal but for but one person, it is only in me that these observations will make sense. A Buddhist, an atheist, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc. will all see the same things I've seen and interpret them differently. As such, it is, according to that deffinition, not science. Rather, due to the fact that it is impossible to disprove ID, it is simply a thought, a philosophy, or a religion. And that's absolutely fine. Teach it in private school, at home, in church, or teach about it in philosophy/history/religious studies/sociology etc. classes. But make no mistake, it is not science. It's no more science than Christianity is. Nor more so than secular humanism. Evolution, however, is science. Sure there are differing opinions on the exacts, but evolution through natural selection is indeed a theory. And that is perhaps the most respectable of all positions in science. A fact in science is really not something you'd hear to often. However, the generic ones we would refer to are such equations as basic as F=MA, E=mc^2 and so on. Now, although these equations may not be true if we do further studies, all evidence points to their usefulness. And so, there are those who might consider our observations to be the facts, and as the equations are simply expressions of observations, thus these are by some considered facts. (Of course, these equations can change with new data and thus are not truly undenyable facts, but that's the closest in science that I know of that can be considered a "fact" that so many ID proponents exclaim about. But evolution, is a theory. This is all the more respectable. An equation, while perhaps useful in the short term, is generally hard to apply without knowing why it acts that way and thus gaining more information. Equations are, without the theories to explain them, ends. They have no purpose, they show us nothing, they teach us little, and have basic uses only in a few areas. But apply a theory, and so much more becomes available. How do you test for a gravitational constant without a theory of gravity? How can you come up with a fission reactor without the theory of an atom? Do not for a minute doubt the power of theories in science. They guide chemestry in atoms, periodic tables, etc. Physics depends on theories such as Quantam, Superstring, and Relatvity. And in turn, Biology is reduced severely without evolution. And the facts, if you will, observations, definately show patterns that evolution occurs- peppered moths, etc. Then we have other records(i.e. embryo's, fossles(yikes, I can't spell...), etc.) And while this is relevent to showing evolution does occur, it also suggests a common ancestry for organisms, as well as explaining how many parts of animals and so on work. So what then, does this disprove God? Of course not! The entire reason that ID isn't science is because God cannot be disproven(and by extension, actually, proven.) Isn't the fact that the universe, in some strange chance(which it is, although evolution doesn't depend on chance, if you follow Big Bang type theories, there were hundreds of ways the universe could have turned out. And yet ours turned out to have evolution which allowed us to enjoy the world as intelligent beings capable of recognizing such a thing as God. But I digress. As for abiogenesis, that's a fairly supported idea, but others such as seed propagation are partially suggested by some scientists... But what I want to say is simple: There is no league of secular scientists out to disprove faith. Liberal teachers don't want to make kids atheists. Most atheists aren't prosthylatizing. No respectable scientist is out there just to disprove God. No reasonable person wants to make sure that your religion is wiped away. It's just the theories they are presenting, and nothing more. If one should take it as a challenge to a faith, perhaps one should re examine the faith? If you believe it to be a test, that is your interpretation. If you believe in ID, your interpretation. If you believe that this conclusively disproves God, that's a touch illogical since it would make ID science(although, I suppose faulty science, but I'm going on a tangent again) but it's simply an interpretation. That's all this is. The government isn't out to destroy your religion, the judge isn't here to dismantle a philosophy, the scientists aren't there to eliminate the religious. The ACLU doesn't care what you believe. Few groups concern what you tell your children. It's simply that your elected representitives(and I say that entirely on the fact of representation chosen by your communities. I have little liking for the current education system because of many things, least of all these so called "debates.") have decided that you want them to take your kids to teach them math, history, English, and science. And science includes evolution, and that, I'll say, is a fact.

I'm with GW, I don't like the constant bickering of "my religion is right!" If you can prove so, do it. If not, it's faith and nothing more. I know where my values lie and try to live by them. I don't convert people to my faith, whatever it may be(some unitarian type situation I'm sure) because it seems illogical that I tell them they will be burned for all eternity should they not accept it. But enough about this, arguing religion is really not a good topic for anyone. Live and let live(without any "I'm sorry we won't be spending eternity with each other" comments please. If you're going to tell someone they're going to Hell, either say it in that way and accept that you are saying that to the person or preferably, don't bother at all.) I don't care what you think of my beliefs so long as you keep it to yourself. It seems rather unscoutly to tell others, unless you honestly believe you are trying to save them, that they are damned to infinite pain and misery for not accepting your beliefs. And I hope my language wasn't too strong, I generally never use such harsh language, but this seemed to be a case where it needed to be mentioned. And I do not wish to offend anyone, but I felt I needed to be a touch blunt in this case.

" I was in a electronics store and the display had a Personal Play Station PSP which has two screens. Now we all know that parents buy these for their kids and the target age of the kids will correspond to a parental age range. So I had to laugh when the game in all the PSPs, even at differeent stores was a Pinball replica game. It was easy for a person (my age) who played real pinball to use and understand. I am sure that the idea id "gee I am pretty good at this an I remeber playing this as a kid". Then POOF you are down $120. " Hmm, that sounds like the Nintendo DS to me. (And PSP stands for Playstation Portable, I believe. Not relevent, just noting.) Anyway... I would agree with the PS2 and a game like Kingdom Hearts. PS2 definately has more variety and as Gamecube isn't on the list, is most age appropriate. Kingdom Hearts, might I add, although a few years old, is one of the better games I've ever played and involves a heartlifting type story with Disney type characters. It sounds a little childish, I know, but even as a teenage male, I have to admit it's a very good game. ALthough, I would advise against any other disney based games(this one is made by Square-Enix, creator of some very famous RPG's.) Anyway, that's my opinion.

"My question back at you is: Can you tell us what we could change/improve about Scouting to make it as fun and addictive as video gaming? Or at least take a step in that direction? " Hmm...that's a good question. From what I can tell from video games, they're imaginative and often seem to allow adventure without danger. Of course, I think that a troop which does more activities which are unique might be able to do that(perhaps pioliting an aircraft as opposed to "another" hike down the same trail type things." Then there are other situations of being able to do things you aren't generally supposed to do: this may or may not be correlated to boy led patrols. I'd like to see de-politization of both of these things, the BSA and video games, but sadly that's not where either of the two are going. I say sadly because politization is responsible for the deaths of enough mediums already(need I mention the lost art of comic books.) Video games are certainly on the list, and the BSA is just another battle in the war for votes. Both sides like video games because most adults, it seems, have their impressions formed by the media, which show games where you destroy the entire earth, but never one of saving it. In the same manner many read about the BSA policy of denying atheists and never read about the scout troop which raises over a few thousand dollars for 9-11 relief. But I digress... Addiction to BSA might be possible if, and I suppose only if, the boys involved cared enough, competition was fostered a bit, and troublesome "players" removed. I mean that in online games, a player is often penalized by either other players or an administrator for misconduct(such as team-killing.) However, I've noticed early on as a scout that neither the Scoutmaster nor the SPL have enough ability to slightly discipline the troop without doing just that. If a scout does something somewhat wrong, my options are: yell, accomplishing little, make empty threats accomplishing less, not recommend advancement, which is worthless, or recomend removal, which is extreme. However, I think I'm digressing again. To make scouts fun, I think the key is activity. I have, personally, a very apathetic troop and this makes it hard to do anything fun. I'd say that the difference between scouts and a video game is that a fun game has you always doing something interesting, exciting, and probably challenging. However, scouts has a tendency to more or less spend time planning and not being able to do quite so much or doing redundant things. I, personally, have little idea how to keep the senior scouts from boredom at meetings simply because they've done most things and I'm pretty much setting things up alone or only with the aid of materials. HOwever, that's really more of a troop issue than a universal rule. I think that varied activities would make scouting more addictive. If scouts knew each meeting they could learn something fun or do something fun, they might look foward to it. But that's just me...

Well, all the scouts and adults call be my my first name normally. Of course, as a scout, that's not exceptionally surprising!

I've heard so much arguing on this issue it's disgusting. There is nothing wrong with being politically correct, and there is nothing wrong with saying a less general term(of course, actual prejudice is wrong, but those are words most people wouldn't use normally anyway.) If the parent is offended, I say tell him that you aren't here to steal Christmas, offend him, or do anything else. If he goes so far as to pull his kids from the troop, well, there's little you can do, although I might question his emotional balances and try to talk with him about how he was offended. There are those who believe that being PC is, as stated above, wimpish. While I find it goes too far, I think being offended by PC is just absurd.

Hi there, I've been looking around for a while, and as a scout, teenager, and gamer, I find this topic to be slightly fititng. I guess I thought I might as well post that if there are any things I could explain maybe... What I think makes video games most fun is that they are not realistic- many fantasies can be played out in a way that is engrossing, such as slaying a dragon, saving the universe, etc. Next, I think that the FPS catagory, such as the aformentioned Halo, is a way of doing exciting things without physical risk. Finally simulations seem to suggest an almost omnipotent control of the situation, and are like the first case, except with a different perspecitve. But that's just my opinion on three reasons for the most popular video games(action/adventure/RPG, FPS's, and simulations.) Anyway, I don't know if they are quite as relevent as initially suggested, save in different ways(except the simulation type ones which seem to show a desire for independence.) I think that the FPS case might not show so much a desire for the whole computer treating you equally(although certainly that's a factor) as it is for being able to do exciting things. That might suggest early on a desire for a bit more freedom in what they do, but afterwards for the whole safe action. As to the above poster, the trip sounds fun, but the adults cooking! If only we could get the adults in our troop to do that...(save the leader's chili, I suppose.)

Well, in my troop(and I recently was elected SPL)we do the following. First the SPL is elected: 1. Nomination 2. Seconded 3. Accepted Each nominee goes through this. Then a vote is held in one of any fashions(secret ballot, raise of hands, etc. It was rasing hands this time.) Then the SPL carries out the election in a similar fashion for all other youth position save instructors, guides, JASM, and Den Chiefs. These are then selected(save JASM who is selected by scout master.)

Brent, I believe you misunderstand me. I, and most of my troop if not all, are not concerned with such trivial matters, and while it may be that this is a skill that perhaps shows a trancedence of care for trivial people(whether or not that is part of the scout law is really confusing. I cannot see how it follows kindness, but it isn't exactly self respecting (mentally awake that is.) I assume that scouting would not take such things seriously, but it is rather conflicting, even if the answer seems obvious, but that is irrelevent, I suppose.)I do not mean to be rude, but such a personal attack seems out of context. I am not reffering to my troop but to kids as a whole. I do believe that such attacks on my chararacter and that of my troop are out of order and respectfully ask that these things be discussed without such belligerence. Perhaps I misread you, as is often done on the internet, and if so I apologize for any confrontation that appears to result from this post. Rather, I am assuming most first class scouts are in sixth grade, maybe seventh. At this stage I am not positive on the level of maturity they may have. Now, while it may work well to have them practice such skills and becoming stronger leaders. Indeed, facing adversity amongst one's peers is something that everyone eventually needs to overcome. If that is the basis behind this requirement, perhaps it is more acceptable than simply a recruitment goal, which I find to be fairly dishonorable if only because it seems to really discredit the program. I do not mean to make it seem as though such abstract and generally irrelevent concepts "coolness" and the like are meant to be guides, but rather that at this age kids are rather sensitive to it, and perhaps the level of maturity in those scouts needs to be fostered(and perhaps this requirement can do that, but it continues to me to be nothing more than a recruiting tactic.) However, I can think of few people of that age that would be able to talk about scouts like that. Not that there is a necessary problem with it, and at high school levels I assume it is probably worse(I go to a rather strange school so I cannot comment on the general trends of high schools. There are people who have come in full scout uniform at my school for whatever reason, and this I assume is out of character for most high schools.) Perhaps, therefore, raising this skill early is of more importance. Overall, it is not any of the above that irks me so much as this idea behind recruiting psuedo-quotas. I like the idea of having more scouts in some troops, but I know of some troops that also don't have need for those things and may not be ready for more kids. I apologize if my previous post made it seem as though kids should succumb to such silly things as "coolness" but rather I was questioning the motives of National for instilling this requirement and if it was appropriate for that age. However, looking at it from another angle provides this view. I can support it if it is meant to also strengthen the first class scout to be, but otherwise it seems almost shallow. That is my primary objection to this thing, it is just not genuine, it seems forced to me, and in a bad place. An individual scout can recruit, but often these things have a time and a place, and while putting some idea of pressure on making this thing happen may be good, I would perhaps like to see this as a requirement for communications as opposed to the current one, or for some other honor. Perhaps I am wrong though, as is likely, but I simply cannot see the way that this skill is related to first class. BUt, in all fairness, it is likely my vision which is failing rather than council's. It is likely my distaste for unnecessary changes and a preset notion for what a first class scout is, etc. that have led me to argue this. Ultimately it is simply a rather compounded emotion that has led me to dislike this requirement in part, based off of something I cannot touch. Perhaps a natural instinct to quarral and question instilled in teenagers. ALso a possibility I am sure. No matter, to be frank, this requirement is no harder than tying a square knot, and is truly an introduction to public speaking, communications, and leadership, much as tying a square knot can be seen as an introduction to outdoorsmanship. I hope I have not set a bad image of myself to you, but I do have a tendency to question things that change and often disagree with them for no matter, save those changes I consider necessary beyond a doubt. In fact, that really does describe me well. Perhaps I should learn to overcome that instead? I apologize for my commentary, but I tend to do such things often.

I should start off saying I'm a scout and am not quite so well versed with these things as others. Well, this is a rather odd requirement. Although I am a life scout, I do have many kids in the troop who aren't first class yet and will have to abide to this. Hmm, this may be difficult to work with. I mean, it might be possible to get a kid to talk to a rather close friend about it, or perhaps call some of the scouts who left, but many scouts are not exactly for screaming that they are scouts. And, if there is any need for an example of a good reason, a few weeks ago someone spit at me because of my uniform. Quite the annoyance. I can see the utilitarian purpose, but to be frank about it, most kids enter due to being in cubs, although we did have one case of a good friend of someone joining the troop, actually two. So, perhaps it can work, but the fact is equally true that these things came out of the scouts involved wanting to do this with a good friend(me included, actually,) and not do to rank requirement. Putting a quota on this isn't going to work perfectly well, and the age choice, while it may seem appropriate, really isn't. Seventh graders, although I honestly can't remember enough about that grade, really aren't mature enough to accept scouting. Indeed I do remember how wearing a blue jacket had me, quite coincidentially, questioned if I was a scout in middle school. I'm sure that at first it may not seem perfectly relevent, but it does show that even at that stage many of the kids still have a correlation between scouting and so called "kiddiness." And I am sure that many of the popcorn drives, which, I would assume, make scouting look a good bit like a mini fundraiser and a "kiddy" one at that, combined lack of truely good publicity(both actual scouts doing things "scoutish" and lack of media coverage for anything good, which is a rather common plauge) do more to detriment the recruiting efforts than may be expected. It's just that no one really shows anything about what scouting is any more. I guarentee that most ("pre")teenaged kids have never heard of the Order of the Arrow, let alone Venturing. Perhaps if this were covered in these conversations, it might be adequate, but frankly most of these kids are not likely to be receptive to such things. I do see some of the merit in this, but what really irks me is this pressure for recruitment. I hate to say it, but I think that they should leave that to individual troops, because they really do seem to need to clean up things at the larger levels. THere are troops that need to reform and those that need to recruit, and forcing the second on to the first will destroy decaying troops and alienate those recruited. A good scout troop will do this on its own. A truly great one wouldn't have to. I will bring this up next meeting so the non first class scouts know about it and know what to do. Worst comes to worst I'll give them the numbers of some inactive scouts. While I am for helping recruiting, I agree that having it as something more optional would be great. This is a relatively weak requirement to begin with, and really doesn't show anything truly related to first class level skills(if anything it is more attuned to star and life with the leadership aspect of it.

Generally about six months.

My troop generally seems to elect for six months, although it never seems set in stone.

Well, I found this forum after searching around a bit, and I did like the level of activity and fairly easy registration process. As for me, I am a Life scout right now, and am currently SPL as of last week. I'm just trying to figure out what needs to be done and such. So, how is everyone anyway?