skeptic

Thank you for the more focused info; so the larger file is the IVF, but within it there are sub files, one of which is P and another M, both which play into the larger issue.

Two questions. Who gave you the files to read, and were you able to review completely at random. Those that have reported on the files in depth note that they are not all about abuse, though many are. Leave it at that, as it is obvious that you were given selected files.

My opinion of Mr. K has no reflection on your personal tragedy, It does not take away the reality of what you have suffered, nor does it suggest that your personal experience is not worth a valid response. But, as has been thrown all around, what is it worth? You have admitted that it is the recognition of the wrong that is important, not the level of payout, which is what Mr. K only cares about, based on his actions statements. Just as you note that I know nothing about your suffering, other than what you have shared. That does not mean that my opinion of the larger picture is invalid, only that nothing anyone does will ever cure your damage. It also does not mean that I, or many others may not have suffered unredeemable pain in some manner, just not related to this monstrous kind. Most, if not all, have had their moments of pure emotional trauma and carry a dark spot in our hearts. Punish the actual perpetrator to the nth degree, and that is not even a question. But, do not try to correct the larger problems of a warped society by ruining an overall good organization by painting them as the monster in the room. They made huge mistakes and many had bad judgement, but as discussed ad infinitum, that is reflective of the larger society in place then, and a change in that view today. But please do not make those of us that choose to look at the picture from a broader view and do not want the baby thrown out with the water as the bad guys. I hope you can somehow find the help you really need, but I doubt that the worst scenario with this fiasco will do much to cure it. Good luck.

It is an opinion based on his general history and the long media blitz he engineered. You can take it as you choose, but to me, his actions are those of someone with personal gain as the goal and to hell with the total truth. It was him that dubbed the "Ineligible Volunteer" files as the "Perversion" files and pushed the media to not tell anywhere near the complete picture. The truth that many of the files had little or nothing to do with abuse of any type, but were for other things; but that was conveniently left out with his skewed attacks. That one word, perversion, likely has done more damage than anything else,, even if it tells very little of the realities within those file,s. Not saying he should not have won, only that the level of hype and amount of the payout was onerous and extreme. But, that is the way of our legal system for many things. An insurance policy for injury may specify, for example, $x amount for the loss of X. But, if the right lawyer gets to it, it often can grow to ten times that or more, all based on playing on the sympathy of a jury and the current atmosphere of the public exposure. And, he is that kind of lawyer, or was anyway. Not sure he is one now, which in itself is part of the larger picture. We have no boundaries on many lawsuits, and too often they draw media hype to the extreme and end up being totally out of perspective and common sense. Again, just my view of him and our legal system. And it does not help when a judge is swayed to the bounds of logic and perspective.

Please. The man has done nothing noble. He simply played the system to his benefit by praying on vague innuendo and the media hype to find a sympathetic jury and judge in the past. But, you all know what I really think, I just cannot say it. Carrion.

Any doubters now abou Mr. Kosnoff being a crook? It was obvious from day one to me that he is not a standup person, but only greedy and for whatever reason wants to ruin BSA. Maybe he did not catch a snipe long ago, or found out that smoke shifters are only jokes.

Just for info or reminder. I checked today with the Corporate KOA people, and they sent me this link regarding scouts. Note, they do mention that not all locations may participate, though they are so encouraged. Check with your particular location to assure you know the details. https://koa.com/scout-camps/ As some may remember, KOA was founded by an Eagle and recipient of the DEA. I met him at the 2010 Jamboree. Not pushing KOA, just offering the info for those that may not know.

Interesting discussion, and some good observations, especially on societal time frames and misconceptions. Most of us born in the previous century likely have different perspectives much of the time. Then, there are personal things some of us have developed and many friends and even others find fun and interesting, or simply annoying. I became an inveterate punster at a fairly early age, likely settled in by mid high school. It was part of me, and most people either waited for me to do it, or they simply smiled and groaned. It really never occurred to me that puns can also get out of hand or out of bounds, especially when dealing with youth. I learned a hard personal lesson while subbing years ago in that regard. My last name is fish, and I have lived with that certain level of teasing and name funning my entire life. Puns may have evolved partly from that, as I became aware of other surnames that could "be funny" in certain contexts. But, you do not ever want to even joke like that to a young child, as they are not yet ready to necessarily see the difference or appreciate the "fun". I realized that when a 4th or 5th grader had the courage to tell me it bothered him. I apologized and also consciously became aware of watching spontaneous puns in relation to people's names. I also apologized to the class and explained why I was wrong, even telling them that if I did slip, they should tell me and they were allowed to make fun of my name then once. The main thing here is being aware, and also open to apologies and hopefully positive corrective measures. As far as smoke shifters go, we use it as a group joke at times, including demonstrating the method of right hand and left hand holding the shifting device. Kids still are more receptive to simple fun than we may think.

Yes, a newby, not even yet tenderfoot, scout at my first COR held at the sprawling Santa Anita Park in Arcadia in spring of 1955, I spent a lot of time looking for both the smoke shifter and the bacaon stretcher. Looking back, I just chuckle, though am not sure I was chuckling much then, but I did only encounter "helpful" scouters and scouts along the two hour or so search. The fun memory now is that a nice ASM kindly took be over by his fire and told me to take of my vintage service cap and hold it in my left hand. Then he showed me how to wave it at the smoke to "shift" it; then finally told me to put it in my right hand, and asked me what I now had? He sent me along with no help on the bacan stretcher. As the time and memory goes, I soon encountered another r friendly scouter that said he would show me their stretcher, but that they had only the one, and it was in use; and it was. Some type of hook and spring getup they had designed. Think I should try to do that sometime, but have not ever gotten to it. 🙃

"Should I be fetching a smoke-shifter?" Guess it depends if it is a left or right handed one? Do we need to delve out another fifty yards of shoreline" Can we find someone to stretch the bacon (or pork)? Is there a snipe involved here?

Interesting thoughts. One thing that struck me, was the suggestion that somehow the CO's opinions or tenets "might somehow be pushed aside". I could not help but wonder how if the CO of Mr. Dale's unit had been allowed to make the decision, for their unit, and let it go on, if we might be in a far better position today? After all, it is my understanding that they knew full well about Mr. Dale and had no issue. Just saying. Too many cooks seem appropriate here?

This summary related to various BSA efforts to make leaders, parents, and youth more aware of abuse issues is interesting. https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/youth-protection/100-years-of-enhancing-efforts-to-protect-youth/ Based on this, certainly the shared info on the one lawsuit content that states "prior to 2010" is inaccurate, as are statements that no effort was made to communicate with parents, leaders, and so on. They also inserted the first Parent Guide in the handbook in 1990 and it was "in theory" reviewed by the parent(s) and scout as part of the joining requirement. As noted by one of the online historians of the Handbook, most copies he has seen indicate they were likely not used by most families, based on their not being detached and showing no wear. Obviously, Scouting Magazine would not have been seen by parents if not a registered adult. And, if the scouts were not encouraged to review and read the Boys' Life material on the subject, that too would have likely not been particularly helpful. And, we all likely recognize that may not have been something most youth would voluntarily read at that point in their lives. On the other hand, to say that BSA made little or no effort to combat this issue is fairly obviously not accurate either. Errors in judgement on all levels, lack of prioritizing the information as required (though verifying is difficult), lax follow ups in many cases for whatever reasons, many common in the wider culture at the time, and the fact that predators cannot absolutely be stopped, all contributed and still contribute today. So, it continues to be a morass of confusing and often contradictory information and efforts. I would ask any of the "victims" after 1990 if they recall having reviewed the insert in their Handbook with a parent or guardian, or did they even look at it, even if not with a parent? That is simply a question, not an accusation or excuse.

Okay. According to the book, Lone Scout; W.D. Boyce and American Scouting, by Janice A. Petterchak, Boyce was in London on business and preparing for an African trip when the incident occurred. Here is the pertinent page from the book.

Actually, someplace in the 90's I think, it was reproduced in the museum store in Dallas, including a replica of the old square necker. I have that in my stuff I think, as well as the original. It very well may be on one of the discs available on the net of older material. I keep talking about going to a yardage store and getting some good, but inexpensive material from the discount gable and cutting them into full square size. Maybe I could get the church quilters to hem them. Then, get some simple wood blocks and challenge the scouts carve a slide as well, or teach them to make woggles.

Reading some of this, I was reminded of local experience. Over my tenure with our unit, the past 40+, we have had likely a dozen non parental or unknown adults try to join. We have always made sure they were not interacting directly with kids while "visiting", and as soon as possible they were interviewed by other established leaders. IF they balked in any way at the references, or now the required background checks and so on, they were politely told they were not welcome. None of them reappeared, though one did make it into another unit but was almost immediately "dropped" and added to the local "not acceptable" list. No absolute proof, just concerns. We also had to deal with older youth issues once and told the parents the teen was not welcome anymore, and suggested they get him help. These are real interactions, but not what we normally would discuss broadly. Caution, and proper vetting. And, we had one very respected, at the time, Scouter that was dropped after he was arrested for abuse of his own step child, a girl. He never had bothered any of the males, and it appeared it was focused on that familial link. He is either still in jail, or has since passed. The question with him, of course, is would the male youth have eventually been targets, or was he focused on girls? I do know that once or twice he made questionable comments about young girls in my own presence, and I mentioned it to another leader who shrugged. We likely would react differently in today's climate, but it was hidden by the family, and his wife even supported him for a long time. So, errors in judgment, and family fear or blindness, or simply not connecting the signs?

For the most part, this subject was hushed and Not discussed, and authorities also chose to not believe or make excuses because so and so was a good guy, as most knew. Parents often chose to not press the issue due to the embarrassment and community tendency to call it he said, he said or it is a kid making things up. It was not right, but that was the world most of us live in. Now, when it did actually get beyond the disbelief and was taken seriously, the laws were not yet particularly strong, and reinforced to some extent the idea of not believing. Again, unless their was absolute proof, it was not taken as seriously as it should have been, just like rape of women and even spousal abuse. So, today, we are trying to fix something that cannot be fixed, and doing it at the expense, for the most part. the current youth in the program, and even the mental state of the victims. I think that it what most of us that are so awful are referring to as different standards. None of us thinks it should have been brushed aside, but few thought about it the way it is looked at today. Bye, no more attempt to explain.

We need to clarify that there are now two groups of Methodists, and they are not in agreement. However, the traditional support of Scouting, the Methodist Mens' group, still supports the program. Please be aware of this. See this FB group. https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/photos/a.128216575250845/582219489850549

And there lies the rub. Any suggestion that there might be some lack of accuity over time is somehow blaming the victim. We saw that in the deplorable side show in the Kavanaugh hearings. I am not yet senile enough to not continue to see the probability of some enhancements over time of traumatic and also amusing incidents in life. So, let me go back to being a skeptical realist, trying to see through the glass clearly when the prism is clouded. Nuf said.

No, we should not be going back there, we should be trying to determine the truth. As noted, the way the article is written, it is almost impossible to see it as not exaggerated at least. HOW could someone be repeatedly abused and subjected to being put in a shallow grave and urinated upon by the group without any of it coming out? Something happened to traumatize him, but the level of depravity, while possible, seems almost beyond the pale. Maybe I am simply too much of a skeptic, and have seen too many stories that have been "stretched" for whatever reason, to not see some doubt in this article. But, I also suspect there is a level of authenticity, and real trauma incurred. But, he does suggest that the issue needs to be addressed on a broader, societal level, which is good. As another poster noted, there is a huge misconception of how much BSA can pay, as well as a segment that cares not that the overall program still carries far more benefit than negativity, especially with the more updated systems. NONE of it will or can ever be perfect and a guarantee against the worst in society, but it can be close to it if the programs added for protection are followed and constantly improved as new info and tech becomes available.

Sorry, but the level of depravity partially shared here approached the same tenor that took over the McMartin episode. And, what is not determined is IF the victim ever did report anything. He claims it was at the hands of the leader and his son, yet are there others from the period that reported anything? And, if the terrible series of attacks and the trauma that resulted was not actually brought to the attention of anyone, what exactly should have resulted? We are surely not seeing the whole picture, and again, the media is taking the "story" as gospel and not even attempting to view it in the wider context of the time and the society that allowed it to happen. There is no excuse for this to have occurred, but if it was NOT brought out then, how was BSA to know? And, if it was brought out to parents, what did they do to mitigate it?

I am confused as to how Mr. Kosnoff can be posting as a legal individual if he is no longer a lawyer, as was, I believe was posted on this forum. He can I guess call himself whatever he chooses, but is he more technically posing as an officer of the court in some capacity, without a legal right? Just asking.

Maybe it has a lot to do with the actual scouting that is the norm, not the deviant outliers. Scouts do public patriotic ceremonies in many places; Scouts contribute thousands of hours of community service outside of the Eagle projects; Scouts are often called upon by the wider community for assistance in special events; Scouts and Scouting in 99+% of community visibility is a positive and worthwhile example. Maybe there are more people that understand the the anomalous hyper scandal is NOT the norm for the larger group, and understand that it is far more beneficial to their communities than detrimental. Many people can look at the wider view and see that the deviations are not the norm. Just suggesting.

All I am asking is that they go beyond the witch hunt with BSA and take other bites of the elephant. Expand the focus to include other agencies and publicly drag them into view. I realize this discussion is on the BSA, but the point is that it should not simply be on BSA, but should be clearly reaching far beyond them, as it is not JUST a BSA issue, but a real societal issue that dwarfs the localized drama. And, with that, I bow out again, for a bit, at least.

Cute; but it really dodges the question. The issue with BSA is far larger than just the BSA. It is a massive problem in most youth serving groups, and even more so in the governmental oversight agencies. That is to what I refer.

" I do also like the idea of widespread AG investigations. They are overdue and appropriate." Would that apply beyond the BSA? If not, then it is simply ignoring the elephant in the room, IMHO.