ThenNow

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 spared could appreciate and acknowledge the loss of momentum that happens after a triggering event. I've literally lost years. I can lose my entire ability to focus or be present in a group of people. I can lose two minutes or hours of productive time. I prefer to be uninterrupted when working because a small thing can trigger a memory or, most often, a shame reaction over a seemingly innocuous comment or interaction. It's a constant battle. I never know the angle from which a punch might come or from whom or what.

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 out of my body. "Just like that..." I could literally feel the negative energy impact and and the air left me. Wow. The Body Keeps the Score. To state the obvious, I was abused in my SM's home, in addition to Summer Camp, camping trips, Scouting events, and other interactions at diverse locations.

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 claim from the Settlement Trustee's plate. Judge Houser might stroke you a check from the survivors' bank account for a reverse broker fee. When I contacted the Sheriff's Dept to pursue my abuser in 2003-2004, he easily found at least 5 guys who were also abused. Each could corroborate and were in statute, contrary to this geezer. He tried to get them to be witnesses in a criminal prosecution. They all declined. They were 7-10+ years younger than me, in their late 20s to 30s and lived in town. Again, none would come forward. Question: Are all of the boys who were abused by my SM claimants in this case. 100%, "No." One of them, a good friend of my baby brother's, drank himself to death in his 40's. Are there others who are not? I bet so, but I don't know for p-positive. To reiterate what's been said many times, most effectively by MYCVA, there is a latency period for CSA disclosure especially with men. In my case, I was 40 when the ground opened up and the magnitude of it hit me. Even then, I did not fully admit or recognize what was happening and why. That took another 10 years until I was 50. Interestingly, and I just this second realized it, the period of greatest tumult was while my boys were the age I was during my Scouting tenure. It started when my oldest son asked to join Scouts and I began to turn the corner about the time he would have aged out. I can, but I already sent my Regret to your RSVP. Smart aleck aside, I could find them but am not motivated to do so. I don't see the point. I'm not going to debate this point any more. If you think BSA's historical model of men taking boys who are not their children into the woods and into their homes without layers of oversight and protocols to protect kids was just as good as any other organizations - which you appear to believe - my words are not going to change your mind. Okay. If you insist, I'll add more of my words anyway. When I started chiming in on this forum I mentioned all the other youth activities in which I participated and compared the levels of private access to kids vs BSA. When I added them up on a sheet of paper, the other organized and supervised activities (save being an altar boy and all that went with it) had fewer opportunities for abuse than what I experienced in Scouting alone. My experience. My anecdotical research, but it was a decent example of what I'm taking about. I had and have no reason to fabricate. I was part of a snow shoveling and lawn mowing business during the same time frame I was in Scouting. I was outside all the time. I worked in many locations. Adults were around me and saw me working. I was never abused by an adult during my tenure in that enterprise. I was the only employee and the boss. Context matters as to opportunity.

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 a rebuttal and, most importantly irrelevant. I'm not poking, just using this example to illustrate what I see as a fault line in one side of the debate. That's all. Carry on...

Where does the question say or imply that? Scouters here have taught me the two are not the same. Thank you.

I have mucho thoughts swirling, including whether the documentaries will help the cause of survivors or serve only to make someone (else) money off our backs. That question is really my greatest concern. I'll not go too deep into it now. Before I don't, I must say that survivors and their families are entitled to say whatever they want, provided it's true and accurate. What the filmmakers do with their words and presentations is on them. Woe unto...Will they be held to account for any grand misrepresentations or false implications regarding Scouting, I bet not. Salaciousness, if that's what they're up to, cares not about deference or decency. Reference those who manipulated the process for their gain in this Chapter 11. For now, I choose not to dwell on it. My last thought on this is truth, balance, full disclosure and fairness are the moral course. People who don't adhere are immoral and motivated by something they consciously hide. 95% of the time it's money, self-aggrandizement or both. Now, for what I intended to say after I said I wasn't going to say too much about dat. Logically, the exercise below is valid, but the conclusion is false and clearly not true. For me, I need to acknowledge that or risk being eaten alive from the inside out. Scouters on this forum have helped inform my view by their heart, compassion and deference to our survivor experiences. Here be the thingy I referenced: Scouters committed thousands of acts of child sexual abuse. (True) All sexual abuse is evil. (True) All Scouters and Scouting are evil. (False) Anyway, here are some of the key questions that exercise compels me to mull in the dark hours of the night. Okay. In the light of day, too, but the first sentence made it sound way more better. 1. Is the institution of BSA culpable for historical child sexual abuse? This is not a question about comparative negligence across YSOs or within society. It’s a yes/no. I say yes and move on. So say we all? 2. Is the culpability so great and the institution so unredeemable that it requires dismemberment, regardless the past, current or future good? 3. Is the ‘outing’ model ever capable of facilitating the essence of Scouting while being safe for kids? Some say it's not and I accept that. Frankly, it's another debate I don't want to have because I have no way of knowing. 4. Assuming for the purposes of this discussion the answer is "Yes," are the policies, procedures, and protocols now in place sufficient to overcome any structural or programmatic vulnerabilities allowing for safe Scouting? 5. If BSA is dismantled, will scouting cease to exist? By the words of many, many of you Scouters, it's a resounding no. In that case, are kids safer in thousands of independent groups without a high level of institutional oversight, including the rigorous input of BSA CSA survivors? I'm concerned that it would not be. In my book, historical institutional culpability is a settled issue. Regardless which side you’re on, it’s pointless to debate NOW. Does it serve to compare numbers between YSOs and argue about who did better preventing evil or failed more miserably in allowing it? Maybe, but I don’t see how or whom. Is the separate issue of Scouting’s ongoing potential for acute programmatic vulnerability relevant? It is, maybe singularly, as an overall conversation about how we should now live. I look to the YP measures BSA brought into the Chapter 11, the new standards in the Plan and the presence of a passel of BSA CSA survivors deep in the mix. For me, I have to move on to the go forward application of the new standards, assuming emergence. It is all I can do today and tomorrow because I can’t go back and change my answer and conclusion as to #1, above. I'm done with my hypotheticals and musings. I just wore myself out thinking about it all again. Diet Coke time.

Effectively attacking all the bases to say COs are sufficiently one in the same with BSA. That's a gross simplification, but anyway. It's well articulated and and interesting read, but I decline to summarize. III. Conclusion For the reasons above and those argued at the confirmation trial, the Dumas & Vaughn Claimants argue that the third-party releases and channeling injunctions sought in this case are not supported by the law or the evidentiary record. 2022.04.22 Dumas & Vaughn Letter Brief (stamped).pdf

Is anyone familiar with the Exec Producers, production company or filmmakers?

Honestly, based on Bishop Schol's testimony, I think there is less to worry about with the UMC. He and they seem very intent on following through with both YP mirroring the BSA and caring for survivors in their midst. I believe they/he should be leading the CO portion of the YPC. That's my take, based on all I've seen, heard, read and learned along the way.

Scroll down the Projects list... https://www.wintersrockentertainment.com/projects

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-04-21/explainer-thorny-issues-face-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-judge?context=amp

Those slides and Devang Desai’s attendant testimony had some interesting and none too wise revelations. He took good notes, which rather came back to bite him (and National) in the tuchus.

Ferris has the day off.

As follows: 1. By hook or by crook, a spot on the Youth Protection Committee and a board of one kind or another. I am not shy and will contact the TCC about it or whatever it takes. 2. Be a survivor resource for any LC that wants one, beyond they survivor board member if they find one. 3. Visiting the HABs to see the eventual monuments. 4. Go to some national event as a means to confirm the good side of Scouting and see if it can be healing. That's off the top of my head. I am in the balance on locally. I'm not sure if that's in the cards or healthy for me. I already visited my summer camp, which allowed me a creepy and nostalgic experience. I mapped locations in my POC and was able to confirm my recollections, which was comforting. The camp has changed a great deal and at the same time not so much. I immediately knew what was missing and what new. Most of the staff lodges were gone, the nature center where I worked was replaced (more or less) and the snake pits absent, the waterfront had no lifeguard house and the water was incredibly high, and an open-air chapel was built in memory of my friends who died. It needed some TLC which I almost set out doing by figure of my connection to the family that was killed in a car crash. The main lodge and dining hall looked and smelled exactly the as I remember, but felt much smaller. The main new things were the cinderblock showers with individual stalls. Some of you who know this camp will no doubt no the one of which I speak.

I appreciate the invite and will give my forty cents. I am feeling generous as the season, and maybe even hope, can spring eternal. As some who've read my innumerable posts and droning know, I had reengaged with Scouting in the late fall of 2019. Then, February 18, 2020 struck and I was sucked into a vortex. A manic blackhole of slashing emotions, manic involvement in this process and a gnawing desire to do something that would afford me a measure of control. I think my survivor status and media commentary got me dismissed from the LC Executive Board. That is an unconfirmed, though rationale assumption. I no longer appear on the list of members, but that could also be due to inaction. So, as to forgiveness and moving on, maybe I can be one example. I was ready to help kids do some of what I accomplished and gained from Scouting, and avoid what I encountered on the dark, hidden and ugly side. As part of the mania and gnawing, I somehow found the announcement of the TCC selection that was soon to happen in Wilmington. I talked with my wife about it and hurriedly filled out my application and booked my ticket. My wife was about as sure I should do that as she was about reengaging several months earlier. When I went, the room was full of TCC hopefuls, attorneys and BSA folks. It was as surreal as surreal can get. Men and boys - I recall one teenager - were there for various reasons. It felt like a room of boys. Sadness and longing after years of silence and lack of acknowledgment. That said, two things stood out. First, I spoke at length with a man who was, in his estimation, denied Eagle for reporting his abuser. His paperwork was "lost" at least twice. He has persisted to try to find it for 30 years. No luck. The Scouter abuser was an important person and was not removed. The boy continued anyway and is still involved today. I gave him my Eagle pin and we cried. Second, when I interviewed with the committee lead by the US Trustees Office, represented by Mr. Buchbinder and one other whose name I don't recall, I told him I did not want BSA to go out f existence. I was there for my family, recompense, other survivors from my Troop and all those kids in and yet to be in Scouting. He told me that opinion was nearly universal among the applicants who preceded my in the magic tent. So, I will allow any one who wants to respond do so before I continue. Feel free to ask questions. I love talking, as some of you are well aware. I hope this helps and provides a starting point from the perspective of one survivor. Again, thanks for starting this thread. PS - Forgive typos. I'm supposed to be cleaning the house. My wife ran errands. Fill in the blank. Oh. I am almost done so ask not to be accused of being un-Scoutlike.

If anyone would like me to weigh in on this, shoot me a DM. I may otherwise not see any reply. I stumbled onto this thread based on the name. I don't want to step into this if you want it to be a discussion among active Scouters. I respect that desire, if so. If no one hollers either way, I will take that as my answer. I do appreciate the topic. It's thoughtful series of questions and could be a very deep and multifaceted discussion.

A friend contacted me privately, concerned I've not been posting. He knows I am on all the hearings and was checking in on me. Honestly, Eagle1993 does such an excellent job I had little to add. My attempts at comic relief are often not well received (by some) and get shut down. Literally. Last time, I crashed the internet with an incouous though highly relevant observation about the repetitiveness of the presentations and arguments. We shall see what happens this time as I attempt to be serious. For the first day in, let's say, 787 days I feel nothing. I hear nothing. I have nothing to research. I have no need to decipher insurance mumbo or understand obtuse bankruptcy code nuances. There seems to be little rolling around in my head. When JLSS told the roadies to wrap up the cables and take down the speaker towers, I felt instantly exhausted. Utterly and completely. Have you ever been in a hurricane, as in right in the middle? The eery quiet while the 'eye' passes over is as deafening as the 125 mph winds that two seconds ago sounded like a train running through your kitchen. Take a breath. Unlock the shutters and see what you can see. Step out on your stoop and look over the beach to the water. Yup. There it is. The hush belies the reality. The eye is passing and here comes the other side of the storm. Check the generator. Lock down the shutters. Head back inside the concrete bunker. Brace yourself. Be ready.