Scary Larry back on campus!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

Emil Nightrate

Absolutely blew my mind that they would let him back on (both circumstances).  But... same old, same old, eh?

[Anonymous]

why you would

warning?

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

Emil Nightrate

Absolutely blew my mind that they would let him back on (both circumstances).  But... same old, same old, eh?

  It seems so.  I honestly was disappointed.  It seemed to me like Hyde ws saying after all SF was really at fault.  You know I do not care what the circumstances were or how long ago it was. An adult teacher in a postion of power and resposiblity can not in good conscience have sex with minor student especially at a place like Hyde that talks the talk of charater.   I don't think Pam Smart will be showing up a Winnacunnet High School reunion any time soon. Of course see will have to be paroled first.

Emil

[Anonymous]

why you would

warning?

  curious

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back.  Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.

Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back.  Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.

Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.

 Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt.  Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety.  Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold.  IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde,  it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.  IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial  and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often.  Because  hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.  

There is no doubt in my mind about BT.

Emil

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back.  Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.

Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.

 Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt.  Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety.  Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold.  IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde,  it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.  IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial  and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often.  Because  hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.  

There is no doubt in my mind about BT.

Emil

Question for you Emil.  Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post?  I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD.  I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org and it looks pretty convincing.

[Anonymous]

Emil, you are so right-on! when you say

Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.

but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on.  And it hasn't, and doesn't.  It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say.  Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it.  I might go further...

I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt.  He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.

[Anonymous]

Emil, you are so right-on! when you say

Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.

but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on.  And it hasn't, and doesn't.  It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say.  Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it.  I might go further...

I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt.  He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.

Totally respect your posts Emil, but have to admit that I too got a little rattled when you said you would give LD the benefit of the doubt.  There was a whole lot of stuff going on with LD for many years which even the school admitted to. It was one of the teachers who prodded the girl to come forward so they could finally put an end to all his perverted B.S. Hyde never said the incident didn't happen but they were saying they took the appropriate action in a timely manner.  Take it or leave it, but I do have some inside info about this and know that LD was really bringing the school down with his perverted ways.

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back.  Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.

Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.

 Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt.  Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety.  Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold.  IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde,  it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.  IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial  and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often.  Because  hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.  

There is no doubt in my mind about BT.

Emil

Question for you Emil.  Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post?  I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD.  I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org and it looks pretty convincing.

  Because I was not there to talk first hand with the victims as I was with SF.  (she actually told me stuff to say to BT that got under him skin.  BT had to excuse himself from having to deal with me)  and I wanted to make my arguement that hyde is incorrect in it actions based on the assumption of that the defense of LD offered here was true.  IF hyde is incorrect in this situation, the best case, it certainly is if the charges are true.

 
Emil

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back.  Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.

Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.

 Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt.  Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety.  Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold.  IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde,  it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.  IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial  and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often.  Because  hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.  

There is no doubt in my mind about BT.

Emil

Question for you Emil.  Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post?  I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD.  I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org and it looks pretty convincing.

Let's face it.  Hyde has a very long track record that's very disturbing.  There's a whole host of nasty incidents that Hyde hasn't handled responsibly, honorably, or effectively.  I'm pretty confident that Hyde staff never imagined that all of these embarrassing episodes in the school's history would come back to haunt them.  Years ago they had no idea there would by something called the Internet that would cast light on Hyde's dirty secrets.  But, here we are.  I'm pretty sure all this bad publicity has Hyde staff feeling very nervous.  With good reason, many educational consultants and parents who were considering Hyde are being scared off.  I wouldn't be surprised if all this exposure is hurting Hyde's reputation very badly and is affecting enrollments.  Hyde is now getting what it has deserved for so long.  The hypocrisy that saturates Hyde, which seems to have a very difficult time honoring its own principle of truth over harmony, may be the root of the school's demise.  This lousy publicity HAS to be hurting Hyde in the pocketbook pretty significantly, as it should.

[Anonymous]

earlier case:  1975, BT, Bath
recent case:  200X, LD, Woodstock

Right,

   But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both.  Which would make you a member of a very small set.  I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself.  Are you pissed at hyde?
   I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me.  I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently.  It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house.  OK gross hyperbole.

OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate

Yeah, who is BT?

I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back.  Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.

Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.

 Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt.  Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety.  Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold.  IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde,  it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.  IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial  and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often.  Because  hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.  

There is no doubt in my mind about BT.

Emil

Question for you Emil.  Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post?  I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD.  I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org and it looks pretty convincing.

Let's face it.  Hyde has a very long track record that's very disturbing.  There's a whole host of nasty incidents that Hyde hasn't handled responsibly, honorably, or effectively.  I'm pretty confident that Hyde staff never imagined that all of these embarrassing episodes in the school's history would come back to haunt them.  Years ago they had no idea there would by something called the Internet that would cast light on Hyde's dirty secrets.  But, here we are.  I'm pretty sure all this bad publicity has Hyde staff feeling very nervous.  With good reason, many educational consultants and parents who were considering Hyde are being scared off.  I wouldn't be surprised if all this exposure is hurting Hyde's reputation very badly and is affecting enrollments.  Hyde is now getting what it has deserved for so long.  The hypocrisy that saturates Hyde, which seems to have a very difficult time honoring its own principle of truth over harmony, may be the root of the school's demise.  This lousy publicity HAS to be hurting Hyde in the pocketbook pretty significantly, as it should.

Yes, this negative publicity is probably haunting Hyde big time.  I've noticed that this Fornits website is climbing higher in the rankings when you Google "Hyde School."  It used to be buried; now it's showing up on Google's page 9, which increases the likelihood that anyone exploring Hyde will discover this website.  This can't be good news for Hyde's future.

[Anonymous]

google 'hyde school + abuse' and it comes up at the bottom of page 1.

whatever happened to all those negative reviews from unhappy parents that were submitted to amazon.com (the Gauld books)?  they aren't there anymore?  did someone pressure amazon to pull them?