Lars said
I don't care what their reasons are, they have no business bringing it up with my family."
I didn't miss the point of your original post Lars. I said in my first response that I actually agreed with you there are good reasons not to disclose one's identity here, but that it's also a personal decision. I didn't elaborate on that, but personal or not, I only agree with this to the extent one speaks of their personal experience. Acuse Hyde of a crime or mistreating others when without having the details or inside info, yes, that seems inappropriate and self-serving and worthy of challenge, including exploration of the posters bias, which requires their identity.
The concept of bias brings me back to your (secondary?) point that "Hyde doesn't respect privacy". Lars, when you were a little boy, your parents established a relationship with Hyde that focused on you. When Hyde called you recently (out of compassion) and then mentioned this to your family, that was business in the ordinary course. My issue is thus not with the primary point of your post, its how you chose to present it.
Lars said
Also, when the school figured out who I was, they actually contacted me and later mentioned it to my parents in a fundraising appeal. Hyde does not respect anyone's privacy and I don't want anything to do with the place.
"When Hyde figured out who I was"? Lars, you outed yourself. That was your choice. Take responsibility for it.
"They actually contacted me". What I find interesting was your use of the word "actually", as it seems to imply impropriety instead of presenting the facts about the compassionate nature of the call. And later Hyde "mentioned" your call with them to your parents. (And that's really all it was, right "mentioned"?) I have to say, big whoop there Lars. So what? You know as well as anyone that Hyde calls former parents and talks about former students. This was no surprise, and was both predictable and standard in the industry.
Your point about not wanting to share your association with Hyde with the world is valid, at least to the extent you are talking about your personal experience. Your jump to a point about Hyde not respecting privacty, based on your bizarre example which includes you outing yourself (a cry for help?), Hyde contacting you compassionately (and you leaving these details out), and then mentioning it to your parents like every fundraising group I have ever known, is unwarranted. What I find more interesting is why you make this connection, because you do it again in your latest post.
Lars said:
I don't care what their reasons are, they have no business bringing it up with my family....who the hell wants to have a potential employer finding out that you've been involved with such a fucked up place?
In that Hyde actually does have "business" bringing your conversation up with your parents, it started me thinking about what was really going on for you, so here's my guess: The fact you left out was that Hyde mentioned to your parents you were posting on this site.
Your real concern is that now your parents know you are posting on this site and that fact raises a host of potential issues, as it potentially highlights your unresolved issues with them (they sent you to Hyde, right)...and you don't like that one bit, so instead of dealing with the source of your issues, you project them onto Hyde.
Just a guess. I know I wouldn't want my parents to see all of my diary-like posts I make on various sites. That's why I would never out myself (on those sites)....and if I did, then even a non-lawyer would know I can't hold anyone other than myself responsible if my post somehow ends up on the front page of the New York Times.
