ThenNow

I didn’t forget. From what comment of mine are you jumping off and into this post?

Please define, identify, explain and/or comment on: 1) “for the most part;” 2) as to “automatically removed,” was there comment on notifying law enforcement?; 2)“told” and “by individuals reviewing the claims,” as in who, what, how, why, and under what degree of authority, confidentiality and right to disclose?” 3) on what basis are they (those individuals who did the telling) determining “without any review or vetting?”and 4) how are they defining and or determining failure to state an “apparent act of abuse of violation of a youth protection guidelines.” Please and thank you. As to reporting to law enforcement, what follow up there and are the names abusers aware of whether they have been reported? Ditto the issue re law enforcement, which create and entirely different issue.

Couple of youz here already know my home LC. Just received a donation solicitation with a very large “up to” match cap. It begins. “Our contribution commitments have been made and locked in (or so we think), now let the donations resume!” None too subtle, says I.

I don’t think you’re dense and I get it. My example was the best I could do for oversimplification. The message he’s trying to communicate is: “This isn’t good enough and we can do better. See what they’ve gotten?” Also, when we’re told upfront that we all will be “equitably compensated” - though that was made in complete darkness, ignorance, as well as ill-advised from a PR and legal standpoint - they said it. Loud and clear. It was the clarion call for us to file claims. If we point to larger settlements to get the “RETURN TO SENDER” message out, I don’t think anyone is thinking that’s what I’ll get. Honestly, will most people (reasonable or not) think BSA is gonna come up with $1M per after offering $57,000? If so, they’ve been listening to Coalition Radio, PL5.0 on their AM dial too much. “Spinning lollipop dreams and speculation 24/7. And, remember kids in Radioland: When you say, ‘Yes!’ we say ‘Cha-Ching!’.”

I think I’m know to be a person faithful to acknowledge and recognize statements, like yours, that are (to use a terribly diluted word that needs to be reclaimed) precious. This is one of the huge missing components of BSA’s approach to this matter and us. I know. I know. I’ve yammered as much as anyone about imaging and wordsmithing before making statements, but a tear or three wouldn’t have done anyone additional “damage” to reputation or exacerbated already obvious culpability and liability. That is one reason we wept during Mr. Johnson’s statement. A tough, battle-tested former police officer was not only willing but did publicly exhibit sorrow, remorse, regret, empathy and vulnerability. That is the very first time I’ve seen, heard or read anything remotely resembling that posture, delivery and affect from anyone affiliated with Scouts, save some present company. So, thanks, even though you were affirming an unpleasant and, to some, deniable reality.

I don’t read a settlement number from another sexual abuse case as telling anyone “it’ll be like” that amount. I understand you’re (likely) saying it will be misinterpreted. Perhaps. Perhaps people are not as dense as assumed. (Not saying that you are.) If my son was selling his baseball cards and I know one is worth $20, and we could trade it for $18, if another boy offered him $4, I’d say “You know, Jimmy got $24 for his in worse shape, with the right buyer on a good day. I recommend you reject and counter offer.” I think that is all brother John is saying. “Look at that value (as perceived and as established by the comp’s) and ponder what’s being offered. It ain’t enough. Let’s make them come back to the table and we’re going to set the menu this time.”

Clarify, “the dirty laundry” of “scammers and victims...,” please? Especially interested in the latter. Thank you.

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $65,000 or $80,000 or whatever, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

In the ZoomZoomZoom (sorry, Mazda) era, why so long? Internal noticing requirements with LCs, etc.?

I was disappointed it didn’t say, “This Plan sucks,” in the banner nor was Dr. Kennedy’s footnote included, “And, by the way, this Plan sucks.” It was good, though. Just coulda used that little punch up, ya know?

Per this case (POC and current Plan), “making and showing pornography” is defined as “”child abuse.” That also holds true for definitions used elsewhere. In my case, pornos were tossed in the tent on my first camp out. He was broadcast grooming every boy there. Showing 10 year old me what was in that first magazine is child abuse. There are images I saw 55+ years ago, shown to me by his brother who shamed me into looking at them, that I’ve never been able to exorcise from my brain.

Don’t tell me that game is verboten like dodgeball?!

Sorry sir, I am far to simple to understand your prose. Though I have no doubt it is well intended. 1) At the time of that posting, the debate was over the release of statistics; 2) Prior to that, IV Files and names were being bludgeoned, er, discussed and whipped to a pulp (beating a dead horse); 3) Said items in #2, above, were so trampled upon by so many words that they were starting to smell, attracting birds that pick clean dead carcasses; 4) I was thinking the debate over releasing IV Files and names would “circle back,” once the metaphoric activities in #3 had been completed (since stats became the issue, #2 was allowed to lay out in the hot son (was neglected for a time, attention being diverted elsewhere); and 5) The birds referenced in #3, as originally posted, were called “buzzards.” I meant the real creatures and not what some were previously calling members of the profession that works on their craft in front of the bar. By that I mean attorneys, not my Irish uncle who whittles leprechauns while sitting in a lawn chair in front of O’Malley’s.

Moderators: You know I LOVE to banter, bloviate and blather, but I think we are getting nowhere (slowly) and some are reacting so quickly that substantive comments by some who are being thoughtful (even agreeing) are getting buried under the frenzy. I like it, but how to reign it in a smidgeon? Send it to a tag-team cage match thread? I think there’s a lot of “let’s wait and see” that we need to agree to adopt. Just me. I want to hear more about the 72 hour food drop experience. I’m intrigued.

Again, where is my, “You missed the joke, my brother,” emoji?

What do you mean by, “showers/showering at summer camp”?

My sister was an ELL teacher to international students of various countries of origin. She heard things she’d never heard and never wanted to hear, and she’s two years older than I am. As a Catholic school product, we had a course and book entitled, Becoming A Person. We had an even more detailed marital intimacy course in Catholic prep school. If you didn’t talk with friends, you probably didn’t understand the material and the classes would have been worse for it. I’m sure there’s a line somewhere, but I wouldn’t want to be the one asked to carve it into granite.

Having spent about 8.5 years in Scouting - I was a disgruntled and unchallenged Cub, etc. and ditched it early on until I could join Boy Scouts. I could not abide a Den Mother. Sorry - I can’t image the absence of the Patrol Method. This has nothing to do with my thoughts and commentary on YPT, just the nature of Scouting for me. I, too, am keen to see the data on this 50/50 assertion. Not saying I don’t buy it, but all of the info needs to be made available by someone. Back to Mr. Johnson’s Mr. Anderson, I’m wondering if MJ has a file or ten full of stuff on which he needed legal cover prior to full release. Dunno. My brain is overactive, but from my experience and training, that is a logical step. He made a bunch of allegations to be walking out on a newly ice-over, frozen looking pond. Meesa wondering, not saying it’s so. Just sayin...

I've been able to track down annual charter agreements from the 1920s and 1950s just via google. I'm sure a circa 1970 charter agreement is sitting on some shelf in BSA HQ or in some filing cabinet somewhere. My abuse started in ‘72 and ended when I left in ‘79. I’m just looking for some of the lingo about CO role and responsibilities. I have some, but don’t want to misstate, misstep, misfire or misrepresent.

Who be “we”? You got a mouse in yer pocket? (Nod to my Gramps.) But seriously folks, do you mean Scouters, the general public, this forum, survivors, the bankruptcy mediation parties, Scouts and Scouting parents or…? “Help, Mr. Wizard! Stop this crazy thing…!!”

Based on how things were couched in that presser, nothing is coming out until everyone is under oath in one form or another. He has an attorney. They have oodles of attorneys. No blanks being filled in without them being read in and bills being rung up.

Bam. Thank you, Miracle Max! You’re the man. You win a nice MLT on the house!

Lest we skip over this simple five word line, there is clearly more to be revealed. I, for one, am most intrigued, even while mostly dead. Is “Mr. Anderson” merely his shield or also his sword. Hmmm.... I have no clue how you guys put up with this for years and years and years on end. I know. I know. Love for kids and love of Scouting, but good Lord.

See, for reference, the brilliant note by the ancient philosopher that the failure of 🥕 🥕 🥕 leads one to search for and deploy big sticks.

Do you take it off to make your dinner and re-don it once it cools? Charred side in or out? Inquiring minds...