Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by skeptic

  1. 11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    This may actually throw a wrench in the whole process.  I’m not 100% convinced their objection will help abuse victims.  Perhaps, but it looks different than any of the others. 

      I did find it interesting that the DOJ lawyer pulled this quote from another case.   

    noting that “...third party releases are not a merit badge that somebody gets in return for making a positive contribution to a restructuring. They are not a participation trophy, and they are not a gold star for doing a good job. Doing positive things in a restructuring case— even important things— is not enough”

    Okay, what am I missing in regard to the Biden connection?  Did they file some kind of legal involvement?  I looked at the partners on the link given, and currently are no BSA groups that I saw, though I may have missed something.  Also did not see anything related to Scouting in general, or for that matter hardly any major youth serving group.  

  2. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Really? Where? I haven't seen them post on the boards here. Who are they?

    What I see are some people here who are aware that

    1. The states changed civil statutes of limitations, meaning that
    2. Claims against BSA National (and LCs and COs) for allowing thousands of scouts to be secually abused through the negligence have been filed and
    3. At least 900 lawsuits are already filed and pending against BSA/LCs/COs with more to follow, therefore
    4. There is literally no way BSA/LCs/COs are going to avoid having to pay out and that
    5. The only real debate is "How much and when" at this point.

    But like I said, if you've seen people posting that "simply want the BSA Corporate to somehow take total responsibility for a societal sickness for which nobody has a cure" please point them out in the future.



    One, is you Cynical.  You have suggested that somehow BSA did not do enough to stop this from happening.  Reality is that no matter what BSA did  or does, it will never be able to stop abuse entirely, other than simply not have a program or interaction with youth of any kind.  Society, in the past, and still, looks the other way much of the time.  Why, because it is part of the seamier side of the human animal and the cultures in which we live.  You expect BSA, or The Catholic Church, or someone to guarantee that none of these terrible things can or will ever happen.  That is not possible, and surely you know that.  BSA is just the current easy target, and the "vultures" are already peering through their beady eyes at the other youth groups, once they finish with BSA.  And as someone else pointed out in the reparation comparison, you cannot change what happened in the past, nor can you legitimately hold the country, or the corporation, or the church accountable for things today in which they had no say or little or no influence.  The larger issue is rally this idea that somehow, by ruining someone or some corporation, or some church, or some group of mostly civic minded people for the black sheep that slipped in we make someone or society whole.  Not reality, nor is it ever going to fix it all.  A reasonable system that deals fairly and within rational limits deters the worst perpetrators and encourages better vigilance.  Perfection is impossible, and absolute deterrence of evil is also impossible in societies as we know them.  JMO of course.  But, please stop suggesting that I, or others with a bit more rational view do not care about the victims.  We simply do not feel that making current youth victims in a different manner is fixing the problem.  And, T & N, nor any of the other victims will ever be whole, no matter how much they may end up, after the vultures take theirs.

    One could ask where the saving and making whole of the lost souls of the porn industry is, especially those that prey on the youngest off the streets and so on.  What is being done about hose ruined lives?  I suspect that there are plenty of possible targets to blame and hold responsible, but they are backed by big power and dark money, and few will even consider taking that on.  What about the perpetrators of suggestive advertising aimed at the young?  We know pretty much who is responsible, but little is done to enforce those laws.  

    So now, I will attempt to simply watch from the sidelines as this no win argument ( it is no longer a discussion for the most part).  

  3. This whole back and forth is futile, as we have a few that simply want the BSA Corporate to somehow take total responsibility for a societal sickness for which nobody has a cure, and likely never will beyond simply no interaction between adults and children.  The reality that BSA often was acting at the time on the direction of outside authorities, and also families that chose to not chance the victim being publicly visible due to the legal circus, as well as misdirected fear of embarrassment.  Yes, in some instances it appears, though we often do not know for sure why, that someone in BSA may or did choose to not follow up properly.  But, in many cases they were apparently put off by local authorities and family decisions.  The actual victim then was left in the lurch to deal with their trauma with little or no help at the time, and later with emotional adult problems.  

    It seems to me that the only fair thing then, since in the larger sense it is a failure of human nature and society, then we should have a tax on everyone to defray the emotional costs of therapy and so on, since reality is that society is primarily at fault, even more so than the corporate BSA, right behind the actual predators.

    And that is where the reparations comparison falls.  Some how, society, in a different era, failed people, whether youth, slaves, or races, allowing obvious or at least noticeable emotional and physical damage to occur.  And, no amount of retroactive compensation for that damage will ever actually make those victims whole, nor will it stop similar aberrations  in the future.  Mankind is really not necessarily particularly kind, and there are always going to be those that try to take advantage in some way or another, no matter how many barriers are in place.  When the rules are not followed, or someone gets a pass because of connections or money, penalties should be harsh, but not ruinous.  

    Just a view that some here will never feel to be reasonable or even rational.  Most on here are not against some type of compensation and aid to victims, but they do not want it at the expense of the overall positive elements of the program or the opportunities for youth.  In the end, a few will NEVER be happy with the outcome.  

    • Upvote 1
  4. Okay, while I still feel that the tenor of the discussion from Cynical Scouter is not just cynical, but often vicious.  That is me though.  I might have a different opinion if I were to discuss with him directly.  I saw a sea change in the direction of National by NOT putting a professional into the Chief position.  I think that wherever possible, the volunteers should be more visible and have more sway.  On the other hand, I admit to having had a very poor interaction with some National level volunteers in 2010, gentlemen from the OA.  I had approached them in regard to my view on alternate adult requirements that allowed dedicated men who put their "whole" family first, but were key to their units, especially the outdoor program, but did not have the flexibility to spend a week in summer camp without shortchanging their whole family due to limited vacation time.  That opinion was based on a fine ASM who was thoroughly trained, including all the outdoor courses, including backpacking training with first aid.  He was the lead for over three years on many weekend and 3 day outings, but he had two younger daughter and only limited vacation.  So, he chose to spend that vacation with his whole family.  I put him up for adult membership when his son became eligible.  I wrote the reason why I felt they should induct him, making the point of his pushing 40 days and nights of camping and backpacking with the troop, and his advanced training, including Trail Boss and the noted first aid.  I suggested that the intent of membeship for adults was their demonstration of support of the outdoor program, which he did in spades.  I had seen men inducted with only one or two summer camp experiences and almost no weekend or short term camping and hiking.  To me, he was far a far better example.  Oh, I should note that twice, before this, he had gone to camp with his personal tools and done needed repairs, as he was a welder and steel worker.  Anyway, the portly high level OA men with whom I spoke talked me down and basically belittled the idea and said there could be no exceptions, period.  Well, that of course is not true in and of itself.  The ":Chief of the Fire", the council Executive, has the option to override that requirement, though ours at the time would not, refusing to even consider it.  So, his son was elected, but his dad could not go through the ordeal with  him.  The man finally worked out his schedule, with his wife's help, as well as earing more vacation time for longevity, and then he was accepted.  But that was almost three years later, and it left a very bad taste in his mouth and all of my unit adults, and even the youth that understood what happened.  And I have had to deal with a number of really bad district executives and at least two very poor Council exec's.  Thus, the skeptic part tag.  

    So, I will try to overlook my annoyance at the tone, and accept that most on this forum still are for the BSA's survival and finding a better path.  Please accept my apology for perhaps being a bit too judgemental.  Thanks for the time.


    • Upvote 1
  5. 16 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

    As someone who personally knows most of the upper management and executive board of the BSA, yes, I believe that they are honorable men and women who have hired the best attorneys to represent the BSA that they could find and are following the advice of counsel.

    The BSA is paying for the best attorneys available and follow their advice.  Why the course is not something that is clear.  The BSA would be foolish to not do as they are advised.

    You cannot provide where the money originated to purchase and prepare the Summit for the first National Jamboree.   My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA.

    " My memory is that J. P. Morgan provided that money and that the BSA is paying it off.  Until you can provide other factual information, I see no reason to not believe the BSA. " 

    Surely, most that still follow this whole heavily skewed discussion understand that NOTHING that reflects anywhere positively on the BSA side will be believed or accepted by Cynical.  Yes, I purposely leave the second part of his tag off, as I cannot fathom him actually being a Scouter, and he shows no connections in his profile.  He may be, but he long ago appears to have lost the very basic precepts, based on his ongoing vendetta on here.  I could be wrong, and just not understand; but that is the impression I get.  

    I do though thank him for the difficult to find info he furnishes, even if it is always presented in a negative manner.  Other than the legal things he and T & N share, I personally feel this whole thread has pretty much become their field to plow.  At least T & N shares his reasoning and seems to want a survival in some manner.  JMO of course.  

  6. Trying to get some clarity.  First, now the number pending is under 1000; is that just stuff to be added, or did they do some major editing?

    On the docs included, most of the cases seem to be in New York, Arizona, Hawaii, and scattered otherwise.

    On the lists of debtors, I do not understand how it could/would include the Catholic Church AND LDS in the same claim.

    Is it standard legal practices to use this terminology; "Does 1-5
    whose identities are unknown to

    That would seem they are saying we really do not know, so lets just put some empty spots to add people to later.  

  7. 3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    I see. So, lawyers who take on sexual abuse cases are evil vultures?

    And how, exactly, do you think these abuse victims are suppose to file a lawsuit? Go pro se?

    And LCs are not "state sanctioned". They are registered and incorporated as not for profits by each state, but so what? That does not mean the State of Vermont's governor can order LCs not to turn over their assets to national should national refuse to recharter the LC.

    No, lawyers that abuse the legal system and search for "victims" with vague promises and misleading claims are worse.  IF they were only going after the actual abusers or predators, they would not fall into that category, but hey are likely doing almost as much harm as the original predator by dragging emotional pain out of the past and causing many to have to again deal with it.  As noted before, no amount of money will salve this, and the destruction of BSA serves no purpose, other than one of greed by these lawyer vultures.  None of this is ever going to stop the predators, as they will always find a way and will never go away.  The idea that somehow BSA can absolutely stop them is simply ignorant.  It is a dirty and greed shaded vendetta.  

    • Upvote 2
  8. First, it is simply sad that this discussion is even being made.  

    So, if done with the right care, could LC's rewrite their own Charter to include a primary method of distribution of assets, one that does not have NC as the only option?  Yes, the vultures noted above would scream manipulation, but if it is a State sanctioned non profit, does not the state have the first word? 


    • Downvote 1
  9. 44 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

    Suggesting that the loss of scouting for future youth is not a form of moral loss to the culture (my words for abuse) is to suggest the program itself does not promote moral and character growth. That would mean that the BSA mission of " to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." is not valid.

    I have personally witnessed in my own personal observations of many scouts who came to scouting to get away from abusive, harmful and stressful environments in their personal lives. They craved a place where they could fairly practice ethical and moral choices in a safe environment so they could learn and grow in the values of morality and ethics. Many found their scouting unit to be a refuge from their persona lives. Those scouts later became productive adults with families and members of the community.

    If I witness such accomplishments from scouting in my very tiny limited world, how much greater when spread across the whole program? How many youth with abusive personal lives in the future will not have the option of scouting to give them a practice of moral and ethical decisions within community of like minded companions or even a refuge were they can express themselves. 

    I believe a loss of BSA scouting will at the very least take away the possibility of improving morality and ethics of the culture of the nation, much less of the community. In fact, I can't think of any youth program that is even close equal to providing providing youth the opportunity of the BSA mission and vision.


    That is of course the truth and reality.  But, our society seems unwilling to find the fair and better solution, depending on our warped legal system to somehow salve the wounds with money and vindictive decisions.  Meanwhile, as pointed out by a number of posters, the bulk of the iceberg remains hidden and dangerous, mostly in the very places that should be the safest havens, the families and their immediate social constructs.  No manner of revenge or societal water-boarding will solve the larger and most hidden elements of this.  On the other hand, we should continue to find viable ways to keep it at bey.  Strengthen, as we find ways, YP.  More importantly, establish a monitoring system as part of it, and try to assure it is in place.  

    We will NEVER eliminate the darkness that lurks in the human animal or condition.  And completely ruining BSA, or any other mostly positive element of society only makes the darker shadows more likely to grow.    JMPO of course.  

  10. And there is part of the problem.  A small group of people "prefer" that every lurid innuendo is thrown into the public eye.  They do not care about anything but money and media attention.  What is actually fair, balanced, and in the best interest of the greatest number involved does not matter in the least.  Back to the local trenches.  


  11. 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 it, was aware of the propensity that led to the abuse, should they too then be held accountable along with the BSA, any authorities that chose to look away or pass it off as minor?

    Can ANYONE seriously suggest that killing the BSA and other youth serving organizations EVER STOP perpetrators?  NO; they are part of human nature, though the darker part.  

    Should this whole mess lead to a complete restructuring of our legal system so as to take away much of the good old boy, money, and power factors?inally, can most of us with rational thought really want the current youth to be punished for the crimes of past adults and organizational problems?


    For me, the answer to most of these is no, other than the last one, realistically.  Further, the ruin of the BSA will serve no purpose, other than that of the vulture lawyers.  ALL of us with any kind of longevity know that the community good the BSA gives far outweighs most of this.  We also know that BSA is only a target among many, but one the lawyers found easier to attack.  Now some of them are already salivating over the Y, Boys and Girls Club, and 4-H, as well as GSA.


    • Upvote 2
  12. 22 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

    Speaking of 4H, I was looking at the TCC summary of abuse claims again and I noticed that there are three claims that list the chartered organization as "4H Club". Page 16 of 328 (page 39 of the PDF), about halfway down.

    Also 402 for "YMCA", 167 for "Boys and Girls Club" , 89 for "Boy Scouts of America", 9 for "Police Athletic League", 5 for "United Way", 5 for "Red Cross".

    (I once invited a family to attend Cub Scout meetings, but the parent was reluctant because they had a standing commitment to attend Boys and Girls Club daily earlier in the day and transportation would have been difficult from one place to the other. They did attend exactly one pack activity, a fire-station visit. The parent passed away only a month or so later, from an accident while attempting repair of an automobile.)

    And one at the West Texas Boys Ranch (Guardian exposé)...

    "Also 402 for "YMCA", 167 for "Boys and Girls Club" , 89 for "Boy Scouts of America", 9 for "Police Athletic League", 5 for "United Way", 5 for "Red Cross".   So, it appears that based on this both the Y and the Boys and Girls clubs in theory should be on the hook too?  I do not understand if these details are accurate why we are not seeing something related to the other groups.  I do not want them damaged either, but why should BSA take the full impact?


    • Upvote 1
  13. 23 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

    I would have thought there would have to be some predator motivation to make a claim. I don't see a predator in your incident. A lot of scouts used to go down stream at summer camp to skinny dip. Claims?


    Maybe, in today's atmosphere.  Things once considered just normal life's activity today often draw strange responses, especially when they get brought up in a multigenerational interaction.  Kind of like the idea that somehow we survived some possibly bad ideas such as riding in the back of trucks with little or nothing to keep us in place.  Or, as foolish dare devils jumping off of high places into unknown water, or drag racing.  I find myself wondering how I ever made it out of childhood with not bike helmet, no seat belts, no required life jackets for poor or non swimmers, or even just playing in the streets at dusk.  Yet we did.  


    • Upvote 1
  14. 14 hours ago, yknot said:

    Since when do men and women of character offload responsibility to some government entity? What is scouting about if it isn't about seeing, knowing, and doing the right thing? I am growing impatient with this idea that it is never our fault because it was someone else's responsibility to tell us what to do. We ran the organization. We oversaw the kids. We knew what was happening. It was our job to keep them safe. We failed.  

    I continue to have an issue with the use of the "broad brush" that puts ALL of us in the same basket, even though most of us would have had no idea about what was happening, especially in some other state or location.  YES, there were huge judgement errors made and maybe even a few purposefully.  But that should not brand the majority, in this case the very large majority of adults and, yes, some scouts, as responsible for it all.  I suspect if you were to delve into many councils and units going back decades, and found those "in the know" you might find how many of the "bad actors" actually were removed or barred.  That includes in units and within the youth ranks.  Not only do these things actually seldom get wide public exposure due to their very nature, and the privacy of those involved, but other than assuring the report to the proper authority is made, it is none of our responsibility to make it public, especially if it would stigmatize anyone in error; and yes it could be unverified or even made up.  Catch 22 of course.  


    • Upvote 1
  15. 19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

    You hunker down and warn them to stay in their tents and not get in the open.  The shelter is just as likely to be a lightening draw as a tent, as is the boathouse, and they are on the lake which is also open.  Stay away from the trees if possible.  Do not touch metal of any kind.  Assure they all understand and whatever you do, they need to stay separate as they are.  Once the storm moves out, you can appraise the damage, if there is any.  Do not need what we had at the 85 Jamboree the first night when Hurricane Bob ran a squall line through our campsite, knocking down one tent, busting tree branches, and causing some boys to panic.  


    Let me revise this a bit.  Shelter in place if you can determine a safe location that is low, dry, and less likely to carry current.  Rethinking my concern for the boat house, if there are is enough space, as long as it is separated from the ground inside, that may be best.  Obviously, a vehicle is better, but you still have to get to any of these things.  The picnic shelter is an absolute no-no.  Kind of a hard decision, and storms do catch you on occasion, no matter how well planned, especially on back packs.  Away from trees, stay insolated from the ground a well as possible, do not touch metal or anything likely to carry current, stay low and as small as possible (they recommend grabbing knees in some info).  Now, if there is enough time, other options may be better.  Hopefully you chose a good spot for the tent, if you have to stay in it, one that is not too low or near large trees.  The insolation issue still applies.  You also need to stay as far from the water as possible; but that should have been part of setting up in the first place.  Fortunately, in the mountains, you can be able to be the lesser transmitter of the lightning.  At summer camp, we generally try to move the people inside the buildings of course.  We do have some outlying campsites, and they could be an issue if getting to the buildings exposes them more.  No absolutes.  Low, insolated, do not touch things, and hope it blows over so you can adjust more safely.  


  16. 8 minutes ago, jcousino said:

    The only correct choice would be go to the bath house as this is the only substantial building present.

    (Any Close hard top cars would be good also

    Open shelters look inviting but offer no lighting protection and maybe even an increased risk.

    Just look on the first page of BSA lighting awareness page.

    If they youth refuse to go good subject for a troop confernce .

    your other adults are the main issue?


    Lighting you go indoors no questions (search lightning deaths if you have any questions)



    I would be leery of the bath house unless I knew for sure it was grounded.  It is on the lake and likely has lots of metal, like pipes.


  17. You hunker down and warn them to stay in their tents and not get in the open.  The shelter is just as likely to be a lightening draw as a tent, as is the boathouse, and they are on the lake which is also open.  Stay away from the trees if possible.  Do not touch metal of any kind.  Assure they all understand and whatever you do, they need to stay separate as they are.  Once the storm moves out, you can appraise the damage, if there is any.  Do not need what we had at the 85 Jamboree the first night when Hurricane Bob ran a squall line through our campsite, knocking down one tent, busting tree branches, and causing some boys to panic.  


    • Like 1
  18. I guess what I really wonder is how many "claims" are along the lines of what I describe?  At the time, few thought anything was wrong with it; we were all males, and so that was all that was important.  I do remember sort of hiding behind my father and brother a bit much of the time, and my dad never let us go into the shower alone.  As I have collected old photos from very early scout outings, it is pretty obvious that skinny-dipping was not discouraged.   Again though, that was common then.  Boys and girls both did it, though not together, as that would have been frowned upon.  The real issue seems the contradictive nature of measuring that period in time against today.  It is not a balanced comparison.  Time will tell I guess.  Meanwhile, back to working within the parameters of the modern age.


    • Upvote 1
  19. So, I am 77 years old.  In the early fifties, my brother and I were members of a local YMCA, along with our dad.  Learned to swim there, and had wonderful summer activities, such as Disneyland the year it opened, and visits to car plants and tuna packing and museums in L.A. area.  But, I had some hormonal issues early on that effected my development.  It was dealt with with two years of special shots, but at the time, I was not on track with my peers physically, and was embarrassed by things easily.  BUT, in order to swim at the Y, we had to use the male locker room, which included all ages and open showers.  I remember being a bit intimidated by that, especially when it was crowded with full grown adults.  Later, I also was forced to take open stall showers in HS after P.E.  It was not an option; and the coach or sometimes an appointed older student would monitor us.  Intimidating, and embarrassing?  Yep, but we learned to cope.  Society did not think anything odd about this, nor would they likely have entertained lawsuits for psychological trauma of a minor.  

    So, with our new outlook on things today, do I have grounds to sue the YMCA and my old HS school district?  After all; I still remember these things and how I felt once in while standing next to an old man in the Y shower with his nakedness right in front of my eyes, and him talking to me.  

    I am not serious about doing this of course.  My point is that where do we mark the lines of demarcation?  What is psychological trauma to an 8 year old in with a bunch of older males in a shower?  What is the trauma of having your school peers make jokes about you or others and the level of changes in your physical development?  Am I really stretching things with the viewpoints we are currently seeing?  Comments, or admins decide it is not a valid subject.  

  20. 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Really? I was under the impression just the opposite.


    All coed

    Yep, I believe you are right.  My experiences, both at Jambo's, Philmont, and our local camps, including summer and COR is that the boys have no real issue once they get past the adult naysayers.


    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...