SR540Beaver

Adults have to be nominated and then those nominations have to be approved by the Lodge. Contact the Lodge Secretary and ask if you are on the list of this years candidates. If you are, you are. If you are unable to contact the secretary, contact the Lodge Adviser and explain the situation and ask his advice.

Acco, I disagree on relying on the SM to do the screening as "passing the buck". Doesn't he make the Scout Spirit judgement call on all the rank advancements? I had one dad in our troop state that OA should be like the school honor society, if you meet the requirements, you are automatically in. Of course, this was when his kid wasn't on the ballot. The requirements are: To be considered for nomination, a youth candidate (under 21 years of age) must meet the following requirements: 1. Must be under 21 years old at the time of election. 2. Hold at least the First Class Scout rank (this includes adult leaders over the age of 18 but under the age of 21; they must have earned First Class before their 18th birthday). 3. In the past two years, have completed fifteen days and nights of camping under the Boy Scouts of America. The fifteen days and nights of camping must include one long-term camp of six days and five nights, and the balance of the camping must be short-term camps. 4. Have these requirements certified by the Scoutmaster, and be given a general endorsement of the candidate's Scout Spirit by the Scoutmaster before the election is conducted. 5. To be elected, a youth candidate must receive half or more votes of the number of ballots turned in to the election team. 6. If elected, a candidate must complete the Ordeal within one year of his or her (in the case of adults) election.

Being a Chapter Adviser, I'm familiar with the election process.....Lord knows I've been to plenty of them. As someone else noted, boys see things different than adults. We held an election this year at a troop where two boys the adults expected to get elected did not. These boys were 17 year old Eagle Scouts. The boys who were elected were less "desireable". The SM called me and wanted to know if they could have a re-do as they didn't like the results. My answer, NO. Unless you can show where the election team didn't expalin the process in an understandable way or that the system was gamed in some way, the results are the results regardless of whether adults like them or not. Our teams went thru a training process this year, use the OA election videos, followed up by their own verbal presentation and a question and answer period before ballots are passed out. The team always has a trained adult along to run interference if adult troop leaders want to give the team any difficulty. The elction was fair and square. What I explained ot this SM was that I don't know his troop or it's dynamics, but that boys see and experience things that adults don't. While his two 17 year old Eagle Scouts might be the pride of the troop in the adult's eyes, how did they treat the other scouts when adults weren't around? Did they come to campouts? Did they provide leadership? Were they friendly, kind and courteous to the younger boys or were they jerks who didn't want ot be bothered with little kids? The other thing I pointed out was that he as SM is the gate keeper to the ballot. Regardless of technically meeting the minimum requirements for OA, he and he alone determines their Scout Spirit and whether they belong on the ballot. My other question to him was if we did come do a re-do and he removed the boys who were elected and his two Eagles still didn't get elected, then what? His final solution was to come back a couple of months later and say that he was new, he was overwhelmed, he didn't read our detailed email explaining the process and he had come to realize that only one of the boys elected was actually eligible at the time of the election. He asked that I remove the other four who were elected. Since I assume he was being trustworthy, I did as he asked. His two Eagles still didn't get in, but four of his boys who were elected by their peers were denied. My suggestion. The SM determines who is on the ballot based on Scout Spirit and you let the chips fall where they may when the counting is done. There is always next year. Keep in mind that even though a youth ages out at 18 in Scouts, he is still considered a youth until 21 in OA. If he stays registered with the troop as an adult after 18, he can still be on the ballot as long as he meets the other requirements.

My point all along is that we need to keep the target audience in mind here. We are not talking about professional educator theory and methodology. We are talking about an introduction to teaching a simple skill to pre-teen boys by pre-teen boys in many cases. Nowhere does BSA say that EDGE is the end all, be all of educational training models that fit every training instance in any environment. If I were a paid corporate trainer training professionals, I'd do many of the various steps Beavah mentions. After all, I'd be getting paid big bucks by corporations to teach their associates information that in turn will enahance the corporations productivity and profit. A 14 year old Life Scout sitting on a log, one on one with an 11 year old boy to teach him a bowline can easily do that with the four components of EDGE 99.9% of the time. Do we really think we need to: 1. Space learning over time. Arrange to review key elements of content after a delay of several weeks to several months after initial presentation. 2. Interleave examples with problem solving exercises. 3. Combine graphics & demonstrations with verbal descriptions. 4. Connect and integrate abstract ideas with concrete representations. 5. Use evaluation to promote learning. a) Start with pre-questions to introduce a new topic b) Use quizzes to re-expose and reinforce key content. 6. Help students allocate study efficiently by assisting with evaluation and helping them learn how to judge how well they've learned. 7. Ask deep explanatory "hard" questions. Use instructional prompts that encourage students to pose and answer "deep-level" questions on the material. Do we really want to go there to teach one kid how to tie a knot? The 14 year old is going to look at you like your crazy when you try to get him to absorb this teaching method to teach an 11 year old to tie a knot. The 11 year old is going to tell you he just wants you to show him how to do it. I'll go to my grave saying you guys are over thinking this and turning it into a huge process of standard and recognized academic theories and models. It's just a kid teaching another kid to tie a knot. I'll step out on a limb here and say that I can't think of another valid or needed way to teach a person how to tie a knot beyond the components of EDGE. It is a useful tool for the job at hand.

BS-87, Even though mainstream "conservatives" finally came to their senses and are more accepting of Ron Paul, I doubt he will ever be elected. My vote would go for former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson. He is out there actively working, but you hear very little about him.

KC, Actually, a few people here have poo-poo'ed the whole concept of EDGE repeatedly. All you need to do is go back to the original thread and read the objections. Here is just one such sample from Beavah who declared it a FAIL over and over. Beavah: "A colleague in education pointed me to the Dept. of Education clearinghouse of "What Works" in education based on sound research (http://ies.ed.gov). The practice guide for teachin' techniques that they offer there doesn't seem to correspond very well to EDGE. Here's what it has for recommendations: 1) Space learning over time. Arrange to review key elements of content after a delay of several weeks to several months after initial presentation. EDGE: Fail. Nuthin' like that in EDGE, though it's interestin' that I've seen several scouters here write about how they introduce this kind of delay when teaching or checking for advancement. 2) Interleave examples with problem solving exercises. EDGE: Fail. EDGE proposes that yeh proceed linearly through the steps. First Explain, then Demonstrate, then Guide... The research says it works best if yeh interleave 'em, goin' back and forth. 3) Combine graphics & demonstrations with verbal descriptions. EDGE: Fail. Again, research suggests that da best practice is to demonstrate and explain together, startin' with the demonstration which draws interest. 4) Connect and integrate abstract ideas with concrete representations. EDGE: huh? This seems to be edu-speak for introduce the deeper concepts alongside the less abstract, concrete stuff. So introduce the deeper concept of physiological responses to injury when doin' more concrete first aid for shock. Nuthin' like that in EDGE. 5) Use evaluation to promote learning. a) Start with pre-questions to introduce a new topic b) Use quizzes to re-expose and reinforce key content. EDGE: Fail. EDGE has nuthin' about how to use quizzes or evaluation, let alone suggesting you start by raising questions instead of explanations. BSA Advancement: Fail. Retesting is shown by the research to improve understanding and effective learning. 6) Help students allocate study efficiently by assisting with evaluation and helping them learn how to judge how well they've learned. EDGE: Fail. Nothing in EDGE about helpin' students to reflect on what they know or how well they know it, and help 'em then focus on the things that need more work. 7) Ask deep explanatory "hard" questions. Use instructional prompts that encourage students to pose and answer "deep-level" questions on the material. EDGE: Fail. Nothing in EDGE about this. BSA Advancement: Fail. The requirements are all simple-task oriented, and fail to push scouts toward deep understanding of da material. Yah, hmmm... So that's a 100% failure rate for EDGE when yeh look at what really works for teachin'. Doesn't strike me as fundamentally sound, but I'm only an amateur in da field."

Good Lord NO, that isn't OA policy. I'm a Chapter Adviser and we have 21 troops in our district. Year before last we only had 9 troops that allowed us in to do elections. After much work, we got that up to 16 troops this last year. This year I hope to increase that number again. Telling troops you will not do an election is counter-productive. I'm trying to get troops to LET us come do an election. We have several troops that for whatever reason, simply do not want their boys involved. They are the tough nuts to crack, but we are working on it. You hear a lot about sash and dash and Lodges withholding things like pocket flaps until an Arrowman participates in X number of events. An Arrowman's first responsibility is to his unit. If he is providing service to his unit and encouraging camping, summer camp and high adventure, he is doing his job. Would we like for him to darken the door of a Chapter meeting, help with elections, join the ceremony team, attend Lodge work days at camp, etc.? Heck yeah! But OA is like anything else, we compete for a boy's time and the extra program we provide is only going to appeal to a certain subset of boys. While I don't like that, it is the reality and I deal with it. I'd be cutting my Chapter and our Lodge's throat if I started making demands and withholding "perks" of the troops out there. That's just crazy.

Actually, there have been folks who have totally dismissed EDGE in the previous threads. Not just questioning why BSA chose to lock the single method into a requirement, but flat out say it doesn't work. I disagree. People wanted studies prvoing it. Can't give you any. For that matter, I can't give you studies proving any other BSA requirement. As invaluable as it may seem to some, I can say that my personal experience is that it does work.....depending on what you are using it for, and that is important to keep in mind. What else is important to keep in mind is the intended audience. Our audience isn't adults, professionals, technical analysts, etc. who may require more sophisticated forms of training. Our audience is 13 and 14 year old boys teaching 10 and 11 year old boys some basic outdoor skills. There is nothing wrong with Beavah's 8 step method from another thread. Except for the fact that the vast majority of 13 year olds are not going to have the training skills to assess the various learning needs of those they are training and customize their approach to the group. Heck, the requirement isn't even to teach a group. It is to teach another young scout a simple skill. EDGE works fine to do that. Do we really want to throw 6 different educational theories at a 13 year old Life Scout and tell him to pick one to use? EDGE is basic and simple and tailored to it's audience, both the trainer and the trainee. Why specify EDGE. Because it is simple and helps them remember. What do we tell kids about being lost in the woods? STOP. What do we tell kids about sprains? RICE. Do you do those things in every single instance? No, it depends on the circumstance. Does that invalidate them because 1 time out of 50 it doesn't apply? No. As I've stated multiple times, too many folks are over thinging this and complicating it. It is a simple acronym to help a 13 year old boy remember how to teach a simple skill to an 11 year old boy. For the listed requirements they have to teach, it will work just fine.

KC, I'm going for both actually. I mentioned utter failure, poppycock and snake oil in an earlier post as those were actual terms that others have associated with the method and it's components, regardless of what order they are used in. It has been stated that there is NO evidence that it works and personal experience has been disregarded as evidence. I could wade thru the 7 pages of posts and pull out other terms used to boo and hiss the method, but I think most people here have already read them. My exercise is simple. If the particular method is worthless and there is no evidence it works, then it should be easy to describe superior methods employed by others that do not use the components within the method held in such low regard. I'm asking for examples.

I refer all to this thread to learn why the "training method that shall not be named" is verbotten in this exercise. http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=310776 Eagle92, you used steps that are included in the "training method that shall not be named". That method has been deemed an utter failure. Go back to start and try again. KC9DDI, because the "training method that shall not be named" which contains the components of explain, demonstrate, guide and enable have been deemed, poppycock and snake oil. Go back to start and try again. SP, sink or swim would meet the criteria of this exercise. You've got spunk kid! I like the way you think. Extra points for the deep water motivator.

Since the "training method which shall not be named" has been roundly deemed to be a Wood Badge concoction to destroy scouting as we once knew it, is no more than snake oil and has no basis in scientific research or scholary review, I propose a challenge. What other method would you/do you use to teach rank requirement scouting skills to your youth? As part of this challenge, you can't use any of the dreaded parts of the "training method which shall not be named". No explaining, no demonstrating, no guiding and no enabling. Those parts in any combination are the bane of scouting and unworthy of use. Without using those parts, what scientifically valid method(s) would you use to teach a skill. PS Mimes are out as part of this exercise too.

KC9DDI, What was Baden Powell's evidence that using the outdoors to base the Scouting movement on would have been any better than building it around the game of cricket? Did he consult scientific research or give some other base a go? Try an experiment. Step 1, personally take one of your new scouts and employee EDGE to teach him how to tie a square knot. See if it works. Step 2, work with an older boy on using the method to teach a new boy how to tie a square knot. See if it works. Step 3, have the new boys imitate how they were taught and have them teach another boy. You might be amazed at the evidence happening before your eyes. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a natural process people have used thru history. The fact that you can't find books or scientific studies written on the acronym "EDGE" in no way negates the validity of the method.

Ltfightr, We had a couple of patrol yells. "Gee Wally!" and "Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver" from the old Leave it to Beaver show. I think we may have even thrown in, "good morning Miss Landers" one morning.

His name was Edgar Edgington from Edgesville. And now you know the ressssst of the story. Good day! Apologies to Paul Harvey.

Sherm: "When we insist upon certain methods for performing first aid or CPR, building fires, using the buddy system or using the LNT ethic, we do so because there are well-defined reasons for employing those methods. Particularly in the areas of health and safety, it is important to ensure that methods are consistent and uniform." Really? In the past 10 years I've learned four different CPR methods. The latest model is dumbed down to just doing compressions with no breathing. I wouldn't call that uniform or consistent. You know what was uniform and cosistent, the different organizations that taught my CPR course all employeed Explain, Demonstrate, Guide and Enable in all four different CPR methods. Of course they didn't say that was what the teaching.learning method they were going to use, but it is indeed how they went about doing it.

Bear with me as I tell a story. When my son was a 9th grader, he was called to the office. It was the only time in his life. The kids had a habit of leaving books, notebooks and other personal materials in a teachers room and she had had enough. She rounded it all up and sent it to the office. What got my son called into the Vice Principal's office was what was in his notebook. Someone decided to play a prank on him and wrote the word "penis" all over the inside of his notebook. The VP asked him if it was his notebook. Yes sir. Then the VP opened it and showed it to him and asked what all the writing in it was about. My son's eyes were as big as saucers as he said, "I have no idea sir, I didn't write it". His shocked reaction told the VP he was telling the truth. They visited a little and then the VP asked my son what he did outside of school. He said, "Boy Scouts". The VP replied, "that's it! I know the minute we started talking that there was something different about you and the way you carried yourself." Turns out this VP had been a scout, made it to Life, worked on his Eagle project but never finished and was an Arrowman to boot. They became friends and he became a great encouragement to my son in both his education and his scouting. What does that story have to do with MB's. Adult association. Our scouts learn how to present and handle themselves in an adult world thru adult association. The VP saw an confidence, maturity and attitude that in part came from the scouting experience. Our scouts get a lot of adult association just thru scouting, but MB's enhance that experience when the boys do it the old fashioned way of calling up an MBC and scehduling time with a the MBC and a buddy to work with them instead of in a group setting. I'm not against a group setting. Our troop offers certain MB's, especially some of the Eagle required MB's that we want ot make sure the boys get a high quality experience on. They are never done as part of troop meetings, but held seperatly. We also hold an annual MB Fair, but we have very high standards and will not allow them to be watered down. All of that being said, my personal preference would be to avoid MB Fairs, doing MB's as part of a Camporee (that isn't what a Camporee is about to begin with) and many of the MB's done at summer camp. My preference is doing it the old school way with a kid having to pick up the phone and call a stranger, make the request, work out the details, meet them, look in their eye, shake their hand and learn under them. One, they learn something that they never knew before. Two, they fulfill rank advancement requirements. Three, they learn about themselves, about others and how to interact and be self confident. I'm perfectly cool with a kid making Eagle with exactly 21 MB's as long as the process makes the scout into a better person along the way.

Snake oil? Hooey! Evidence? If I smack my thumb with a hammer, the hurt is the evidence. If people have been explaining a skill, demonstrating it, guiding someone thru it and then enabling them to do it and the person learns the skill and then passes it on, that is all the evidence you need. I've seen it done. I've done it. That is my personal experience and all the evidence I need to know it is one viable teaching tool out of a whole toolbox of tools. I really don't need a scientific, peer reviewed research paper with charts to know it works since I have personally experienced it. Be honest with us Beavah. Are you saying that a person can NOT use EDGE and have it result in the learning of a skill? I'm not asking if it is the best method. I'm not asking if it is the only method. I'm asking if you really, honestly believe it to be "snake oil" used to deceive an innocent person and rob them of the opportunity to learn a skill?

qwazse, I have no idea. I don't write the handbook or determine the requirements. I assure you, it would look quite different if I did. I'm just one of those guys that tries to provide the program as designed to the best of my ability. I think I can safely say that as long as there has been scouting, there has been an adult somewhere who thinks that national is off their rocker and that they have a superior idea. I realize I'm coming across as defending EDGE. That really isn't my intent. I just think that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The requirement is the requirement, goood or bad. As an adult leader, I feel honor bound to follow and provide the program as it is designed with the hope that someone up the ladder will eventually get an ear full, see the light and revise the requirement that people don't like. Until then, I'll follow what is in the book. It's the trustworthy thing to do.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Don't know how I can be overthinking something cavemen naturally did to pass on skills to their clan. Which by the way, predates mimes by a few hundred thousand years.

Beavah, EDGE is exactly what an ADHD kid would need. Two scouts, one on one working together using hands on to learn how to do something. EDGE isn't just for class room teaching. In fact, the only part of EDGE that would remotely apply to a classroom might be the Explain part. But explaining something doesn't mean a dry 30 minute lecture in every case......especially when the requirement is for a Life Scout to teach a younger BOY (as in individual) a skill. Think two boys in a patrol on a campout, one a Life Scout, one younger and teaching how to tie a knot. Forget the formality of an acronym and following the E D G E to the letter of the law. This isn't court. 99.9% of the time, a person will use EDGE in one form or fashion without even knowing it. One would think that something as simple as pushing a pushbroom would be a no brainer. You'd be surprised how many kids have no idea how to use one and end up pulling it to them or trying to push it like a bulldozer. It usually goes something like this. Bobby, part of your job working in the kitchen at summer camp will be sweeping the dining hall. You've seen what the floor looks like at the end of a meal. If we left it there meal after meal, we'd have dirt, grass, food, etc. up to our knees by the end of the week, not to mention mice and bugs. We have to keep it clean and I'm going to show you how we use a pushbroom to sweep. That's all the explanation needs to be. The next thing I'd do is demonstrate how and how not to use the pushbroom, which will require me to continue doing some explaining. Once I've demonstrated it, I hand him the broom and tell him to take a crack at it. If he misses something or didn't understand something, we'll go back over it. When it looks like he has gotten the hang of it thru the guidance phase, I'm going to go back to peeling spuds while he sweeps the dining hall on his own. When he's done, I'll look to see how he did. If he did a good job, I could tell him that Tommy needs to learn how and I have a ton of spuds to peel....could he teach Tommy? If he did a poor job, we'll step back thru the process. That is what EDGE is. It is not a formal 4 step process like fold on line A, cut on line B, insert tab 1 into slot 2. It is a process of give and take based on the ability of the teacher and the student and their interaction. It's really that simple and not nearly as rigid as you want to make it. You're way over thinking something extremely simple and in use since pre-history.

Lisabob: "What I really don't understand though, is why it is ok to cut services and benefits for the middle and lower-middle class, while leaving the wealthiest individuals unscathed. Why is it so impossible to close a few tax loopholes on the wealthiest among us? What happened to shared sacrifice, when the sacrifices are falling almost entirely on the poor and middle classes?" Lisa, I'm not trying to start a fight with you, but want to give a different perspective. While my wife and I are not one of those $250,000 per year "wealthy people" Obama wants to raise taxes on, we are nicely compensated for our skills and labor. I came from a blue collar background where my dad spent over 30 years in a meat packing plant. My wife's dad was a teacher and we all know how they get paid. Our parents wanted for us to have it better than them. They valued a good hard work ethic and education. We were expected to toe the line and stay out of trouble. Our parents led by example. When we were turned 16 and were able to drive, we were expected to get jobs to buy our own cars, gas and insurance while maintaining our grades at school. Our parents skrimped and saved and got us thru college. WE took our college educations and found jobs in out chosen professions. We worked hard and over the years have done quite well because of our efforts, sense of personal responsibility and making good choices. Much praise goes to our parents for how they raised us and expected us to step up to the challenge. We are raising our son the same way and he is a straight A honors student with a high ACT score, a scholarship to college where he will be in the honors college next fall. My son's ex-girlfriend is a different story. A sweet and bright girl that we love dearly. She was raised in a different environment. Her parents chose to not persue additional education. They have job hopped over the years and remain just above entry level positions. Their expectations of their duaghter's grades are no all that high. They just want her to pass. They have always put pleasure ahead of work and don't worry about how they will pay for things down the road. So, what you have here is an example of the "haves" and the "have nots" we always hear about when it comes to taxes and entitlements that we just can't afford to do away with without being seen as cold and heartless to the people who are not as well off as others. If you are going to get a free ride for college based on your academics, you have to be in the 99 percentile with an ACT of 32 or higher. My son is in the 93 percentile with an ACT of 29. He has an $8000 scholarship which is $1000 per semester over 4 years. My wife and I are on the hook for the additional $8000 per semester his education will cost. Why? Because we don't have enough need? My son's ex-girlfriend qualifies for a state program that will virtually pay for her entire college costs simply because her parents don't make enough. She doesn't even have to have that great of grades. You know, I'm a pretty generous and charitable person. If I weren't I wouldn't be buried neck deep in things like scouting. Why is it fair for the government to forcibly take more of my hard earned money to give to people who have not worked as hard to level the playing field? You know, I'd like to choose who and what I provide my charitable contributions to rather than the government determine that for me. It isn't the governments job to provide for people. My parents sacrificed. I've sacrificed. As far as a "shared sacrifice", I'd like to personally buy into that rahter than the government tell me what "my" sacrifice will be. There are far to many people out there who won't take personal responsibility because they know the government will tax people who have taken risk, worked hard, earned wealth and give them part of that person's wealth. What a sweet deal? Money for nothing. We need tax reform and we need it now. We need to quite talking about taxing producers more and handing out entitlements to non-producers. It isn't the way the world works and it shouldn't be how goverment works. People shouldn't be forced into providing charity and people should come to expect a hand out. It is counter-productive. I'm with Packsaddle on the Fair Tax. Let people keep every red cent they make and then determine how much tax they will pay based on what they buy.

My son did his Eagle project at a Campfire USA camp back in November.

KC9DDI, Here is what the requirement says, "While a Star Scout, use the EDGE method to teach a younger Scout the skills from ONE of the following seven choices, so that he is prepared to pass those requirements to his unit leader's satisfaction." Closing the loophole is the statement of, "so that he is prepared to pass those requirements to his unit leader's satisfaction." A Star Scout doesn't just use EDGE and get signed off on his requirement. The boy he taught must actually be able to be signed off on the requirement he was taught for the Star Scout to be signed off. There is accountability built in. Of course, that is if you actually follow the requirements as written in the book instead of viewing them as passing thoughts or mere guidelines. I guess an SM who runs his own version of the program can just pencil whip it or change it to his liking.

Jet526 mewntioned that it sounded like my team came from one troop, which is mostly true. Our troop has always been highly supportive of OA. The previous Chapter Adviser was from our troop. All of the Chapter leadership and ceremony team come form our troop with the exception of one boy who has gotten involved. Last week, he brought a friend who we hope to get involved. Actually, I had a 1 boy each from 2 troops other than the 1 boy I now have which would have made 3 team members from 3 troops in addition to the rest of the team from my troop. The 2 boys from the other 2 troops decided to join my troop. It really worried me because I have been working hard to get boys from other troops to join. I was afraid the our troop would get the image of using OA to steal boys from other troops. The truth of the matter is that the troops they came from are really struggling and we have a great program. They had been considering a move before they even got involved with ceremonies. One of the issues I have is that having the team from one troop hurts us when someone wants a ceremony on a date the troop has scheduled a campout. I really, really, really want to get out from under the image that the OA Chapter is a part of our troop program, because it is not. I've had a lot of difficulty getting some of the SM's in the district to buy into OA. When we've worked on scheduling elections, we've highly encouraged the SM to be the adult nominated fro mtheir troop so he can gain an understanding of OA and promote it. Some just flat refuse and say they don't have time to add OA to their schedule. If they won't, their boys won't. I look forward to this thread because I'm very open to ideas on how to win over SM's, get boys for election and ceremony teams and really get the Chapter ball rolling. The biggest complaint I hear from boys is that OA is gay. But everything is gay it seems.

Ed, In the other thread some of our fellow scouters have lamented on how totally lacking the evil EDGE method is as a tool for scouts to use to teach. The evils of Wood Badge were even thrown in for good measure. I think what OGE is looking for is for the folks who see the conspiracy behind the insideous nature of EDGE to belly up to the bar with their much more Sure fire, cracker jack, works every time, superior methodology, such as mimes......but I could be wrong.