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

[Ursus]

It seems that Joe and Ed cannot agree, because a teen who has consensual sex with an adult is either responsible for her actions or not. But Ed and Joe are making the same assumption that the rape took place in a vacuum. The child was prevented from speaking to police, counselors, or anyone outside Hyde. She was subjected to the censure of the community, led by Ed and Joe who were of different minds. In a community meeting Ed bitterly intoned that the girl was responsible for her rape and had "compromised the integrity of the school," as if underage party and adult party to consensual sex are equally to blame. On the other end of insanity, Joe held that she was not responsible for her rape, not because she was innocent of any wrongdoing, but because as a flawed product of a flawed culture she didn't know the meaning of responsibility, and Hyde had to teach it to her as one teaches obedience to a dog. The students rallied behind their favorite authority: Ed or Joe. No leniency and understanding were shown to the girl. That's how Hyde handles rape. It's a wonder if she did not lose her sanity along with her virginity.

I don't believe "consent" was given.  I don't believe consent was asked for.

If you want to slime someone into doing something you want, and there's a very high likelihood that you are going to get a "no," you don't ask them.  You find some way to maneuver them into a situation where protestation is minimized or even eliminated.

Was SF able to present evidence of carpet burns from when he pulled her into his apartment?  Or was it more subtle?  He pulled her in to show her something "special?"  Perhaps the completion of the assigned schoolwork was somehow involved.  Somehow or other, I am sure he played on her innate abilities to feel guilt or shame.  Guilt of what I have no clue.  But one thing is certain:  guilt and shame were certainly exploited in the aftermath.

[Ursus]

...On the other end of insanity, Joe held that she was not responsible for her rape, not because she was innocent of any wrongdoing, but because as a flawed product of a flawed culture she didn't know the meaning of responsibility, and Hyde had to teach it to her as one teaches obedience to a dog. The students rallied behind their favorite authority: Ed or Joe.

From what I recall, everyone appeared to more or less rally behind Ed, regardless of their inner thoughts about the matter.  I don't think we had much of a choice.  Joe was supposed to work on his book that year; he wasn't even supposed to be in the picture to any significant degree.  Ed seized the case as a rallying call to wrest the prime moral authority from Joe.

They allowed SF to stay out most of that year, enduring all the humiliation and ostracism in the hopes of graduating.  Shortly before graduation, around this time of year if I recall correctly, there was a purge.  Ed made a list of students who had "attitude problems."  SF was summarily excised, and that was the end of the matter as far as Hyde was concerned.

[Jesus H Christ]

if(attitude problem == thoughtcrime)
    {print "you are at Hyde;}
else
    {you may be some place normal;}

[Ursus]

Joe:  blames the system
Ed:   blames the victim
Bob: blame free

In a nutshell.

Joe: Hyde as the solution
Ed:  Hyde as victim

Me: Hyde as unindited  co conspirator
       

  It is great how false dichotomizing an issue can divert you from the obvious:   Hyde negligent in it's duty provide a safe environment for it's charges. Hyde, the great picker of character, had a drunken letch on the fast tract to leadership.  Hyde's failure to discern the nature of a staff member lead to one of it's charges to be put into a situation where, instead of an educational experience that lead to emotional and spiritual grow, a life long emotional scar was left.

"lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull I dreamed"

Methinks we are all of the same or similar mind on this, Bro and Guest(s)...

My concern is that these types of incidents will continue to happen (e.g., Dubinsky et al), because the conditions that spawn them have not changed.  Perhaps they can not change, as they are integral to "how Hyde works."

[Jesus H Christ]

Cherchez La Femme

  Why would Ed blame poor Sabina?  Perhaps because it diverted attention from the fact that he was the guy that picked Bob as his lieutenant.

[Jesus H Christ]

Joe:  blames the system
Ed:   blames the victim
Bob: blame free

In a nutshell.

Joe: Hyde as the solution
Ed:  Hyde as victim

Me: Hyde as unindited  co conspirator
       

  It is great how false dichotomizing an issue can divert you from the obvious:   Hyde negligent in it's duty provide a safe environment for it's charges. Hyde, the great picker of character, had a drunken letch on the fast tract to leadership.  Hyde's failure to discern the nature of a staff member lead to one of it's charges to be put into a situation where, instead of an educational experience that lead to emotional and spiritual grow, a life long emotional scar was left.

"lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull I dreamed"

Methinks we are all of the same or similar mind on this, Bro and Guest(s)...

My concern is that these types of incidents will continue to happen (e.g., Dubinsky et al), because the conditions that spawn them have not changed.  Perhaps they can not change, as they are integral to "how Hyde works."

  It is an absolute danger in the methodology.   The sordid little details of how the seminar process turns into an opportunity for voyeurism then provides for .... I would say it is as dangerous as psychedelic drugs.   Demonstrated therapeutic uses as documented in Learys early work.  Bill Wilson of AA  was one of Leary's subject.  Yes Bill dropped acid after he was sober.  Then you have Charlie Manson.
 A hammer is meant to drive nails, there is no stopping some one bent on murder from sinking the claw of a roofing hammer into your skull when your back is turned.  Always do a background check on the hired labor, 'specially if you are gonna' let then use hammers and power tools.
there is some stuff I advocate zero tolerance for.  When a dog bites  a kid around here, we kill the dog.   I will let you extrapolate.

[Ursus]

Cherchez La Femme

  Why would Ed blame poor Sabina?  Perhaps because it diverted attention from the fact that he was the guy that picked Bob as his lieutenant.

It would seem that Ed Legg took this incident personally, and defended his judgment and and hence reputation by skewering a target several times removed from his hand-picked successor.

[Anonymous]

Cherchez La Femme

  Why would Ed blame poor Sabina?  Perhaps because it diverted attention from the fact that he was the guy that picked Bob as his lieutenant.

It would seem that Ed Legg took this incident personally, and defended his judgment and and hence reputation by skewering a target several times removed from his hand-picked successor.

   So much for "Ethical" Ed.

[Anonymous]

Having known both Sabina F and Bob T I have no hesitation in saying that Ursus' fanciful portrait of Bob as a violent and manipulative swindler, and his other moral strictures on his character, can be dismissed as unreliable second-hand evidence. There is nothing in the character of Bob or in his actions that justifies this picture of him. Nor is there anything in Ursus' remarks that might predispose me to regard him as a friend and confidant of Sabina; on the contrary, the way in which his remarks are related rather suggests that they owe their origin to the spite of this person ill disposed toward Hyde.

[Anonymous]

Having known both Sabina F and Bob T I have no hesitation in saying that Ursus' fanciful portrait of Bob as a violent and manipulative swindler, and his other moral strictures on his character, can be dismissed as unreliable second-hand evidence. There is nothing in the character of Bob or in his actions that justifies this picture of him. Nor is there anything in Ursus' remarks that might predispose me to regard him as a friend and confidant of Sabina; on the contrary, the way in which his remarks are related rather suggests that they owe their origin to the spite of this person ill disposed toward Hyde.

  You cast shadows but shed no light.

[Anonymous]

other moral strictures on his character

  At hyde committing a sex crime with a student is no cause for "moral strictures."  It is a cause for celebration.   Lets invite all the Hyde degenerates to a party,  Oh,  I beg you pardon,   ....  Hyde already did that last year.   Bob was there.

[Anonymous]

You cast shadows but shed no light.

I do not spread rumors.

At hyde committing a sex crime with a student is no cause for "moral strictures."  It is a cause for celebration.   Lets invite all the Hyde degenerates to a party,  Oh,  I beg you pardon,   ....  Hyde already did that last year.   Bob was there.

So were you.

[Anonymous]

You cast shadows but shed no light.

I do not spread rumors.

At hyde committing a sex crime with a student is no cause for "moral strictures."  It is a cause for celebration.   Lets invite all the Hyde degenerates to a party,  Oh,  I beg you pardon,   ....  Hyde already did that last year.   Bob was there.

So were you.

If you do not spread rumors, then what is the "truth?"  
You could kill all the speculation on this thread with the truth, if you in fact know it.  Bet on the truth, the truth will set [us] free.

I know some one that was there.   I am not prepared to say if I was there or not.

[Ursus]

Having known both Sabina F and Bob T I have no hesitation in saying that Ursus' fanciful portrait of Bob as a violent and manipulative swindler, and his other moral strictures on his character, can be dismissed as unreliable second-hand evidence. There is nothing in the character of Bob or in his actions that justifies this picture of him. Nor is there anything in Ursus' remarks that might predispose me to regard him as a friend and confidant of Sabina; on the contrary, the way in which his remarks are related rather suggests that they owe their origin to the spite of this person ill disposed toward Hyde.

I have no problem with your disagreeing with me nor even with your dismissing me as spouting "unreliable second-hand evidence" due to "spite" (although I do know better), but kindly refrain from misquoting me or attributing words "to the effect of" that bear little resemblance to what I actually stated.  

When you state "...that Ursus' fanciful portrait of Bob as a violent and manipulative swindler, and his other moral strictures on his character...," pray tell where exactly do you get the impression that I asserted or implied "violent?"  In fact, I stated that I had some difficulty picturing more extreme examples of such; however, I clearly saw him as being manipulative, and I'll stand by that 'till the day I die.  Here is what I actually stated relevant to your assertions, as quoted from two different posts:

I have a hard time picturing Bob Thurrell forcibly throttling an asleep SF in order to get his rocks off. I have an easier time seeing him as a gutless opportunist, which I do think he is, orchestrating the circumstances and then manipulating SF by whatever means given her asleep state. Probably the truth is somewhere in between. Unless we hear from SF, however, we may never know for sure.

I don't believe "consent" was given. I don't believe consent was asked for.

If you want to slime someone into doing something you want, and there's a very high likelihood that you are going to get a "no," you don't ask them. You find some way to maneuver them into a situation where protestation is minimized or even eliminated.

Sorry, Buddy, but I did know SF and RT, and I did know you as well.  Your attempts to discredit me appear more than concretely based in your attempts to bolster Hyde's unattractive and sagging profile.

While I find your loyalty to the old Alma Mater admirable in the abstract, in this particular case you are doing someone a most despicable disservice, and I am not necessarily referring to 'Ursus' here.

[Anonymous]

Was SF able to present evidence of carpet burns from when he pulled her into his apartment?  Or was it more subtle? He pulled her in to show her something "special?" Perhaps the completion of the assigned schoolwork was somehow involved.

Pure fantasy.