Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools
gauld admits hyde is a fraud and quits
gary eskow:
Hey just a little good natured dialectic. This is the kind of talk you can't get at Hyde. I suppose I could get an account but I am not a joiner or a bricklayer.
Emil Nightrate[/quote]
Understood! I have read your posts and it's clear you have a lot of insight to offer... would you care to be interviewed?
If you'd like to see samples of my interviews before answering, they can be found on my website, www.garyeskow.com
Peace,
GE
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote ---Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately
--- End quote ---
I am not using the term indiscriminately. I am however referring implicitly to the definition of the terms in the Hyde sense.
Winner = Hyde graduate
Loser = {drop out, runaway, banished, walked with a certificate}
I am evaluating the system on the terms of the system. The system claims to differentiate based on "Character" To prove that this does not happen and assignment is random or arbitrary, I need only to show that the system fails and the same result could occur via another process. I have done this.
I do not accept the Hyde definitions, in fact by proving my chain of reasoning, I render those definitions without value. BTW "my eye" is not a valid argument.
--- End quote ---
We're starting to converge. I say that the assignment of winner-loser status is not random (e.g., coin toss) because it is made on the basis of character evaluation. You maintain that the assignment is random because of the margin of error inherent in character evaluation. I think that we can both agree that character evaluation is performance-based and hence "inaccurate" rather than "random."
The margin of error in the long run for a random coin toss is 50 percent, while the margin of error in the long run for character evaluations may well be greater than 50 percent.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""gary eskow"" ---Hey just a little good natured dialectic. This is the kind of talk you can't get at Hyde. I suppose I could get an account but I am not a joiner or a bricklayer.
Emil Nightrate
--- End quote ---
Understood! I have read your posts and it's clear you have a lot of insight to offer... would you care to be interviewed?
If you'd like to see samples of my interviews before answering, they can be found on my website, www.garyeskow.com
Peace,
GE[/quote]
Flattery may work GE. Have any live Elliot Sharp CDs? I have some of him playing with John Zorn ... I think.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote ---Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately
--- End quote ---
I am not using the term indiscriminately. I am however referring implicitly to the definition of the terms in the Hyde sense.
Winner = Hyde graduate
Loser = {drop out, runaway, banished, walked with a certificate}
I am evaluating the system on the terms of the system. The system claims to differentiate based on "Character" To prove that this does not happen and assignment is random or arbitrary, I need only to show that the system fails and the same result could occur via another process. I have done this.
I do not accept the Hyde definitions, in fact by proving my chain of reasoning, I render those definitions without value. BTW "my eye" is not a valid argument.
--- End quote ---
We're starting to converge. I say that the assignment of winner-loser status is not random (e.g., coin toss) because it is made on the basis of character evaluation. You maintain that the assignment is random because of the margin of error inherent in character evaluation. I think that we can both agree that character evaluation is performance-based and hence "inaccurate" rather than "random."
The margin of error in the long run for a random coin toss is 50 percent, while the margin of error in the long run for character evaluations may well be greater than 50 percent.
--- End quote ---
That is a much better argument that "my eye." Actually I maintain that it is not an evaluation process with a known average defect rate with variations but rather completely ineffective. The system is like a person with color blindness sorting colored sheets of construction paper on the basis of color. If the person gets a red sheet in the red bin it wholly a coincident.
If you went to Hyde, you know that some of the tests are like the medieval practices of determining if a person is a practitioner of witchcraft. "If she floats she's a witch" "If the sore festers he's a warlock" Substitute: If he is a start Varsity Athlete , if her parent's are large donors. Then add the A list people that are faking it and the fact that the sincere folk that are accepted just because they fit the system, which IMHO is a contra indication of character, you have a system that is more or less heads or tails.
Emil
Anonymous:
mr. eskow...i assume you have been interviewing people who have been through hyde, both middle, extremes, and leaning experiences at hyde.
no attitude behind the comment. just asking. because i see a lot of the anti-hyde people on here get asked to be interviewed. just wondering.
- bill procida '07
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version