Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

    But as the judge noted: even the statistician said that here data could NOT be used to generalize whether any given claim was/was not valid. She was a good statistician: even if I prove 75% of all apples sampled from a bag are rotten, that does NOT mean or prove the NEXT apple you pull from the bag is 100% sure to be rotten. You have to pull it and find out.

    Right. I wasn't questioning method, skill or precision, just that what they sought to achieve through the expert is kaput. It was ill-conceived, as you've stated. 

  2. 11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Now, to be clear, I DO NOT want to see the BSA dissolved. I am hopeful we see a deal that includes LCs and COs sometime within the next 6 months.   I'm probably more optimistic now that a deal is done, but only because I expect the Coalition to sell out their claimants and BSA to throw the COs under the bus ... allowing a target for the state lawyers in the future.

    I'm feeling like mediation is going to undergo a spelling evolution. It will henceforth be spelled c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e and I don't mean that in the best sense of the word. I hope I'm wrong. Meh.

    1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

    The good news from today is we are seeing some motions denied or approved instead of the kick the can down the road we have seen previously.

    She's gone from cans straight to heads. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    The judge ruled that there was NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything.

    If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe. But cherry picking subpopulations? Nope.

    As you know better than I, a classic case of expert backfires. Spectacularly. 

  4. 5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Kosnoff predicted it and I have to give him credit for that.

    Yup. He is nothing if not calculating, and also smart. He is where he is for a reason. (I am NOT pandering. I've been saying this repeatedly, well before I had a fanboy and took on that celebrity client. Ha.) Why are they getting to depose the aggregators, again? What did the judge mention? What pushed the rock over the hill? Hm...

  5. 2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    If the BSA cuts a deal with Hartford AND can get the Coalition on board, maybe they believe that the Coalition will deliver the votes for the plan.

    MYCVAStory made the point very well. If the Coalition caves, it's likely because the bill collectors (enforcers?) keep lighting up their phones. They want it to stop, sooner rather than later, so they can start counting coin.

    • Upvote 1
  6. 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    This is the fig leaf for TCC/Coalition/FCR to hide under: $650 million Hartford wasn't good enough, we got another $150 million, that's good enough to move ahead with the RSA/Plan 4.0

    One fig leaf. 3 entities. Logical conclusion? Someone gonna be n'cked, depending on the size of that leaf. Just sayin'. In my book, that's a small leaf and someone's motive is suspect. Hint: starts with a 'C' and ends with an 'n'. 

  7. 1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Before I step away: the judge is I think going to rule that the claimants are going to have to vote on a plan NOT KNOWING what the potential insurance policies are or are not worth since Century/Chubb are not seeking releases they don't have to say how much they have to offer.

    Same. She has been extremely combative disfavoring the arguments by the TCC and the Coalition. Less so the Coalition, in part bc Goodman is fluent in bakruptcyese. 

  8. 2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

    I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1.  One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused.  I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly. 

    Also, John, you didn’t use the high-end of the statistics - 100 per abuser or 1 in 6 men abused - for the calculations did you? That’s right. You did not. 

    As to multiple multiple, as abuse is defined in the POC and the Tiers of Abuse, my abuser hit 8 the first night of my very first BSA campout. He went down the row of 4, 2-Scout tents tossing in a pair of cold Old Style and a porn mag to share. That was campout one. I was in the Troop from ‘72-‘79. (I was an unhappy Cub Scout prior to that, so about 7ish years total. I don’t have the Cub start date listed anywhere.) 

  9. 2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    ON THE OTHER HAND ... Fair topics for this channel does include  societal guilt and shared responsibility when others introduce their anger / assertions about BSA's past / current.   When making those statements, you can't then switch back to say this channel is only about the bankruptcy.   

    Locate the first tiny word in the section you quoted. Not you, not Barry, not anyone else. I responded to requests for replies/conversation on a topic with an honest reply: “I am not here to discuss...” I’ve done that topic and responded to that argument, as have a number of others, til I’m blue in the face. (Smurfs-based jokes and mockery welcome.) All y’all rock on with your bad selves. (That’s not a poke, just a Southernism meant to say, “As...you...wish...” Meesa done with that Maypole dance. 

    2 hours ago, fred8033 said:
      3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    I am not here to discuss the relative societal guilt and/or responsibility to police child sexual abuse elsewhere. As in, this is BSA Chapter 11 conversation. Fare thee well. 


  10. 38 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    Probably because they did not keep any records of abusers and alleged abusers to keep them out of the program

    Not poking, just asking. Is the point or argument that BSA is in Chapter 11, driven here by child sexual abuse lawsuits or threatened actions, because of the IVF disclosure? Because they kept the records, though purged who knows how many? I’m trying to clarify. Thanks.

  11. 16 hours ago, gpurlee said:

    1) We want to maintain topics and thread that are specifically focused on issues of the bankruptcy. We recognize that this is a very valuable source of information for many persons.


    14 hours ago, MattR said:

    Let's identify the sub threads. My limited view:

    1) ch 11, so money and court proceedings.

    2) whatever Mutsy and Cynical are grappling with. Legal vs moral?

    3) healing

    4) charter orgs

    More, different?

    As has been seen with some of the issues/topics that needed to be ‘banned’ or pulled out as separate threads, maybe there are other things that are simply dead horses and bones of contention. Some of the cyclic debates, in my reading, no longer advance the purpose of understanding and processing though what has happened (to Scouting, Scouts, Scouters and survivors) and what is happening, will happen, may happen and may never happen. The moderators probably have a better 30,000 feet view of what those may be. I have some thoughts, but my comments won’t be taken well by some, I’m fairly certain. 

    • Upvote 2
  12. 14 hours ago, MattR said:

    More, different?

    We’ve briefly touched on the physiological and neurological changes created by trauma. While it is extremely interesting to me and I wish more people understood/wanted to understand it, I’m thinking it’s far afield. It might be very helpful to have a place to post articles and links as a ‘digital library’ for any who want to understand sexual abuse trauma, the various forms of impact, Complex PTSD and all the attendant issues. Could even say it’s not a discussion thread, simply a resource. (I know some people say I’m one of the smartest people on the forum, but this is a pretty good idea if I do say so myself. PAH!)

  13. 1 minute ago, skeptic said:

    So, what are your thoughts beyond Scouting, which is seemingly NOT the worst problem?

    As I’ve said, “speck and log.” I’m not talking about or  thinking about anything but BSA for these purpose. Relativity is irrelevant here. I can’t  operate on two patients at once. I’m not a machine, man. Good lord. ;) :) 😬

  14. 33 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    7000 known abusers with 25 victims

    Wonder what it would be with 12 victims…Hm. 

    PS - My point in this exercise is to attempt to disabuse some of the notion that 82,500 is some unthinkable, absurd and clearly bloated number of victims. Is simply is not. Further, it’s most likely statistically quite understated.

  15. 2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    To have only 82000 victims the stat would have to be 1 in 1400 which would be a fairytale


    2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    7000 known abusers with 25 victims is 175,000 with 50 is 350,000 which is a nightmare so what would the stat for how many were caught vs got away with it?  Lets say 1 in 4 were caught that would be between 700,000 to 1.4 million.

    Yup. That’s what I’m talkin’ about, Willis. Now we’re cooking with Hickory!

  • Create New...