Jump to content

A major embarrassment

Recommended Posts

Maybe Mr. Smith will use the same defense that Pete Townsend, lead guitarist of the Who used, he was conducting research on child pornography


This is the sort of thing we don't need to be saying. The man has already pleaded guilty before the court and his sentencing date is already set. (by the way this crime carries no jail time but a very large fine). There is no line of defense being mounted.


This is how we start rumors that damage our own organization.


Fred some of the posts again, if one poster had a high branch and a rope he would lead the lynch mob to hang the BSA with absolutely no evidence just a fantasy of what maybe, possibly, might, could of happened (regardless of the fact that there was no evidence, no charges, an no suggestion of wrong doing other than the one he fabricated). You don't see that as a witch hunt?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But Bob, you're not telling any one person to lay off his personal witch hunt -- you're telling us as a group to back-off.


As I count, there are 73 posts in this thread (excluding yours). Rather than try to count those which might constitute a witch hunt (I'll let you do that), I count 55 posts that are basically neutral or that support your position.


That's approx. 75% saying BSA has done nothing wrong, leaving 25% guilty of a asking questions (and Ed is on record as saying he doesn't think BSA is guilty of anything).


That doesn't make a "witch hunt", as far as I'm concerned, but if you think otherwise, you go right ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa Bob


fgoodwin and Ed are right the only witch hunt here is in your misinterpretation of what people have said. Why would anyone in here be against the BSA? That, like your arguments makes absolute no sense. fg and ed are correct when they state the only one on a witch hunt is you. The BSA will survive this attack just fine and in six months few will even remember who Mr. Smith is or care, its the nature of the public. Those of us in scouting will do all we can to present scouting in a positive light and life will go on. So lets not blow things all out of proportion here, people can say what they believe Bob, the First Amendment,you don't have to agree with them and they do not have to agree with you. Thats why America is such a great country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, but I am not the only poster to question Ed's imaginary crimes by the BSA , but I am not surprised that you chose to single me out. Remember that I am not the topic of discussion here, and you should not be trying to make me the topic. I did not attack Ed I attacked Ed's lack of evidence and grounds. If you find fault in my facts then find facts of your own to counter them.


Otherwise, the 1st ammendment rights you want to use to support posts that suggest the BSA has somehow committeed a wrong here, also allows me to disagree with those posts. Freedom is after all a two way street, but it comes with responsibility. Manufacturing allegations where no evidence existed is a misuse of that freedom and invites a rebuttal.


I merely accepted the invitation.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no witch hunt here.


I do see Bob White telling everyone to stop the witch hunt (effectively criticizing other posters), but whining when other people criticize his posts. Kind of makes one long for the days when Bob was on hiatus. Ah well, what can we do? Why do so many threads that Bob posts on end up being about Bob? I'm sure it has nothing to do with Bob - it's everyone else. Although I've heard it said that if you're on your seventh divorce, you might consider that it's not your wife's fault.


I generally want to thank so many of the people here who post thoughtful musings on a very difficult situation. While no one here seems to think the BSA is responsible in this case, it certainly doesn't make for good publicity.


Oak Tree

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob White writes:Manufacturing allegations where no evidence existed is a misuse of that freedom and invites a rebuttal.Bob, honestly, I'm not trying to bait you or needlessly extend this thread, but you've made this claim several times. Would you mind naming names and quoting quotes? Because I fail to see anyone "manufacturing allegations" against BSA.


If you'd rather not, I understand, but then, that would tend to argue against your claim that people are "manufacturing allegations" against BSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites


No I don't want the BSA to be guilty. Actually, I want them to be found completely innocent! But not just because they said so. Because an investigation proved them to be innocent! Is that wrong?



Ever google someone's name & find stuff that surprised you? Ever do a search on something innocent & find something that surprised you? In your case probably not, but it does happen. And it is possible that someone other than the parents found their son's pictures on the web & informed the parents & that started the investigation!


I am doing nothing more than asking questions that should be asked so the BSA can clear the air as to their involvement. If you don't think that is right, you are entitled to your opinion. But the Catholic church sloughed this type of thing under the rug & it cost them big time in nasty press & legal fees. I don't want to see the same thing happen to the BSA.


And exactly what allegations have I made?


Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to post
Share on other sites

"There will undoubtedly be lawsuits filed against the BSA due to this!"

"Some one will sue the BSA because they will somehow blame the BSA for this!"

"There could be lawsuits filed against the BSA because of this."


I'd like to hear Ed tell us why he thinks someone will sue BSA as a result of this case, and what damages they will allege.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure I can give you a couple.


I will ley you find the names becasue if I post thenmI will be accused of attaccking individuals.


I will give credit to the last post just to show i am not the only person to understand the tone of the posts....




There will undoubtedly be lawsuits filed against the BSA due to this!


If this guy is in the system & the BSA overlooked it, then that IS a problem.


but until all the facts come out, nobody can say how much the BSA knew about this man's background, or when they knew it.


but it might be relevant to know what the "corporate culture" was at that time and whether a tendency to "hush things up" still remains.


I haven't seen anything in the published articles that tells me whether or not BSA knew of this man's activities, nor do the articles mention whether or not BSA actively assisted the FBI in its investigation. We'll just have to wait and let the facts come out


don't think anyone in this thread is saying BSA is guilty of anything. But don't you find it the least bit ironic that the National Chairman of the Youth Protection Task Force would be into child porn?


So we may never learn what BSA knew or when they knew it.


Unfortunately, B.S.A. tends to be less than forthright in these matters.


Too often the focus is on protecting B.S.A.'s image and not boys.


There could be lawsuits filed against the BSA because of this. Not necessarily valid ones since, but they could occur.


And some are questioning if the BSA might have known about this guy & did nothing based on past history.


All I am saying is there are questions that need investigated and answered.


This would be a civil trail, not criminal. Proof is different in civil cases.


But the Catholic church sloughed this type of thing under the rug & it cost them big time in nasty press & legal fees. I don't want to see the same thing happen to the BSA.



From OGE

"Ed, I am not sure what you are driving at. Its almost as though you want the BSA to be involved somehow. That you want complicity with the BSA to be proved"


Ed's call is for an ivestigation to clear the air of questions and allegations. Who is asking questions and making allegations? Where are these phantoms who need this investigation. Investigate what? There have been no charges made. Investighate who? there's nearly 1200 employees there who do you want to talk to and why?


Its is fear mongering and opportunistic and unrelated to the actual crime.






Link to post
Share on other sites


OGE was asking for clarification on my statement. And doesn't it make you a bit inquisitive as to the character of the man who was in charge of Youth Protection for the BSA? Maybe the reason the BSA's youth protection policies are so good is because this guy knew what to look for!


And, Bob, it is my right to ask the questions I have been asking. You don't have to like them. In fact, I don't really care if you do or don't.


Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4::10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you answered my question by providing quotes. I disagree that the quotes you cite somehow indicate that the authors are "manufacturing allegations" against BSA, but of course, you are free to interpret them how you wish.


I will conclude with a direct quote from Ed:I don't think the BSA is in anyway at fault here and I would be surprised if they were.Doesn't sound like someone who is "manufacturing allegations" against BSA, but that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed writes

"All I am saying is there are questions that need investigated and answered."


Fred writes

"Doesn't sound like someone who is "manufacturing allegations" against BSA, but that's just me."



Then please share your answers to these questions.

Who does he want investigated?

What does he want investigated?

About what allegations?

By whom were these allegations made?

Based on the the non-existent charges what organization or authority does he think should conduct this investigation?


Since they do not know what they are investigating for, how does Ed propose that they determine when the investigation is succesful, let alone completed?


Mr. Smith, it has been determined by the attorney general, has not had any inappropriate contact with any minor, nor were any of his photos of scouts, nor were any of the transactions done at work or on BSA time or equipment, nor is he considered a danger to the public, and he will not face a jail term. He is no longer employed by the BSA. And according to the AG the BSA cooperated fully in the process. He has pleady guilty and will face a large fine as determined by law.


So why should we or anyone else carry this any further or suggest that there is further investigation needed?





(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's the hypocrisy, stupid."


Seven pages of posts, and I'm surprised no one has made this point yet. I'm a new member of the forum, but it seems as though many of you have argued with each other about so much for so long that any new topic just leads you to fall into old patterns of hostility.


The problem with Mr. Smith -- the vulnerability of the BSA as a whole -- is the hypocrisy. The controversies which have surrounded the Boy Scouts for the last few years have led the BSA to hold itself up as a paragon of moral virtue, despite the many people in this country who see the BSA's stance as immoral (yes, I'm talking about the homosexuality policy, and no, I'm not going off topic). The BSA has antagonized its critics by continually claiming the moral high ground.


No wonder the critics bare their fangs when they smell hypocritical blood in the water. The head of the BSA's Youth Protection program pleads guilty to pedophilia? Even though the BSA appears to have acted quickly and properly to remove him from his position, the organization's reputation depends on the actions of its leaders. Enron is a synonym for corporate greed and excess because of its CEO, not the thousands of hard workers who were laid off as it collapsed. The BSA will take a beating in the weeks to come because the man it entrusted with the protection of its young members was preying on children. That's the way public opinion works.


My oldest son is a Tiger Cub this year, and this is my first exposure to scouting since my own time as an Eagle Scout years ago. I was surprised and delighted to see the extensive materials on child protection which have been incorporated into the program -- I recall nothing like it from my own childhood, and I think it's a genuine improvement.


Scouting seeks to inculcate moral values in boys -- in so doing, it puts itself on a pedestal. But the organization is made up of individual leaders, who must conduct themselves in a way that deserves a place on the pedestal. Like it or not, when a senior leader falls so spectacularly, the organization needs to re-earn its credibility in the public eye.




Link to post
Share on other sites



See this is the kinda of half cocked things that happen when we don't stand up for your own program.


Mr. Smith was not charged with pedophilia, there was no evidence of pedophilia, there was no accusation of pedophilia.


He was charged with and pleaded guilty to recieving and distributing child pornography. An activity that was unknown to his employers, that was done only from his home computer on his own time. The BSA had no way to know of his activity. His own family had no knowledge of this how was the BSA supposed to?


Any hypocracy was on the part of Mr.Smith alone.


As soon as the BSA was informed of the investigation they put Smith on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation. Prior to being charged, Smith retired. Once charged he was already separated from the BSA. You cannot fire a man who doesn't work for you.


He was not in charge of the YP program until recently where he developed the on-line training program.


To say that because scouting holds high moral standards they are guilty of ntagonizing their critics is like saying people who work hard for a paycheck are guilty of antagonizing the poor.


The only people the BSA holds to high standards are only their own members. Mr. Smith was not a leader in the BSA he was an employee of the BSA, the leaders are the volunteers in the units.


What did the BSA do, or not do, that caused this crime to take place?


Ed, Fred, what is your resonse to Dadnow's post?




(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...