Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. I know what you are saying, but you could phrase it better.
  3. Today
  4. It's hard to know where to start, but I I want to look at two ideas that I see as somewhat related. 1) that today's scouts are being punished and 2) that somehow these crimes are being judged too harshly because things were different then. My council owns two camps, one is over 100 years old and the other is over 50. Neither I nor my scouts are entitled to those camps by virtue of anything I or they have done. I've invested some time, treasure, and talent towards them in the last 20 years, but that's certainly only a small part of them. If I and my scouts are going to benefit from those
  5. I was sincerely asking him to whom he was referring there. I wasn't being snarky. Was it all people in society, as in the general consensus, or here or within the inner world of this case or what? If he only meant the majority on the forum, I get it. He seemed to be implying the reference was to the public at large. Sorry if I didn't get it. Did he answer?
  6. Even if that were true, I would still argue that scouting is philosophically different from other organizations. B-P founded scouting on the premise that a scout is to be trusted. That premise was fundamentally different from other organizations of his time. It is fundamentally different from other organizations of our time. We are being challenged by a legal system that believes that boys can not, and should not, be trusted. BSA has failed us in that it is not arguing our main point. Whether we say a scout is to be trusted, or a scout is trustworthy, this should be our main ar
  7. "Almost," I said. Taking the 100+/- year history and 85,000ish claims in this bankruptcy alone, not to mention all those not filed and the numbers of repeat and varied instances of abuse against one Scout (who comprises only one claim among them). I say with confidence almost 1000 and likely more. Take into consideration the repeat abuse, which I think must be considered, as it will be by the Settlement Trustee, and my point is made. We're not talking about any other organization. I know this is all about history, societal context and relative degrees of culpability for many of you, but this d
  8. It really isn't fair for you to pose the question to us, and then criticize us when we attempt to answer your question.
  9. The more I think about this ... the more I'd 100% support Philmont National Park created to be used by youth organizations throughout the nation. It matches many of the core goals of scouting and at the same time preserves a real national treasure. If Summit is not reserved via the recent donation, I'd 100% hope we could have the Summit National Park.
  10. Your anger is understandable. People have to put their anger somewhere. Statistically, scouts is not that much different than other organizations. We've been thru this. I don't see the 1000 reference you are producing and don't accept the premise. You say 1000. So high school sports has 17,.000 over four years. That's over 4,000 per year in high school sports. Perhaps it is best for kids to stay home and do nothing.
  11. I'm stunned. The entire premise of scouting is that boys can be trusted. They can go camping with their buddies, with limited parental involvement, and have it be strictly clean and wholesome. That is scouting. Take away the trust, and it is no longer a scouting program.
  12. When did I say that? I was repeatedly sexually abused by my SM. That's some personal not so kind business by virtue of it being the truth. What to do? There it is. Again, see my story for more. I've provided a ton more than personal information, if I do say so myself. Once again, I do. When defense is called for, it's called for. I'm not "just a messenger," didn't claim to be and I'm not setting myself up as the authority or end all be all. I've said that many times. Not true as to this forum anyway. Many have not whined. Many don't "speak," rather read and conte
  13. OK, but ThenNow is saying that he is here to provide information, but in providing information, he keeps giving a personal, not so kind opinion, of the BSA, Then defends himself as just the messenger. Continued Unleasing on him. All of us here whine now and then about National, but at least we admit it. He needs to be a scout like with us as he says the BSA is supposed to be.
  14. As I understand it, the amount that the claimant could get if they took their case individually though settlement or a jury verdict, on the merits of that case alone, not limited by the amounts due all other claimants. So for example, consider the following pleading by a claimant lawyer who posted the exact same document twice to the docket (once for each of his two clients; although maybe he has others who weren't on board with this particular motion), and appears to be working from a template that was shared among multiple claimant lawyers: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/c
  15. We're talking about sexual abuse, not monkey bridge height restrictions or the dreaded and verboten dodge ball. This was in quotes and pretty clearly meant to magnify a point. As per your fellows, 20% of the parents help. A few wander around and watch, then leave. A goodly number drop and run. This is what I was told. Also, by the by, that's not even what I actually said. This is: "It's all good. We got this. You can trust us 100%!" It was about the perception of parents. Not involvement. So, by implication, parents are involving their kids and thinking, "Hm. Crap. My kid might b
  16. I'm sure that's one of the core arguments for liability; the problem with conducting this analysis, as I see it, is threefold: It appears to be very difficult for most people to consider the issue in the context of the time in which it was occurring. I regularly read comments and posts (not necessarily on here) from people talking about how "The BSA should have always been doing background checks" or "There's no excuse for not letting other agencies know someone was a pedophile". This of course ignores the fact that until the 1990s, there wasn't really such a thing as a background chec
  17. Let me simply ask please. Can anyone realistically; Make any of the claimants whole, if their claims are accurate? How much effect was there from families if the report was made? How much outside pressure from societal forces occurred when reported? How, especially when BSA was not yet a required reporter, were they to override the community responses common at the time? Today, IF the actual perpetrator(s) or even their families are still around, is anything being done to bring them into the case? And, if the facts should suggest that the family, or someone in
  18. So I read through the new Plan, and the major differences from before are: An estimate of total abuse liability from $2.4 billion to $7.1 billion, prepared by Bates & White after analysis of a statistical sample of the abuse claims and comparison with "comparable" settlements and judgements The Trust Distribution Procedures, with a rough guide to how much different levels of abuse would relatively be worth, and a list of factors the Trustee might use of increase or decrease a particular claimant's payout The "Toggle Plan", under which neither COs nor LCs would pay in anyt
  19. Maybe because I asked him to stay. So blame me. I'm Spartacus. RS
  20. Ha. Refer to the posts by others, please. This is starting to get humorous. I'm making a tick chart of all the times I get blasted or asked to leave, in multiple ways. Eagle1993 Senior Member Moderators 767 1209 posts Popular Post Posted Thursday at 02:14 PM On 4/8/2021 at 10:39 AM, Eagledad said: I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message. The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that
  21. This is what you said. You put me on a "side." You've not read my posts nor, I guess, seen those about me from others on your "side." Do I think perpetrators should've been or should be punished? Yup. Did I try? Yup. Do i think the BSA has vicarious liability? That is irrelevant. The law says they do. That's where we find ourselves. Both of us. All of us. I would go into the "what if" your son were me (albeit me 50 years ago), but that's probably not worth it. Most people tell me it would make no difference. I'm not saying you would, but still. I'm sorry, but you don't know my story, y
  22. All I did is point out is that the lawsuit will punish the scouts in my troop and punish the adults associated with the troop who invested time and money into the program. The wrong people are being punished.
  23. Please read my other posts before this blasting starts again and again and again. Or, ask a couple of the other guys. Several guys have backed me up, supported my position and presence here, and otherwise clarified how they view my input. I hope they don't mind, but among them are very recently DavidCo (even though we had a clash and I was reactive, for which I am sorry), qwazse (directed others to not ask me to go over details and read my posts...ty), CynicalScouter, 5thGenTexan, ynot (has echoed and strongly supported my posts), MisterH, MattR and most recently Eagle1993 with an eloquent not
  24. I’ll respond more thoroughly when back at my computer, but a few sentences for now. I was being intentionally hyperbolic to accentuate the complete absurdity and inapplicability of the initial analogy. The two are in different universes. A one-off at a private party does not equate to 85,000 sexually abused boys in a non-profit organization that BOLDLY holds itself out as Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind...A one-off does not equate to 1000’s of boys sexually abused within one Local Council. A one-off does not equate to 10+ boys sexually abused in one Troop. A one
  25. https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/boy_scout_perversion_files_off.html For a background on why were are here in bankruptcy, this case is likely the one many will point to. One question I would have is on a case by case bases ... who knew what & when and how quickly did they act. That should determine liability regardless of any systemic issue. The second question ... should the BSA have recognized, through their massive file system and decades of reports, that there was an epidemic of sex abusers within the BSA ranks. Should they have seen that simply removing and
  1. Load more activity
  • Posts

    • I know what you are saying, but you could phrase it better.   
    • It's hard to know where to start, but I I want to look at two ideas that I see as somewhat related. 1) that today's scouts are being punished and 2) that somehow these crimes are being judged too harshly because things were different then. My council owns two camps, one is over 100 years old and the other is over 50.  Neither I nor my scouts are entitled to those camps by virtue of anything I or they have done.  I've invested some time, treasure, and talent towards them in the last 20 years, but that's certainly only a small part of them. If I and my scouts are going to benefit from those camps then we do so because we're joining ourselves to the organization that built them, and that legacy, we now know, comes with both benefits and liabilities.  If I'm cheerfully enjoying the former than I have to at least accept the latter, and understand that the legacy is not unencumbered.  If we lose one or even both those camps because the organization whose existence made building them possible also through its negligence  made possible far too many almost unimaginable crimes and injuries, then so be it.  If that's the case then I as a scouter am in the same position that scouters 50 or 100 years ago were in, and I need to do what they did and figure out how to build some camps. As to judging people by some supposed lesser standard 30-40 years ago --- I think that's balderdash.  The rape of children has always been a heinous crime punishable by decades in prison.  I was an adult 40 years ago so it certainly wasn't such a long ago time for me that I would claim that what would be morally wrong for me today would have been morally acceptable for me then.  I'm not quite so old that I would have been one of the decision makers at the scouting level so I wasn't confronted with this type of thing.  I'd like to think that if I had been I would have done the right thing as I understand it now and as I already understood it then.  Maybe I'm honest enough to know that I might not have, and maybe all those excuses we're making today would have been the excuses I would have told myself back then.  But if that's true than shame on me for failing to be Brave, and shame on those who did fail then.  Even if you can explain the failures, that shouldn't be the same as excusing them, and it shouldn't change the accountability for them. There are certainly other people that failed that moral test back then, but make no mistake scouters and the scouting organization were among them.  If some of the good those scouters and that organization accomplished needs to be undone to partially balance that failure with the one group of people who absolutely were not a part of that failure, the victims, then I can find no injustice in that however sad I may also find it.
    • I was sincerely asking him to whom he was referring there. I wasn't being snarky. Was it all people in society, as in the general consensus, or here or within the inner world of this case or what? If he only meant the majority on the forum, I get it. He seemed to be implying the reference was to the public at large. Sorry if I didn't get it. Did he answer?
    • Even if that were true, I would still argue that scouting is philosophically different from other organizations.  B-P founded scouting on the premise that a scout is to be trusted.  That premise was fundamentally different from other organizations of his time.  It is fundamentally different from other organizations of our time. We are being challenged by a legal system that believes that boys can not, and should not, be trusted.   BSA has failed us in that it is not arguing our main point.  Whether we say a scout is to be trusted, or a scout is trustworthy, this should be our main argument.  It goes to the core of our program.  Should BSA, or any scout association, now or in the future, be held liable for trusting boys? I am not a lawyer.  Maybe this is not a good legal argument.  But I would go with it anyway.  Scouting should live or die by its core beliefs.   
    • "Almost," I said. Taking the 100+/- year history and 85,000ish claims in this bankruptcy alone, not to mention all those not filed and the numbers of repeat and varied instances of abuse against one Scout (who comprises only one claim among them). I say with confidence almost 1000 and likely more. Take into consideration the repeat abuse, which I think must be considered, as it will be by the Settlement Trustee, and my point is made. We're not talking about any other organization. I know this is all about history, societal context and relative degrees of culpability for many of you, but this discussion is about the BSA Chapter 11. Right. Wrong. Indifferent. Hate me or hate me or don't. I ain't your problem.  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...