Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by ThenNow

  1. This may be a ‘dead’ topic with so much having happened since it was being actively discussed, but I’ve been thinking a lot about it since these posts. As someone who was abused, and reacted with “Mute incomprehension and confusion...followed by fear, shame, terror, horror,” maybe I can offer some then/now perspective. When I consider how I/we viewed adults, particularly men, in the early and mid-1970’s and how young people view and behave toward adults now it is WILDLY different. The level of contempt and disrespect today is extraordinary to the point of being staggering. I realize some
  2. Per the Reddit post, this is one of the reasons I favor ‘testing’ a sampling of the claims filed and methods used by the Coalition, et al., through early discovery. Their desire to control the process was clear, which motive doesn’t in any way appear pure. I fear for the survivor claimants overall, if the TCC isn’t allowed the primary role. Just looking at the timing of dumped claims, the thousands of attorney and machine signatures and clearly manipulative advertising leads me to believe some digging is critical. The Coalition & Company may not have a legitimate majority. It is disconcert
  3. As I said previously, what confidence and relative respect I had for BSA National is dwindling. Back room deals like this reek of self-dealing and self-preservation. I continue to see near singular focus on one prong of the two Chapter 11 goals, and not “equitably compensating all abuse victims.” As someone who’s been both and attorney and executive in for profits and NGO’s, I know the proverbial back room is part and parcel of business. However, this is not your run of the mill merger/acquisition or squabble over assets. It’s sexual abuse of tens of thousands of boys in the Boy Scouts of Ame
  4. FYI. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=aszhn8is83efdt0&reflink=article_copyURL_share
  5. Hm. The TCC must be doing something right. As I recounted to a friend per an open air preacher I knew, “Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and you’ll know which one you hit.” The impacted are barking. Loudly.
  6. Unfortunately, my dad did pretty much the opposite and I'm thinking I didn't do a very good job with our boys, either. There was just so very much self-condemnation, compensating performance-orientation and identity confusion rampaging through me.
  7. I'm not poking a finger in anyone's eye, but it is good to remember that the abuse victims we are talking about ALL were boys and Boy Scouts "investing" into the program, to one degree or another. They missed out on much of the good of Scouting for no fault of their own. They raised money, paid dues, attended various functions to promote and support the BSA, put on their uniform, learned knots and lashing and rowing and...all manner of things intended to make them a better, more equipped man. Direct victims. Not indirect or future victims. There's another group of child victims not often
  8. 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?
  9. "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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. I’ve spoken a good bit about all of this, if you are interested in the details of “story” and thoughts on this. You can search my screen name and review posts. Sorry to deflect and opt out of a re-re-rehash. Who are “most people”?
  17. Now, let's imagine you host a 100-year party for boys where you (your predecessors and successors) tell parents, "It's all good. We got this. You can trust us 100%!", recruit and anoint adult men to staff your party, ask for entry and recurrent fees, charge for various goods and services, advertise your party as the most pure and wholesome event going...and almost 1000 boys are sexually abused by your volunteer (and paid) staff each year over the course of your hosting services. Then what? At the party I attended for almost 8 years, it now looks like upwards of 10 kids were repeatedly sexually
  18. All I can point you to is the TCC's action on asset issues, where it is discussed and noted on the infamous "Exhibit B." A lack of documentation to support the BSA's assertion of a restriction is really sort of the problem. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868464_1.pdf
  19. I’m using this as a jumping off point, of sorts, and don’t expect much response. If so, I’d love to hear. Alongside whatever has/hasn’t gone on with BSA hiding the asset peanut, I feel like they are simply doing a terrible job of representing what I thought Scouting was supposed to be. As you know, Scouting wasn’t all it was meant to be in my life. Still, I see the good, carry with me great lessons and some happy memories, and know the moral and ethical construct is sound. From the apparent lack of interface with the TCC, the failure to engage anyone on the claimant side before filing Ame
  20. From Reuters. The big BUT..."Yeah, we know. This will really suck for the survivors, but look at it this way! We will save money! Just one more way we can say, we so desperately want to 'equitably compensate all abuse survivors'." Oh, joy. Oh, rapture. That plan would be “worse than sub-optimal” for the survivors, Lauria said, as it would raise complicated issues surrounding shared insurance policies with local councils, which would make it harder for the survivors to be compensated. But, she noted, it would also save the Boy Scouts millions of dollars in legal fees, which as of March ha
  21. The first wave is obvious from this graphic. During the town hall, TCC counsel very strongly encouraged survivor claimants in open states to seek state counsel NOW (if they haven’t) to ensure their cases are filed within the window deadlines. He also encouraged all claimants to seek counsel’s advice to determine if any case can be brought for their abuse, regardless the state or date of occurrence. From my perspective, LCs with notable claims against them in DC, NY, NJ, CA, VT, NC, MA, RI and Guam are in trouble. KY, OR and CT probably, as well.
  22. From my view, and it’s a relative outsider view, they’re throwing everyone but themselves under the bus to get outta Dodge with what they can’t bear to lose. The status conference made it clear (to me) the BSA is not engaging the Ad Hoc Committee, Century or the TCC in a substantive or meaningful way. All three major parties groused about the lack of “invitation” and “inclusion” in the process, especially the mediation sessions, pre, post and during, and also in the preparation of the Amended Plan and the one soon to be filed.
  23. LCs and COs are not parties. If they don’t participate and get a specific release under the Plan, there’s no protection. This alternate plan contemplates releasing National only. Short answer, no.
  24. FYI. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=r5sccvtar4cix77&reflink=article_copyURL_share https://duckduckgo.com/?q=boys+scouts+to+offer+new+plan&t=brave&ia=web
×
×
  • Create New...