Honestly the names of the parents is not relevant. The children who were abused are entitled to privacy, which will be completely destroyed if we start throwing names around, assuming that any remains at this point. I don't really think there is much, but I also believe it is time to leave them all in peace. Nothing is gained by throwing their names around. Want to know isn't the equivalent of need to know.
What matters is a bad thing happened, people were hurt, and the SCA was found to have some responsibility (or accepted - I'm intentionally not going into this further). The specifics of what happened to whom do not change that and add nothing to the discussion.
To the best of my knowledge, the parents were NOT required to sign any non-disclosure agreements and are free to talk if they choose to do so. If they choose not to that is their right.
The BoD is, wisely, not running around talking about things that can result in more litigation against the SCA. It is too easy for people (even people who should know the truth, or have the truth) with incomplete or inaccurate understanding to misstate things and I have seen too many potential defamation or libel actions to think they should change that policy.
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Mark S. Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No, I’m not castigating the parents for their bad parenting. No one comes into this world knowing how to do that. I’m castigating them for trying to pass their failures off on other people. Your kids are your responsibility. You don’t just leave them at someone’s house unattended without personally knowing these people and checking them out. Why is the SCA Sensechal or anyone else, more responsible for checking out what is going on at every little meeting, especially ones that aren’t even SCA activities, but happen to be held by a particular SCA officer, than the parent is?
> Trying to destroy an organization that has been built up over many years by many different people, often vary far from where this one incident took place, THAT is what I hold these parents responsible for. I thought we were an organization based on PERSONAL HONOR and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
> I have only what has been available in the public record and what has been discussed in public forums and some email.
> That is the big problem. Most of the facts, including those who sued the SCA, are censored out. You can only go with the information that is available.
> It’s a great way to suppress all speech. If you can only speak about or ask questions about things you have complete knowledge of, then all you have to do to keep a lot of things in the dark is not to give any information out.
> It’s why companies can continue to make faulty automobiles that kill people. Settle with the relatives of those that are killed, force a no information released clause by the recipients and keep making faulty cars.
> When people tried to find out who the parents were, they were told this was not available. Perhaps since the case has now been closed, more info has been released.
> If you have that info on who the SCA parents were, please give it.
> I’ve been waiting to have the other side of this case before publishing the history. I’ve yet to see the side from the accusers.
> I am not an investigative reporter with experience in digging up these facts that Gabriel thinks are so easy to find. If some one does have this info, please pass it on to me.
>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 11:27 PM, Patrick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Do you know the details of what occurred? It sounds like you are basically loathing the parents and castigating them for their "bad parenting" without any knowledge at all as to what happened.
>> It's not hard to find out who the parents are. It's also not hard to find the pleadings in the suit. You may want to consider at least starting there.
>> But I would suggest speaking from a position of any knowledge before you speak. You have none here.
>> Patrick Anderson
>> Sent from a phone.
>> Please forgive spelling mistakes.
>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Stefan li Rous <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> At the same time, it doesn’t keep us from the loathing the SCA parents who wouldn’t or couldn’t watch their own children to keep them out of trouble and lazily handed off that responsibility to another. It’s just very unfortunate that that person happened to be an SCA local officer.
>>> I certainly hope those (now rich) parents are no longer playing. But, alas, as in many faulty product lawsuits, the facts and identities have been censored and hidden and we have no way of knowing.
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014, at 09:42 AM, Rex Deaver wrote:
>>>>> The SCA was nearly destroyed by a single lawsuit that nobody thought could possibly succeed, but had to be settled out of court to stop the money from hemorrhaging. They turtled up. It is going to be a long time before they think about anything that has the slightest whiff of liability, no matter how big a fit anyone throws.
>>>>> The only viable solution available at this time is to do stuff unofficially. That, of course, means taking on any liability personally, with no financial backstop.
>>>>> Non nobis solum
>>>> Patrick Anderson
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> "No matter how much you feed the wolf,
>>>> he keeps looking at the forest." --Ilse Lehiste
>>> THLord Stefan li Rous Barony of Bryn Gwlad Kingdom of Ansteorra
>>> Mark S. Harris Austin, Texas [log in to unmask]
>>> **** See Stefan's Florilegium files at: http://www.florilegium.org ****
>>> Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu.
>>> listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.
>> Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu.
>> listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.
> Mark S. Harris
> Embedded Electronics Engineer
> Firmware, Board and Systems Design
> [log in to unmask]
> Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu.
> listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.
Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.