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

[Anonymous]

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip!  The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece.  He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!

You really need to bone up on your logic.

Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.

I think you are being a tad pedantic.

[Anonymous]

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip!  The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece.  He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!

You really need to bone up on your logic.

Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.

I think you are being a tad pedantic.

Lame excuse for unclear presentation of ideas and invalid inference.

[Anonymous]

Presentation could have been clearer but was adequate.
Deductive reasoning was correct.
Argument was valid.

All in all, better than arguing for argument's sake cause someone is in a hissy fit about something else.[/url][/u]

[Anonymous]

Presentation could have been clearer but was adequate.
Deductive reasoning was correct.
Argument was valid.

All in all, better than arguing for argument's sake cause someone is in a hissy fit about something else.[/url][/u]

"No" on all four counts. Getting in the last word won't change that.

[Anonymous]

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip!  The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece.  He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!

You really need to bone up on your logic.

Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.

I think you are being a tad pedantic.

Lame excuse for unclear presentation of ideas and invalid inference.

Well there is the kettle calling the pot black.  Justify a dead greek boy fucker as a counter example.

[Anonymous]

1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.

2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.

Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip!  The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece.  He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!

You really need to bone up on your logic.

Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.

I think you are being a tad pedantic.

Lame excuse for unclear presentation of ideas and invalid inference.

Well there is the kettle calling the pot black.  Justify a dead greek boy fucker as a counter example.

Now in English, please.

[Anonymous]

It is almost bed time.  Larry baiting will not work.  Larry can't turn on a computer.

[Anonymous]

But his wife sure can!

[Anonymous]

hi Donna

[Jesus H Christ]

Bear baiting is still legal in the state of Maine.

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Mai ... 40412.html

[Anonymous]

Hyde has hurt many, and some of the wounds are fresh and still smarting. But you've been out for thirty something years. I don't know what happened to you there, and I don't want to know. But I've known many people in my life who have been to hell and back ---and I'm talking about traumas besides which Hyde pales --- who snapped out of it in a lot less time than you. Like it or not, I think you have a hidden agenda, which is to become the working class hero of Fornits, the leader of the oppressed, the loudest, most vituperative voice of all. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, Ursus, but it strikes me as a pose.

You can judge me all you want; it's certainly your prerogative.  But I can assure you of one thing:  no hidden agenda, no pose.

It's been almost 30 years since I was at Hyde, as well.  Have had a good life, with much personal and professional prosperity--just a few emotional brush fires along the way. Didn't think much about the place.  However, there's something about being in one's 40's, about raising one's own children, which compels a look back.

And now enough of my life has passed to be able to draw the arc back to Hyde.  (About time, you say?  Well, just you wait and see:-)  I came to Hyde fresh frome a small-town elementary school (Junior School, anyone?), dropping right into the intrigues surrounding the Legg-Gauld war, and all the other dramas of that era. It was formative.

Finding this forum has been a gift.  Despite the fact that we get a little overblown at times, the dissection of shared memories has been helpful--maybe even essential.  We were sitting in the same room thinking--this is wrong!  I don't want to be a part of this! And now we know we weren't alone, and that we aren't crazy (much). It helps.

All this to say--lay off Ursus.  Wounds needn't be fresh to inspire dramatic comment.

Lurker

[Jesus H Christ]

Hey Lurker,

   So what do you remember from the Legg-Gauld war?

[Anonymous]

My general impression was that Legg wanted to give
 "leadership experience," to "good kids" from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds, and that Gauld wanted to cultivate "character based education" among the affluent and troubled.  There was a lot of pressure among the faculty (and key
students and alumni) to choose sides.  The Leggs had some serious misgivings about Joe's abusive manipulations of all around him (despite --or perhaps because of--the fact that they were pretty bought into the seminar process).  Gauld doubted that Legg had the financial best interests of the school at heart.  Not a big fan of all the scholarship kids, I think (at least from a budgetary perspective).  Plus, he wanted back in.

Mostly, I remember that everyone was stressed and unhappy

L

[Jesus H Christ]

My general impression was that Legg wanted to give
 "leadership experience," to "good kids" from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds, and that Gauld wanted to cultivate "character based education" among the affluent and troubled.  There was a lot of pressure among the faculty (and key
students and alumni) to choose sides.  The Leggs had some serious misgivings about Joe's abusive manipulations of all around him (despite --or perhaps because of--the fact that they were pretty bought into the seminar process).  Gauld doubted that Legg had the financial best interests of the school at heart.  Not a big fan of all the scholarship kids, I think (at least from a budgetary perspective).  Plus, he wanted back in.

Mostly, I remember that everyone was stressed and unhappy

L

  How did Joe eventually lose?   What staff left with him?

[Ursus]

Thank you, Lurker and kind Guest, for your votes of affirmation.  I am sure that if it wasn't the 30-year issue it would be something else.  Mike has a thirst for polemic that goes beyond any rational explanation, so I'm not even going to try.

What concerns me most about the pick-pick-picking is the undoubtedly chilling effect this particular issue might have on other posters and readers regarding their own experiences.  I've come across this same sentiment whilst trawling the archives here, the "get over it already" and the "there must be something wrong with you if you don't" mentality of some seemingly most robust psyches, and it simply smacks of petty intimidation.  Pretty similar, if you ask me, to the conformist mindset  I remember from Hyde.  And pretty sad, when you consider that we're really all in this together.

Yes, finding this Forum have been a gift.  A most life-affirming gift, at least for me.