ThenNow

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 spa

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 o

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 cl

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

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 th

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.

Ferris has the day off.

As follows: 1. By hook or by crook, a spot on the Youth Protection Committee and a board of one kind or another. I am not shy and will contact the TCC about it or whatever it takes. 2. Be a survivor resource for any LC that wants one, beyond they survivor board member if they find one. 3. Visiting the HABs to see the eventual monuments. 4. Go to some national event as a means to confirm the good side of Scouting and see if it can be healing. That's off the top of my head. I am in the balance on locally. I'm not sure if that's in the cards or healthy for me. I already

I appreciate the invite and will give my forty cents. I am feeling generous as the season, and maybe even hope, can spring eternal. As some who've read my innumerable posts and droning know, I had reengaged with Scouting in the late fall of 2019. Then, February 18, 2020 struck and I was sucked into a vortex. A manic blackhole of slashing emotions, manic involvement in this process and a gnawing desire to do something that would afford me a measure of control. I think my survivor status and media commentary got me dismissed from the LC Executive Board. That is an unconfirmed, though ratio

If anyone would like me to weigh in on this, shoot me a DM. I may otherwise not see any reply. I stumbled onto this thread based on the name. I don't want to step into this if you want it to be a discussion among active Scouters. I respect that desire, if so. If no one hollers either way, I will take that as my answer. I do appreciate the topic. It's thoughtful series of questions and could be a very deep and multifaceted discussion.

A friend contacted me privately, concerned I've not been posting. He knows I am on all the hearings and was checking in on me. Honestly, Eagle1993 does such an excellent job I had little to add. My attempts at comic relief are often not well received (by some) and get shut down. Literally. Last time, I crashed the internet with an incouous though highly relevant observation about the repetitiveness of the presentations and arguments. We shall see what happens this time as I attempt to be serious. For the first day in, let's say, 787 days I feel nothing. I hear nothing. I have nothing to resear

I believe Ms. Lauria said a "foundation," but I didn't hear any elaboration. Could be wrong. I'm highly skilled in that area.

Footnote: I have been advised by counsel that there is a key Chapter 11 rule we may be overlooking. It is as follows: In bankruptcy court, every single solitary thing may very well have been said already, BUT every single solitary thing may not have been said by everyone. In an effort to avoid any and all possible omissions, reruns are to be expected. Nay, required. Please accept my recitation of this rule as a moment of levity.