ThenNow

This has been addressed a number of times by me and others, but I understand and respect that folks come on the forum at various stages of the discussion. Do you really mean to say “THE abuse” is being passed forward in the form of depriving Scouts of the program? I don’t think Scouting is going away in its entirety, but there will undoubtedly be reductions. Whichever it is, I invite you to create a list of deprivations resulting from fewer camps or HAB’s or more restrictive YPT and compare them with 50 years of wreckage from repeated sexual abuse by an adult Scout leader while a Boy Scout. Then, multiply the latter list by 84,000 lives. If you really believe this is an apples to apples equation of “abuse,” I can’t help you understand or further answer this question.

Touché, sir. Touché.

Years later and I was nearly adult by then. They’re much younger than I am. I would be surprised if I didn’t point that out when I shared this history back when. Are you just trying to poke holes in my logic, catch me in a lie or point out what you believe are inconsistencies? What are you getting at? I feel like part of what some - not necessarily you - are doing is trying to trip me up. I was always fairly decent at obstacle courses and speed jump rope so I’m happy to play.

I’ve addressed this to the point my face is blue. (Ask one of the other old guys what that means.)

My dad is long dead, so anyone who punches anyone or anything will beat him to it. Never once said I did or do. Then, these were my friends and I wanted badly to be a Scout and earn Eagle. I couldn’t think past that or contemplate that our SM would end up abusing many boys after me. That may have been the single thing that could’ve made me act, but I was after all 11. In fact, I buried the thought after it once appeared and it stayed that way for some 30 odd years.

This may be a ‘dead’ topic with so much having happened since it was being actively discussed, but I’ve been thinking a lot about it since these posts. As someone who was abused, and reacted with “Mute incomprehension and confusion...followed by fear, shame, terror, horror,” maybe I can offer some then/now perspective. When I consider how I/we viewed adults, particularly men, in the early and mid-1970’s and how young people view and behave toward adults now it is WILDLY different. The level of contempt and disrespect today is extraordinary to the point of being staggering. I realize some of it is deserved in isolated cases, by not with the utter defiance and disdain portrayed in pop culture and percolated down to everyday life. Whether my “anointed” word was rejected or not, I/we revered our Scouting leaders and most men in general. I don’t think I was alone in that. As boys, we wanted to be men and were actively looking for someone to emulate. I know that’s true today, but not coupled with the level of respect, deference and benefit of the doubt we invested then. My opinion of course. When we latched on to someone, silently confident they could be that mentor, then had that trust violated in the most perverse way, it created such conflict you will never understand it unless/until you experience it. Hopefully never. As I’ve said before, the one thought that came into my 11 year old mind when I only ONCE considered telling my dad was, “He’ll kill him (my SM).” That would have been disaster for our family. Dad had three jobs and 6 kids. My mom was a homemaker taking care of us, her young brother in law, living with my grandfather and caring for her ill mother in law. The death of our Troop also crossed my mind and I didn’t want that either. Case closed. PS - I was no Santa Klaus believer either before or after that violation.

Per the Reddit post, this is one of the reasons I favor ‘testing’ a sampling of the claims filed and methods used by the Coalition, et al., through early discovery. Their desire to control the process was clear, which motive doesn’t in any way appear pure. I fear for the survivor claimants overall, if the TCC isn’t allowed the primary role. Just looking at the timing of dumped claims, the thousands of attorney and machine signatures and clearly manipulative advertising leads me to believe some digging is critical. The Coalition & Company may not have a legitimate majority. It is disconcerting.

As I said previously, what confidence and relative respect I had for BSA National is dwindling. Back room deals like this reek of self-dealing and self-preservation. I continue to see near singular focus on one prong of the two Chapter 11 goals, and not “equitably compensating all abuse victims.” As someone who’s been both and attorney and executive in for profits and NGO’s, I know the proverbial back room is part and parcel of business. However, this is not your run of the mill merger/acquisition or squabble over assets. It’s sexual abuse of tens of thousands of boys in the Boy Scouts of America. I feel the same way about telling the judge you’ll file a new Plan on a Monday and dropping it Thursday, with no indication of its contents nor collaboration with the official representatives of the claimants who put you into bankruptcy. It looks terrible. Feels worse. I can’t wait!

FYI. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=aszhn8is83efdt0&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Hm. The TCC must be doing something right. As I recounted to a friend per an open air preacher I knew, “Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and you’ll know which one you hit.” The impacted are barking. Loudly.

Unfortunately, my dad did pretty much the opposite and I'm thinking I didn't do a very good job with our boys, either. There was just so very much self-condemnation, compensating performance-orientation and identity confusion rampaging through me.

Ok.

I'm not poking a finger in anyone's eye, but it is good to remember that the abuse victims we are talking about ALL were boys and Boy Scouts "investing" into the program, to one degree or another. They missed out on much of the good of Scouting for no fault of their own. They raised money, paid dues, attended various functions to promote and support the BSA, put on their uniform, learned knots and lashing and rowing and...all manner of things intended to make them a better, more equipped man. Direct victims. Not indirect or future victims. There's another group of child victims not often talked about. They don't have a Claimant or Ad Hoc Committee. They have no lawyers nor, for the most part parents who are defending them and arguing their case. I'm talking about the boys/kids who didn't get to see the good of Scouting because their dad was was sexually abused as a Scout. Many of their dads couldn't bear the idea of trusting a child to that organization. "Over my dead body," one dad thought (who happens to be me). Have you thought about those kids? Talk about innocent. Talk about did nothing wrong to "deserve this," yet paid a double price. It's typically not a pretty sight for a child to grow up with a dad in the throes of major PTSD, depression, addiction, suicidality, self-harm, sexual acting out, trouble with authority, hyper-vigilance, employment troubles, martial strife, anger, and so forth and so on. For many of those kids, a solid Scout Troop would have been a welcome haven. Alas, it wasn't to be.

I was sincerely asking him to whom he was referring there. I wasn't being snarky. Was it all people in society, as in the general consensus, or here or within the inner world of this case or what? If he only meant the majority on the forum, I get it. He seemed to be implying the reference was to the public at large. Sorry if I didn't get it. Did he answer?

"Almost," I said. Taking the 100+/- year history and 85,000ish claims in this bankruptcy alone, not to mention all those not filed and the numbers of repeat and varied instances of abuse against one Scout (who comprises only one claim among them). I say with confidence almost 1000 and likely more. Take into consideration the repeat abuse, which I think must be considered, as it will be by the Settlement Trustee, and my point is made. We're not talking about any other organization. I know this is all about history, societal context and relative degrees of culpability for many of you, but this discussion is about the BSA Chapter 11. Right. Wrong. Indifferent. Hate me or hate me or don't. I ain't your problem.

When did I say that? I was repeatedly sexually abused by my SM. That's some personal not so kind business by virtue of it being the truth. What to do? There it is. Again, see my story for more. I've provided a ton more than personal information, if I do say so myself. Once again, I do. When defense is called for, it's called for. I'm not "just a messenger," didn't claim to be and I'm not setting myself up as the authority or end all be all. I've said that many times. Not true as to this forum anyway. Many have not whined. Many don't "speak," rather read and contemplate. Many who whine don't "admit it" or view it as such. Whining is not the same as speaking your mind from your experience or simply telling the truth. The truth can be pretty offensive. It is also understandable why some choose to deflect by calling it something else. There are a few fellas on here who make my assaults on the castle look like a front line comprised of potato guns, slingshots, pea shooters and spitballs. Hm. I've seen some fairly off the Scouting path commentary, not by me and not followed by a Scout-like admission of too much whine and stinky cheese. What isn't Scout-like in what I'm posting? Telling the truth and not "admitting" it's "whining"? Calling bs is not allowed? Speaking for myself as one abused in Scouting and saying what others say here and elsewhere? I'm going to stop answering this now and follow what the guys are saying about percentages and all that fun, productive bankruptcy stuff. Thanks for the repartee.

We're talking about sexual abuse, not monkey bridge height restrictions or the dreaded and verboten dodge ball. This was in quotes and pretty clearly meant to magnify a point. As per your fellows, 20% of the parents help. A few wander around and watch, then leave. A goodly number drop and run. This is what I was told. Also, by the by, that's not even what I actually said. This is: "It's all good. We got this. You can trust us 100%!" It was about the perception of parents. Not involvement. So, by implication, parents are involving their kids and thinking, "Hm. Crap. My kid might be abused while they go out in the woods. Hm. 20% chance? 2%. It's fine. We'll see what happens." And, the parents and public perceive it as such? Does the BSA waving the YPT Is the Platinum Standard banner far and wide indicate anything to the contrary? Maybe. Just maybe. Ok. It does. And, we're talking about sexual abuse, thus I mention YPT, not whittling. What? Are you kidding me? I don't know of another organization other than the Youth Group at the local Holiness Church (casting NO aspersions) set forth as more "clean and wholesome." Call me a "complete idiot." Oh. You already did. Never mind... Anoint effectively means to, "set apart to fulfill a calling." If my Scoutmaster and Executive weren't set apart among the others and seen as such by parents, volunteers and Scouts then I'm 6'6" and play for the Chiefs. Fair enough. Delete that point.

Ha. Refer to the posts by others, please. This is starting to get humorous. I'm making a tick chart of all the times I get blasted or asked to leave, in multiple ways. Eagle1993 Senior Member Moderators 767 1209 posts Popular Post Posted Thursday at 02:14 PM On 4/8/2021 at 10:39 AM, Eagledad said: I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message. The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that it does seem that he cares about the BSA and sees the value of the program. He has mentioned how impressed he is by what he sees from many of the comments .... volunteers who spend much if not most of their free time working to provide children an experience that is unique and provides life long value. That said, he was sexually abused in the worst way by his Scoutmaster. No one within the BSA prevented it or took action (as far as he can tell). I think its good for us to hear from victims that don't simply say lets eliminate the BSA. It doesn't mean you or anyone has to agree with everything or anything said, but it's not bad to hear the message. Now there are victims out there that are simply saying end the BSA. I would agree with you that there is no point for them to join our forums. @ThenNow doesn't seem to be in that group. David CO Member Members 1582 1 2868 posts Posted April 8 Anyone who completed the Boy Scout program from 11 to 17 has a valid right to express his opinions on scouting.

This is what you said. You put me on a "side." You've not read my posts nor, I guess, seen those about me from others on your "side." Do I think perpetrators should've been or should be punished? Yup. Did I try? Yup. Do i think the BSA has vicarious liability? That is irrelevant. The law says they do. That's where we find ourselves. Both of us. All of us. I would go into the "what if" your son were me (albeit me 50 years ago), but that's probably not worth it. Most people tell me it would make no difference. I'm not saying you would, but still. I'm sorry, but you don't know my story, you don't know my history subsequent to my departure from Scouting, you don't know what I have or haven't invested in the program and you don't know how I ended up a claimant in this case. The vast majority of that has already been said here though it's definitely a spelunking expedition to find it all. I don't care to re-re-reiterate.

Please read my other posts before this blasting starts again and again and again. Or, ask a couple of the other guys. Several guys have backed me up, supported my position and presence here, and otherwise clarified how they view my input. I hope they don't mind, but among them are very recently DavidCo (even though we had a clash and I was reactive, for which I am sorry), qwazse (directed others to not ask me to go over details and read my posts...ty), CynicalScouter, 5thGenTexan, ynot (has echoed and strongly supported my posts), MisterH, MattR and most recently Eagle1993 with an eloquent note, if I do say so myself (and I just did...also, grateful). Like others who have similarly unleashed on me (personally), you really have no idea what I did or did not "invest into the program" and continue to assume. I would ask you not do that, please.

I’ll respond more thoroughly when back at my computer, but a few sentences for now. I was being intentionally hyperbolic to accentuate the complete absurdity and inapplicability of the initial analogy. The two are in different universes. A one-off at a private party does not equate to 85,000 sexually abused boys in a non-profit organization that BOLDLY holds itself out as Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind...A one-off does not equate to 1000’s of boys sexually abused within one Local Council. A one-off does not equate to 10+ boys sexually abused in one Troop. A one-off does not equate to one boy sexually abused 10’s of times in 7+ years. Back in a bit. Please read my other posts, if you’d like more on my situation and experience, since you’re using assumptions in your responsive posts. Thanks.

I’ve spoken a good bit about all of this, if you are interested in the details of “story” and thoughts on this. You can search my screen name and review posts. Sorry to deflect and opt out of a re-re-rehash. Who are “most people”?

Now, let's imagine you host a 100-year party for boys where you (your predecessors and successors) tell parents, "It's all good. We got this. You can trust us 100%!", recruit and anoint adult men to staff your party, ask for entry and recurrent fees, charge for various goods and services, advertise your party as the most pure and wholesome event going...and almost 1000 boys are sexually abused by your volunteer (and paid) staff each year over the course of your hosting services. Then what? At the party I attended for almost 8 years, it now looks like upwards of 10 kids were repeatedly sexually abused. That's 1+ kid per year. For one of them (me) it was multiple times per year. Realistically, that's the same story for most if not all of them. Now what? How do most people feel about that?

All I can point you to is the TCC's action on asset issues, where it is discussed and noted on the infamous "Exhibit B." A lack of documentation to support the BSA's assertion of a restriction is really sort of the problem. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868464_1.pdf

I’m using this as a jumping off point, of sorts, and don’t expect much response. If so, I’d love to hear. Alongside whatever has/hasn’t gone on with BSA hiding the asset peanut, I feel like they are simply doing a terrible job of representing what I thought Scouting was supposed to be. As you know, Scouting wasn’t all it was meant to be in my life. Still, I see the good, carry with me great lessons and some happy memories, and know the moral and ethical construct is sound. From the apparent lack of interface with the TCC, the failure to engage anyone on the claimant side before filing Amended Plan 1 and soon Amended Plan 2, the lack of collaboration between LCs, and more or less lying to LCs about the prospect of needing to contribute to receive a release, Scouting has the egg of untrustworthiness all over its face. Add to that an ice cold lead council who exudes no compassion and comes off the quintessential robotic and unsympathetic Wall Street lawyer. She’s Gordon Gekko’s go-to. I’m certain she’s a big law sniper. A heavy hitter and extremely competent. All well and good, but she lends no measure of credibility or reinforcement to the alleged narrative that the BSA gives two turds about the survivors. I would never have selected her to be lead, at least publicly. I recognize you want the best, but this is a PR case as well as a legal one. Scouting? I see good. For sure. BSA? The nasty taste in my mouth isn’t soon to fade.