ThenNow

My recollection is Dr. Kennedy from the TCC watches the forum, per one post eons ago. He testified about working on the YP terms now in the plan.

We agree on virtually every point raised, so understand these are some of my areas of musing. In places, I'll try to say what BSA National and the highly effective local expressions of big 's' Scouting might be thinking. I know. Dangerous. We have to have a baseline, which we don't really have. That is on BSA National. Until the real data - sans what has not been reported and MUST be assumed to what degree I also don't know - there is no metric. For me, this is one of the critical issues to remedy ASAP to the best of the ability of those who research, unpack, analyze and report the existi

You can start at 8:20 and get the relevant crux.

Barry, your former 10-year Director of Youth Protection said, unequivocally, that "children are not safe in Scouting," that "[he] failed" to protect children, and apologized to survivors. You disagree with him, of course, but are you feeling no dissonance in the Force? No understanding that there is a different position? Words matter.

Have you ever gotten severe food poisoning, stung by a bunch of bees, had your father pull out your "loose" teeth with a pliers or hooked on opioids? I have. That specific food, though good and healthy? No thanks. Things with stingers, though they do a lot of good? Not so much. Dental visits (and I'll avoid father issues and pliers, which I've dealt with through therapy)? Dislike enormously. Taking any narcotics, even post-op? Nah. Making sense is about understanding. Being anti-BSA "doesn't make sense to me," means you don't (or can't or won't allow yourself to) understand the complete aversi

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Ha! That would be quite a deluge.

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. Tak

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 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.