gauld admits hyde is a fraud and quits

[gary eskow]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech.  Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.

In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.  

Just my take.

GE

[Anonymous]

In the Book of Genesis, after Cain murdered his brother Abel, God asked him  where his brother was.  Cain answered, "I know not; am I my brother's keeper?"  

Cain's words have come to symbolize people's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of others--their brothers in the extended sense of the term.  

Cain's words have come to symbolize that for Joe Gauld. For me, they still mean that Cain was NOT appointed his brother's keeper; i.e., he was NOT entitled to impose his will on another man's. God himself was not entitled to impose his will on Adam and Eve.

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech.  Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.

In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.  

Just my take.

GE

  What do you disagree with?  The point you made has nothing to do with what I said.

 My point is that there is an implicit arrogance in the notion of BK.  And that Hyde is built on that social stratification.  It a system that can be gamed, creates arbitrary winners and loses and thus is no different that the system that it proports to be better than.   To quote "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[Anonymous]

In the Book of Genesis, after Cain murdered his brother Abel, God asked him  where his brother was.  Cain answered, "I know not; am I my brother's keeper?"  

Cain's words have come to symbolize people's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the welfare of others--their brothers in the extended sense of the term.  

Cain's words have come to symbolize that for Joe Gauld. For me, they still mean that Cain was NOT appointed his brother's keeper; i.e., he was NOT entitled to impose his will on another man's. God himself was not entitled to impose his will on Adam and Eve.

"Cain caught Able rollin' loaded dice"

http://arts.ucsc.edu/Gdead/AGDL/halfstep.html

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech.  Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.

In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.  

Just my take.

GE

  What do you disagree with?  The point you made has nothing to do with what I said.

My point is that there is an implicit arrogance in the notion of BK.  And that Hyde is built on that social stratification.  It a system that can be gamed, creates arbitrary winners and loses and thus is no different that the system that it proports to be better than.   To quote "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

I agree about the stratification. Gauld has harnessed the natural energy of all nasty little high school cliques and subsumed them under just two monolithic pro- and anti-Hyde groups. And, you've got to give the devil his due, he was shrewd enough to do away with the usual high school setup of students versus adults and instead create a you versus all setup. That's the beauty of brother's keeper. Opposition is crushed by peers as well as by administration. But I disagree that the game creates arbitrary winners and losers; it creates arbitrary rules. If you play by them, you'll win. If not, or if you try to change them, or even if you ask why the hell am I playing, you'll lose.

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech.  Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.

In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.  

Just my take.

GE

  What do you disagree with?  The point you made has nothing to do with what I said.

My point is that there is an implicit arrogance in the notion of BK.  And that Hyde is built on that social stratification.  It a system that can be gamed, creates arbitrary winners and loses and thus is no different that the system that it proports to be better than.   To quote "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

I agree about the stratification. Gauld has harnessed the natural energy of all nasty little high school cliques and subsumed them under just two monolithic pro- and anti-Hyde groups. And, you've got to give the devil his due, he was shrewd enough to do away with the usual high school setup of students versus adults and instead create a you versus all setup. That's the beauty of brother's keeper. Opposition is crushed by peers as well as by administration. But I disagree that the game creates arbitrary winners and losers; it creates arbitrary rules. If you play by them, you'll win. If not, or if you try to change them, or even if you ask why the hell am I playing, you'll lose.

  Since the rules are themselves are arbitrary the bifurcation thus created is arbitrary.  There is no way to say group A is good, group B is bad, since we clearly have evidence of those in group A who fake the requirements to be in group A. Also we have evident of members of group B that have the characteristics that group A supposes to represent,   Since the system proports to differentiate based on an absolute value system, but clearly fails at least in some cases it is arbitrary.  Similar result could occur from a random process like a coin toss.

Q.E.D

[Anonymous]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech.  Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.

In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.  

Just my take.

GE

  What do you disagree with?  The point you made has nothing to do with what I said.

My point is that there is an implicit arrogance in the notion of BK.  And that Hyde is built on that social stratification.  It a system that can be gamed, creates arbitrary winners and loses and thus is no different that the system that it proports to be better than.   To quote "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

I agree about the stratification. Gauld has harnessed the natural energy of all nasty little high school cliques and subsumed them under just two monolithic pro- and anti-Hyde groups. And, you've got to give the devil his due, he was shrewd enough to do away with the usual high school setup of students versus adults and instead create a you versus all setup. That's the beauty of brother's keeper. Opposition is crushed by peers as well as by administration. But I disagree that the game creates arbitrary winners and losers; it creates arbitrary rules. If you play by them, you'll win. If not, or if you try to change them, or even if you ask why the hell am I playing, you'll lose.

Since the rules are themselves are arbitrary the bifurcation thus created is arbitrary.  There is no way to say group A is good, group B is bad, since we clearly have evidence of those in group A who fake the requirements to be in group A. Also we have evident of members of group B that have the characteristics that group A supposes to represent,   Since the system proports to differentiate based on an absolute value system, but clearly fails at least in some cases it is arbitrary.  Similar result could occur from a random process like a coin toss.

Q.E.D

Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately in two very different senses, namely, winner and loser as defined by Hyde and winner and loser as defined by the world at large. I maintain that if you play the Hyde game you will win big time at Hyde and there is indeed a payoff: peace, praise, power, Paris, Hyde diploma, and more. The fact that outside of Hyde the term "winner" may be synonymous with "loser" (hypocrite, Nazi, dog turd, etc.) is incontrovertible but does not detract from the fact that a payoff can be had by playing the game at Hyde.

[gary eskow]

"What do you disagree with? The point you made has nothing to do with what I said."

Hard to know who you are, and therefore what you said, since, like many "guests" you seem to have a problem identifying yourself to the community.

Sharp elbows are ok, but since we're all on the same side- trying to discover the truth about human nature, and how best to help kids in crises and their families- tact might also be worth considering.

GE

[Anonymous]

Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately

  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.

[Anonymous]

"What do you disagree with? The point you made has nothing to do with what I said."

Hard to know who you are, and therefore what you said, since, like many "guests" you seem to have a problem identifying yourself to the community.

Sharp elbows are ok, but since we're all on the same side- trying to discover the truth about human nature, and how best to help kids in crises and their families- tact might also be worth considering.

GE

  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

[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]

Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately

  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.

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]

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

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]

Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately

  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.

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.

  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