gauld admits hyde is a fraud and quits

[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

 GE,

  I will not talk to you unless you talk to Bill too.

Emil

P.S.
Bill I think you are alright.

[Ursus]

Okay, two things before I start putting my two cents in...

1.)  Billy, Gary is trying his damdest to solicit pro-Hyde voices, but it is very difficult when they always blow him off.  Perhaps you can be the exception and give him your POV?

2.)  I have been having computer problems due to installing a new program, and thus haven't been able to view or follow this thread since posting last night.  Coming onto it cold, with lots having posted, and essentially few or no ID as to poster, makes it really difficult and a royal pain in the buttocks to follow.

I totally understand how some wish to retain their anonymity, but taking on a username will not compromise that.  You don't even have to give your name, just an email address!  Plus there is a whole 'nother level to Fornits, available only to the avatars, which is being able to private mail someone re. issues perhaps too private to warrant discussion even here.

That said, if you still want to stay out of that loop, please try to note your chosen identity along with your posts, especially in an exchange like this, so that others can follow the development of your thought processes and possibly learn something from your rhetoric.  I, for one, would greatly appreciate it!   :lol:

...okay, I have to go repair something else, and it might take a few minutes to return...  -Urs

[Anonymous]

Please try to note your chosen identity along with your posts, especially in an exchange like this, so that others can follow the development of your thought processes and possibly learn something from your rhetoric.  I, for one, would greatly appreciate it!   :lol:

Just Emil and I goofing off again, with Mr. Eskow and Bill joining in.

Mike

[Anonymous]

Please try to note your chosen identity along with your posts, especially in an exchange like this, so that others can follow the development of your thought processes and possibly learn something from your rhetoric.  I, for one, would greatly appreciate it!   :lol:

Just Emil and I goofing off again, with Mr. Eskow and Bill joining in.

Mike

Mike

  So I take it you were satisfied with the color blind person sorting colored paper analogy.

Emil

[gary eskow]

"Flattery may work GE. Have any live Elliot Sharp CDs?"

Emil, you must be joking--- or you may be a soul relative of Joe's.  Not only would I not flatter you, or hand you any of the CDs of Elliot's that have been sent to me over the years, but I think I'll pass on the interview.

Thanks for your interest!

Peace,

GE

[Anonymous]

"Flattery may work GE. Have any live Elliot Sharp CDs?"

Emil, you must be joking--- or you may be a soul relative of Joe's.  Not only would I not flatter you, or hand you any of the CDs of Elliot's that have been sent to me over the years, but I think I'll pass on the interview.

Thanks for your interest!

Peace,

GE

  That was insulting.

Emil

[Anonymous]

Mike

So I take it you were satisfied with the color blind person sorting colored paper analogy.

Emil

Emil,

Let's just agree to disagree.

Mike

P.S. Analogies belong in rhetoric, not logic.

[gary eskow]

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

Billy- Frankly, I have plenty of interviews with those who view Hyde in the harshest terms.  Unfortunately, I haven't been contacted by a single person in his or her 30's, for example, who has said that he/she has lived by the five words and principles (does anyone remember these poorly written constructs years later?) and that the Hyde experience has materially shaped their adult life positively.

In a recent conversation I had with Laura Gauld I mentioned this fact to her, and said that I'd like to interview her and anyone she might wish to have contact me.  So far, nada.  Ethically, I don't feel comfortable proceeding with an article of my own,  or even turning over my files to an indy reporter, without waiting as long as possible to hear from adults who have graduated with Hyde and maintain a positive perspective.

At some point, however, I will have to proceed.  A few other issues need to explored fully, particularly with regard to the ethos that Hyde brings to underprivileged areas of the country through its charter school program.  The moral standards that the school holds its adult community to have to be analyzed and presented- fairly and dispassionately- to the public.  I'm sure that you, and every caring member of the Hyde community would agree that no child should ever be placed in an environment that puts him or her at risk.

You're in the stretch run.  Good luck!

GE

[Anonymous]

Mike

So I take it you were satisfied with the color blind person sorting colored paper analogy.

Emil

Emil,

Let's just agree to disagree.

Mike

P.S. Analogies belong in rhetoric, not logic.

 I was using rhetoric to explain the logic.

[Ursus]

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.

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 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."

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.

Okay, please forgive me if I have misattributed identities in the above... and sorry if I haven't picked the quotes in the best possible fashion; I'm having trouble with my "previews"...

To me, the whole issue of how it is determined whether someone does well at Hyde or not is somewhat academic... I hear all of the above, and I agree with sentiments stated... said differences seem to be far smaller than notable similarities.  I think Hyde tries to follow something analogous to a formula of performance and character evaluation, but the reality is that many other factors enter the picture:

• athletic prowess or lack thereof
• social adroitness/graces or lack thereof
• family financials or lack thereof
• family fame or lack thereof
• family input (Family Weekends and recruitment activity) or lack thereof
• the mallability of your mind or the impression thereof
• whether someone in a position of power really likes you or really dislikes you

There are cases of kids who do all that is required--who fervently believe, and to whom it is not a game, but the real thing--and the school still brands them a loser and ostracizes them.  And that is horrible, given the consequences of not fitting in at Hyde.  This is hardly a democratic or pluralistic society, none but those who socially conform to the Hyde status quo--be it by effort or be it by luck--can possibly truly succeed in this system.  It is, as someone else brought up here not too long ago (?maybe not someone else, but I have no way of knowing or remembering)...  a real Lord of The Flies scenario.

Just my thoughts, the usual piss and vinegar...
 ::bigmouth::  ::bigmouth::

[Ursus]

Hi Mike, thought it might be you!  Hmmm... 'MyEye Mike' might be a cool moniker?
 :rofl:
-Urs

Thanks, guys, for adding the IDs!

[Anonymous]

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.

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 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."

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.

Okay, please forgive me if I have misattributed identities in the above... and sorry if I haven't picked the quotes in the best possible fashion; I'm having trouble with my "previews"...

To me, the whole issue of how it is determined whether someone does well at Hyde or not is somewhat academic... I hear all of the above, and I agree with sentiments stated... said differences seem to be far smaller than notable similarities.  I think Hyde tries to follow something analogous to a formula of performance and character evaluation, but the reality is that many other factors enter the picture:

• athletic prowess or lack thereof
• social adroitness/graces or lack thereof
• family financials or lack thereof
• family fame or lack thereof
• family input (Family Weekends and recruitment activity) or lack thereof
• the mallability of your mind or the impression thereof
• whether someone in a position of power really likes you or really dislikes you

There are cases of kids who do all that is required--who fervently believe, and to whom it is not a game, but the real thing--and the school still brands them a loser and ostracizes them.  And that is horrible, given the consequences of not fitting in at Hyde.  This is hardly a democratic or pluralistic society, none but those who socially conform to the Hyde status quo--be it by effort or be it by luck--can possibly truly succeed in this system.  It is, as someone else brought up here not too long ago (?maybe not someone else, but I have no way of knowing or remembering)...  a real Lord of The Flies scenario.

Just my thoughts, the usual piss and vinegar...
 ::bigmouth::  ::bigmouth::

  That is why I think the color blind person sorting colored paper is a great analogy.  What is character, and how do you judge it?  I don't think Hyde has a clue.  I think they use some external indications that have little bearing on character, like introversion vs extroversion.  Why is extroversion a character indicator.  

Emil N

[Anonymous]

Hi Mike, thought it might be you!  Hmmm... 'My Eye Mike' might be a cool moniker?

I think Hyde tries to follow something analogous to a formula of performance and character evaluation, but the reality is that many other factors enter the picture:

• athletic prowess or lack thereof
• social adroitness/graces or lack thereof
• family financials or lack thereof
• family fame or lack thereof
• family input (Family Weekends and recruitment activity) or lack thereof
• the mallability of your mind or the impression thereof
• whether someone in a position of power really likes you or really dislikes you

Urs,

An eye for an eye. Why do you believe that the non-character-based factors listed above are taken into account during an evaluation? For my part, I'm willing to give Hyde the benefit of the doubt that every character evaluation is made in good faith.

Mike

[Ursus]

...speaking strictly from personal experience, Mike, and from what I have observed and remembered...

There were quite a few things that I remembered, perhaps not the same things some one else might have, and perhaps not even the most important ones, to be sure... And why I remembered these, and not some else, is a mixed bag in and of itself.  But the adult perspective I have now, as opposed to the malleable plate I was then, has lent a change to the wind of perception.

I'm sure that an earnest Hyde rookie can spew out a "good faith character evaluation" that could pass muster at Hyde.  The key descriptive here is "earnest Hyde rookie," which, by definition, involves a mindset incapable of authentic objectivity, however well-intentioned.

[Ursus]

Let us not forget the realities of continued existence.  No money?  No sunny school.