Eugene Evans (of Evans v. Berkeley) arrested for molesting Sea Scouts

[Eagledad]

>>When someone so obviously misinterprets the data they've collected, it makes me question what else they got wrong. Yet we're quoting them as an authority on all of the facts of the case.

[FScouter]

In the olden days, newspapers (and other media) were a source of news - relating factual events that had occurred. Nowadays media for the most part is sensationalistic entertainment - with a little bit of news mixed in. It's hard to know where the facts end and the editorializing begins.

 

If the objective is to disparage a person or group, there is all kinds of sensational journalism availble to fool the masses.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, when Beavah says "I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn" when I haven't even MENTIONED what he's referring to (changing the statute of limitations), I will certainly call him a liar. Yes, I know some people think that calling liars "liars" is somehow not fair to the liars. Learn to live with it.

[SWScouter]

I don't know about that FScouter. One of the reasons for the Sedition Act of 1798 was of all the "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" the newspapers were printing. Of course, then president John Adams was taking the brunt of much of it.

 

SWScouter

[MarkS]

Merlyn said, "If you're trying to improve current policies, yes, you DO need to know how well the OLD policies worked in order to measure if the NEW policies make the situation worse, better, or the same. Old data would also be useful for other kinds of analysis, like whether there are specific councils that are especially bad (or good). You know, having INFORMATION on a problem REALLY HELPS."

 

Not really. It depends on the content of the data and the problem being solved. For example, having data on how many volunteers have been removed for molestation "or similar reasons" may or may not provide you with enough information even if you had statistics of the number of removals over the course of two different plocies. It still may or may not be enough data to make a comparison. How many volunteers were interfacing with boys during the time period in question? Was the policy being followed or violated when the incidents leading to removal occured? If the policy was being violated, was it because the perpetrator was unable to understand the policy or did he knowingly violate it? What were the physical conditions when the incident occurred, camp setup, etc? What were the "similar reasons?" Did they even involve scouts or scouting?

 

If analyzing your data doesn't help, maybe a better solution for developing an effective policy would be to seek out the advice of the FBI or similar law enforcement and other experts in the prevention of child abuse and get their recommendations. Wouldn't that provide an effective solution in a more timely manner at a lower cost?

 

I wonder what youth organization, if any, utilized this approach?(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Trevorum]

FS, sensational journalism is by no means a recent phenomenon. Google "yellow journalism".

[Trevorum]

Merlyn,

 

I genuinely believe that much of time your accusations of "lying" are mere failures to communicate clearly. Two people on opposite side of an issue will often extrapolate, interpolate, and otherwise interpret the other's message. This is generally not out of malice or any outright attempt to deliberately distort or misportray the other persons positions. It is often due to pure mis-communication by one or the other parties. In a virtual conversation, like this one, nuances of communication are absent, exacerbating the problem. It behooves all of us to try to figure out what the other fellow is saying and why the heck did he say that?

 

I know you disagree with several of BSA's membership policies. I happen to agree with you. However I wish you would accept the fact that individual members are not evil liars. Most of us BSA volunteers are dependably truthful - indeed honesty is one of our guiding principles ("Trustworthy") and your constant accusations of lying are downright irritating to us but, more importantly, do not serve your argument well.

 

It is clear to all of us that you are passionate about discourse and dialogue. Your style is that of a trained debater - itemized rebuttals, black and white premises, and uncompromising verbal sparring. That works well in live forums and may be the style on other discussion boards, but it really doesn't work too well here. No one wants you to give any quarter in your arguments. There are invariably soundly reasoned and to the point. But if you're going to play in our sandbox, we'd really like you to play by our rules - which includes being courteous and friendly to other individuals. (And documented citations of discourtesy, rudeness, etc. by specific BSA officials or volunteers do not change the rules).

 

You are certainly free to engage in any style of dialogue that you want. However, as has been observed previously, in this forum your combative and accusatory style of dialogue invariably looses you any points that you make on substance. I suspect that many, many forum readers have you on "ignore" or routinely skip over your posts - not because of WHAT you have to say, but because of HOW you interact with other posters.

 

In closing, I hope that you will not take this as an attack on you personally or on your positions, but merely as a friendly suggestion from one e-person to another.

[FScouter]

It may be true that the data are not useful, or they may be very useful. Who's to say if it is not available? Certainly, crafting an effective YP policy is not aided by withholding data on incidents the policy is intended to prevent.

[LongHaul]

So FScouter can I extend that concept and say a judge in a trial should not refuse to admit evidence just let the jury decide what is relevant and what is not? The BSA (probably the lawyers) decided some data was either not necessary or of a nature that discloser was either restricted by an agreement made at the time of the incident or the possibility of litigation brought on by a disclosure. Why must we assume that the data was withheld without merit? Did BSA refuse to tell the committee that abuses had occurred? Did the BSA refuse to tell the committee where,locally, the abuses occurred? Did the BSA refuse to supply information to allow the committee to determine how the existing policies either failed or were circumvented? All we know for sure is that it has been reported in the news that BSA refused to share data?

"When did you stop abusing your son?

"I never abused my son!!!

"I did not ask you that I asked when did you stop abusing your son."

 "I never started so how could I have stopped"

 REPORT FROM THE NEWS(?)

 "Accused states he has not stopped abusing his son."

 Honest? NO Accurate? possibly.

 LH

[FScouter]

I'm only challenging the argument that data should be withheld from a YP policy committee simply because the unseen data may not be useful. A good argument might be crafted to withhold data for other good reasons, but "maybe it won't be useful" is not a good reason.

[captainron14]

Trevorum,

Thank you very much for your post. Sorry for "Hi-jacking" the thread a bit.

You are so right. I myself have grown tired of listening to Merlyn and his rants. There comes a time when we have to agree to dissagree. Calling people names and such degrades this forum and keeps good people away from entering into constructive discussions. While we all may not agree about all of BSA policies, most care about what the movement is about and the good it can accomplish. However, some give the perception that it is "all or nothing" and if you do not agree, you are a *#@*& or worse.( a Scout is ..Friendly, Courtious, & Kind...?, Is he even a Scout/Scouter?)

Well now I don't have to listen to his rants anymore. I had forgoten the "ignore" option. It sure beats not logging in to the list because of their rants and abuse of others.

Maybe, if enough people realize they can do this too, Merlyn can rant all by himself.;o)

 

BTW, I do enjoy listening to different views, I believe we all have something to contribute to this great movement called Scouting, just that we should be more respectful of others views and when one "goes over the line", a simple "sorry" and move on.

Just my 2 cents and change.

Thanks again!

 

YiS & V

CR14

[Beavah]

Yah, I agree with FScouter and Merlyn, eh? Sharing data is a good thing. Not statistics in this case, but rather sharin' detailed case reports to look for patterns. In the Grand Teton case, for example, the one thing that may have helped was if BSA folks were trained to recognize "grooming behaviors", the way the current Catholic Church YP materials focus training. There was some clear evidence of those behaviors, eh?

 

Dat's helpful data. BSA YP, like a lot of BSA safety, is probably too procedure-dependent (and a predator ain't goin' to follow the procedures). We're movin' to be more education/judgment based, but pretty slowly.

 

Problem is, sealed records are sealed records. If da court orders 'em sealed and both parties sign non-disclosure agreements, that's it, eh? And happily, abuse cases are still rare enough that even if yeh redacted names, the circumstances would allow a committee to know where the incident came from, eh? This isn't da BSA bein' dense, it's the BSA complying with the law.

 

So unlike accident reports, it's hard to do this kind of "open analysis" when we're talkin' youth victims of sex crimes, even though it may well be helpful. Just the way of things.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Trevorum writes:

I genuinely believe that much of time your accusations of "lying" are mere failures to communicate clearly.

 

Since I didn't even mention the statute of limitations, Beavah can't be misinterpreting anything I wrote, since I didn't write a thing about the statute of limitations.

 

Captainron14 writes:

myself have grown tired of listening to Merlyn and his rants. There comes a time when we have to agree to dissagree. Calling people names and such degrades this forum and keeps good people away from entering into constructive discussions.

 

Calling liars "liars" is not name-calling. Some people may use the term as a general insult, but I use it when people lie. Lying about someone else's position also prevents constructive discussions. Pointing out that someone has lied about my particular position helps get the discussion back on track, since I'm certainly not going to defend a position someone else has tried to pin on me.

[local1400]

Congratulations Merlyn. I am a very tolerant, open-minded person. But I have run out of patience with your anti-BSA diatribe (ever notice diatribe and diarrhea are very similar?). You have become my first "ignore this user" poster. Go sell your B.S. elsewhere, we're all stocked up here.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

My last couple of posts have only been about the unethical tactics some people use in this forum, not about the BSA. I'd prefer to argue about the BSA instead of getting sidetracked by having to correct other people about what I have and haven't said.

 

Getting somewhat back on track, there are a lot of comments on the SF Chronicle website, some by people who know Evans and/or have been Sea Scouts:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/BACLTONGF.DTL