ThenNow

Scroll down. Thoughts? https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/05/03/scouters-to-receive-2022-silver-buffalo-silver-antelope-awards-scoutings-top-national-and-territorial-volunteer-honors/?utm_source=scoutingwire&utm_campaign=swvolunteer05042022&utm_medium=email&utm_content=

Purdue argues for third-party releases. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/appeals-court-to-consider-paving-way-for-purdue-pharma-deal-out-of-bankruptcy https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/purdue-urges-skeptical-appeals-court-revive-sackler-shield-opioid-lawsuits-2022-04-29/

This side note is based on my out of nowhere, self-motivated attempt to reengage at age 58. Along with the LC thing, I became a NESA member. I then began getting very infrequent emails related to Scouting and mostly NESA. Why didn't BSA reach out to me sooner? I receive my Eagle in 1975, Vigil in 1977 I think, and turned 18 in 1979. I have not been hard to locate, though I've lived all over the place. Never a letter to donate even. Odd. Rather foolish and shortsighted, me thinks.

From whence cometh these seemingly off-handed assertions and phantom statistic? Is your last quip stating children are at an equivlanet risk of CSA while wandering around in the mall with a friend as they are within an organization lead by adults? I may be misreading, but here are some statistics. Having a brain misfire. I'm trying to say avoiding creating potentially dangerous adult acquaintances means a reduction of CSA risk. Is that the ideal to separate oneself? Probably not, but just trying to figure out what you're saying and on what basis. https://www.rainn.org

On anything and everything related to YP, please keep in mind there will soon (?) be a Youth Protection Committee made up of BSA management, LC representatives, CO representatives, for now Praesidium as a consultant, and the 50% balance BSA CSA survivors. As soon as available, get the names and contact information for whoever is listed and keep your cards and letters coming. I intend to do so. I'll bet dollars to donuts the survivor reps will be readily accessible. BSA and the others would be wise to open the door, too. From everything I've heard, this can be a serious pivot toward change. Take it or leave it, but the past refrains of "No one will listen to us" and "we have no access," at least on YP, should no longer be sung around the campfire if this comes to pass.

Same here. It's veddy veddy interesting and the info vacuum is killing me. One way or the other, I really want/need to understand. I find it very odd how shrouded everything surrounding MJ seems to be. (I know, I know. Legal issues and what not.) But, why did he leave? What did BSA not do that he recommended? He publicly and strenuously touted the YP program then, not so long after, excoriated and condemned it. He worked for 10 years and then gave a press conference and tearfully stated, "We failed you. I failed you." I found it genuine, but would really like the backstory and the data.

I'm sorry, but this is another shift of tense and subject non-answer.

There are many things I wish those who have been spared child abuse of any kind could understand. I know some who do understand many of these things. How, you ask. They have come to understand because they have been intentional about listening. They have studied both written materials and survivors' realtime behavior. They have learned the uncomfortable art of "holding the space" while a survivor is spinning out of control or grieving or vacating their body for no apparent reason. As I read your post multiple such things flashed through my mind, but one in particular. I wish those who were spared could appreciate and acknowledge the loss of momentum that happens after a triggering event. I've literally lost years. I can lose my entire ability to focus or be present in a group of people. I can lose two minutes or hours of productive time. I prefer to be uninterrupted when working because a small thing can trigger a memory or, most often, a shame reaction over a seemingly innocuous comment or interaction. It's a constant battle. I never know the angle from which a punch might come or from whom or what.

The first time it was posted, I couldn't watch all the way through. I felt like it was too sensationalized with the Hitchcockian score, over wrought camera angles and typical American film schmutz. Decided to watch it through 10 minutes ago. I still despise how American filmmakers and TV producers troll the bottom for easy enticement and dramatization, but was taken off guard during one snippet. It really threw me. It was when the abuser was in a dark family room with the boy. They sat side by side on the sofa. The man put his arm around the boy and it was like someone sucked the center mass out of my body. "Just like that..." I could literally feel the negative energy impact and and the air left me. Wow. The Body Keeps the Score. To state the obvious, I was abused in my SM's home, in addition to Summer Camp, camping trips, Scouting events, and other interactions at diverse locations.

Lucky duck! Assuming for pleasure, enjoy! I have no earthly idea what this means or how it applies to the exchange. The analogy is further strained, now to the breaking point me thinks. Trust me. I don't "want to." It hurts me every time I see it typed on my screen or others, hear it mentioned in hearings and read about it in the funny papers. It is the number until it's not the number. Is disbelief, absent proof to the contrary, serving anyone in this context? Rub that faith lamp really really hard and let's see if Robin Williams pops out and removes some proofs of claim from the Settlement Trustee's plate. Judge Houser might stroke you a check from the survivors' bank account for a reverse broker fee. When I contacted the Sheriff's Dept to pursue my abuser in 2003-2004, he easily found at least 5 guys who were also abused. Each could corroborate and were in statute, contrary to this geezer. He tried to get them to be witnesses in a criminal prosecution. They all declined. They were 7-10+ years younger than me, in their late 20s to 30s and lived in town. Again, none would come forward. Question: Are all of the boys who were abused by my SM claimants in this case. 100%, "No." One of them, a good friend of my baby brother's, drank himself to death in his 40's. Are there others who are not? I bet so, but I don't know for p-positive. To reiterate what's been said many times, most effectively by MYCVA, there is a latency period for CSA disclosure especially with men. In my case, I was 40 when the ground opened up and the magnitude of it hit me. Even then, I did not fully admit or recognize what was happening and why. That took another 10 years until I was 50. Interestingly, and I just this second realized it, the period of greatest tumult was while my boys were the age I was during my Scouting tenure. It started when my oldest son asked to join Scouts and I began to turn the corner about the time he would have aged out. I can, but I already sent my Regret to your RSVP. Smart aleck aside, I could find them but am not motivated to do so. I don't see the point. I'm not going to debate this point any more. If you think BSA's historical model of men taking boys who are not their children into the woods and into their homes without layers of oversight and protocols to protect kids was just as good as any other organizations - which you appear to believe - my words are not going to change your mind. Okay. If you insist, I'll add more of my words anyway. When I started chiming in on this forum I mentioned all the other youth activities in which I participated and compared the levels of private access to kids vs BSA. When I added them up on a sheet of paper, the other organized and supervised activities (save being an altar boy and all that went with it) had fewer opportunities for abuse than what I experienced in Scouting alone. My experience. My anecdotical research, but it was a decent example of what I'm taking about. I had and have no reason to fabricate. I was part of a snow shoveling and lawn mowing business during the same time frame I was in Scouting. I was outside all the time. I worked in many locations. Adults were around me and saw me working. I was never abused by an adult during my tenure in that enterprise. I was the only employee and the boss. Context matters as to opportunity.

So, what you're telling me is no one who really knows what they're talking about. Lawyers and Scouters and experts, oh my. Kidding aside, that is quite a lineup. No small potatoes in the midst.

Ha. It's definitly not what you call a guy with raven hair and a flattop, but it would work very well.

Indeed. And nary a foot has yet hit the blacktop. (That's what we called asphalt in Podunk.)

One better. (But apologies. I added 4 fingers to the thumb.) BSA - YP Final Filed 2.9.2022 (MCA).pdf

Agreed 100%. My intention was not to excise that indispensable element, jut address whether it's better to have uniform policies, protocols and layers of oversight including by survivors or none such. Just my wee effort to pose a simple either or question about the institutional vs none. I don't think many of the "burn it down" folk ponder that. I may be wrong. I was once before. I thought I was wrong and turned out I was right and thereby wrong.. Yes. To infinity and beyond. (Where is Buzz Lightyear when you need him, by the way?!)

I'm gonna make a left turn to Albuquerque and address YP directly. If this needs to go elsewhere, I guess it can be moved. My concern is some won't go there and we'll lose the topic. I really would like to hear more from you Scouters about the YP provisions now in the plan. I think it's very important to know what those applying the in the field elements think and feel about them. Thanks for your support. (Nod to Bartles & Jaymes.)

If 82,500 people are killed at one type of traffic light in a particular type of location or context, that type of light either doesn't work flat out or is utterly ineffective and/or dysfunctional in that context. On that basis I don't think the analogy is apt either, but don't really care so much if it is or isn't. My concern is with the second sentence. There can be a tendency by some to switch tenses in mid argument. When a post is addressing the past, a sleight of hand switcheroo rebuttal inserts present and future. Two different arguments entirely. That swap out is unfair, invalid as a rebuttal and, most importantly irrelevant. I'm not poking, just using this example to illustrate what I see as a fault line in one side of the debate. That's all. Carry on...

Where does the question say or imply that? Scouters here have taught me the two are not the same. Thank you.

I have mucho thoughts swirling, including whether the documentaries will help the cause of survivors or serve only to make someone (else) money off our backs. That question is really my greatest concern. I'll not go too deep into it now. Before I don't, I must say that survivors and their families are entitled to say whatever they want, provided it's true and accurate. What the filmmakers do with their words and presentations is on them. Woe unto...Will they be held to account for any grand misrepresentations or false implications regarding Scouting, I bet not. Salaciousness, if that's what they're up to, cares not about deference or decency. Reference those who manipulated the process for their gain in this Chapter 11. For now, I choose not to dwell on it. My last thought on this is truth, balance, full disclosure and fairness are the moral course. People who don't adhere are immoral and motivated by something they consciously hide. 95% of the time it's money, self-aggrandizement or both. Now, for what I intended to say after I said I wasn't going to say too much about dat. Logically, the exercise below is valid, but the conclusion is false and clearly not true. For me, I need to acknowledge that or risk being eaten alive from the inside out. Scouters on this forum have helped inform my view by their heart, compassion and deference to our survivor experiences. Here be the thingy I referenced: Scouters committed thousands of acts of child sexual abuse. (True) All sexual abuse is evil. (True) All Scouters and Scouting are evil. (False) Anyway, here are some of the key questions that exercise compels me to mull in the dark hours of the night. Okay. In the light of day, too, but the first sentence made it sound way more better. 1. Is the institution of BSA culpable for historical child sexual abuse? This is not a question about comparative negligence across YSOs or within society. It’s a yes/no. I say yes and move on. So say we all? 2. Is the culpability so great and the institution so unredeemable that it requires dismemberment, regardless the past, current or future good? 3. Is the ‘outing’ model ever capable of facilitating the essence of Scouting while being safe for kids? Some say it's not and I accept that. Frankly, it's another debate I don't want to have because I have no way of knowing. 4. Assuming for the purposes of this discussion the answer is "Yes," are the policies, procedures, and protocols now in place sufficient to overcome any structural or programmatic vulnerabilities allowing for safe Scouting? 5. If BSA is dismantled, will scouting cease to exist? By the words of many, many of you Scouters, it's a resounding no. In that case, are kids safer in thousands of independent groups without a high level of institutional oversight, including the rigorous input of BSA CSA survivors? I'm concerned that it would not be. In my book, historical institutional culpability is a settled issue. Regardless which side you’re on, it’s pointless to debate NOW. Does it serve to compare numbers between YSOs and argue about who did better preventing evil or failed more miserably in allowing it? Maybe, but I don’t see how or whom. Is the separate issue of Scouting’s ongoing potential for acute programmatic vulnerability relevant? It is, maybe singularly, as an overall conversation about how we should now live. I look to the YP measures BSA brought into the Chapter 11, the new standards in the Plan and the presence of a passel of BSA CSA survivors deep in the mix. For me, I have to move on to the go forward application of the new standards, assuming emergence. It is all I can do today and tomorrow because I can’t go back and change my answer and conclusion as to #1, above. I'm done with my hypotheticals and musings. I just wore myself out thinking about it all again. Diet Coke time.

Effectively attacking all the bases to say COs are sufficiently one in the same with BSA. That's a gross simplification, but anyway. It's well articulated and and interesting read, but I decline to summarize. III. Conclusion For the reasons above and those argued at the confirmation trial, the Dumas & Vaughn Claimants argue that the third-party releases and channeling injunctions sought in this case are not supported by the law or the evidentiary record. 2022.04.22 Dumas & Vaughn Letter Brief (stamped).pdf

Is anyone familiar with the Exec Producers, production company or filmmakers?

Honestly, based on Bishop Schol's testimony, I think there is less to worry about with the UMC. He and they seem very intent on following through with both YP mirroring the BSA and caring for survivors in their midst. I believe they/he should be leading the CO portion of the YPC. That's my take, based on all I've seen, heard, read and learned along the way.

Scroll down the Projects list... https://www.wintersrockentertainment.com/projects

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-04-21/explainer-thorny-issues-face-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-judge?context=amp

Those slides and Devang Desai’s attendant testimony had some interesting and none too wise revelations. He took good notes, which rather came back to bite him (and National) in the tuchus.