Hyde Enrollment

[Anonymous]

ps.. anyone up for trolling the wiki site?

I think that lemonparty.org link would be much better on a pro-hyde wiki.

I'll be rooting for you. Leave poor old Sumner Hawley out of it, though. I don't want to besmirch his memory because of something someone overheard on the subway.

  My vote is to stop slander a old dead guy as long as we can still slander the living Hydies with impunity.

I think there's enough to indict Hyde on if we confine ourselves to our own personal experiences.

But anonymous slander is such a pleasant diversion from the work a day worries of a character education failure.

[Anonymous]

ps.. anyone up for trolling the wiki site?

I think that lemonparty.org link would be much better on a pro-hyde wiki.

I'll be rooting for you. Leave poor old Sumner Hawley out of it, though. I don't want to besmirch his memory because of something someone overheard on the subway.

  My vote is to stop slander a old dead guy as long as we can still slander the living Hydies with impunity.

I think there's enough to indict Hyde on if we confine ourselves to our own personal experiences.

But anonymous slander is such a pleasant diversion from the work a day worries of a character education failure.

Did you ever think about what you could do to help someone else? Hyde was so right about you.

[Ursus]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

[Anonymous]

ps.. anyone up for trolling the wiki site?

I think that lemonparty.org link would be much better on a pro-hyde wiki.

I'll be rooting for you. Leave poor old Sumner Hawley out of it, though. I don't want to besmirch his memory because of something someone overheard on the subway.

  My vote is to stop slander a old dead guy as long as we can still slander the living Hydies with impunity.

I think there's enough to indict Hyde on if we confine ourselves to our own personal experiences.

But anonymous slander is such a pleasant diversion from the work a day worries of a character education failure.

Did you ever think about what you could do to help someone else? Hyde was so right about you.

  Damn you are so right. I never think of others. Always in it the game for my own game.  And yes I am dead because that is were Hyde said I would be by now.

  But unfortunately for Hyde I am still alive (it ain't no luck, I learned to duck)and I have a pretty strong track record of public service.

[Anonymous]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

[Anonymous]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

 I think the rumor was that there was sex between Sumner and a returning alum named Phil, if I am not mistaken about his name.    How is this less smarmy then Joe doing AVH?  Surely not child molestation, but unseemly

[Anonymous]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

 I think the rumor was that there was sex between Sumner and a returning alum named Phil, if I am not mistaken about his name.    How is this less smarmy then Joe doing AVH?  Surely not child molestation, but unseemly

Meet me at the fence when you finish the wash.

[Anne Bonney]

Meet me at the fence when you finish the wash.

 :rofl:

[Anonymous]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

 I think the rumor was that there was sex between Sumner and a returning alum named Phil, if I am not mistaken about his name.    How is this less smarmy then Joe doing AVH?  Surely not child molestation, but unseemly

Meet me at the fence when you finish the wash.

It is a long walk to that fence.  I can't walk on water like some of the denizens of your town could.

[Anonymous]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

 I think the rumor was that there was sex between Sumner and a returning alum named Phil, if I am not mistaken about his name.    How is this less smarmy then Joe doing AVH?  Surely not child molestation, but unseemly

Meet me at the fence when you finish the wash.

It is a long walk to that fence.  I can't walk on water like some of the denizens of your town could.

The fence is pretty high too.

[Ursus]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

 ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::
Sorry, Mike, but you have a L O N G way to go to figure out just what I do or do not know.  But, in time, you will figure some of that out and you will, no doubt, feel very very stupid making posts like that above.  I'm not even going to bother touching that one, ha haa!

[Anonymous]

Dead or not dead, there are people still alive right now still haunted and damaged by what Hyde's former and in some case, still current, staff did to them.  Are people saying that we should suffer to save someone's good name for the sake of a dead person's sensibilities?

Just how "good" was that name?  Good enough to warrant destroying other people's lives who suffer from those lies?  

I say let the truth out and let the chips lay right there where they deserve to lay.

This is simply irresistible, Ursus. I am sure those of us who read your posts on Sumner Hawley, Sabina, Ron Sanner, Cecilia whoever, and a host of other Hyde faculty you've never even laid eyes on indeed had a good laugh upon reading your last paragraph.

As usual, your message shows that one can read a lot and still understand very little. The troubled teen industry is a deep and subtle subject and there is no shame in not knowing all of it (I for one make no claim about being an expert, though I know a thing or two about the subject). Just a small clarification: What one poster did was to report a rumor about Sumner Hawley having had an affair with a colleague. This is a very interesting and juicy piece of gossip, but it tells us eventually NOTHING about the correctness of the rumor. You subsequently altered this rumor into another of your own invention that Sumner was a child molester.

But all this is besides the point. The trouble is with your "methodology" of "proving" things by quotations (your own qotations, other people's, articles, posts, etc.). Can you really imagine that there is any one of us who would not love to decide the correctness of all the information we absorb? (If for no better reason, to enhance our own chances of survival?) I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply do not understand that you are a very sloppy scholar. But this is of course a repeating pattern for you, Ursus. You simply do not understand what it means to establish truth. Perhaps there are fields where proofs by quotations are accepted, but not in any area I would like to be associated with. Finally, let me repeat my suggestion that we speak only about subjects on which we have some basic understanding. This is a forum for adults, after all.

 I think the rumor was that there was sex between Sumner and a returning alum named Phil, if I am not mistaken about his name.    How is this less smarmy then Joe doing AVH?  Surely not child molestation, but unseemly

Meet me at the fence when you finish the wash.

It is a long walk to that fence.  I can't walk on water like some of the denizens of your town could.

The fence is pretty high too.

That is what I hear.  I take your point: it is just a bunch of speculation.  I happen to agree with you.  I liked Sumner too.  Leave the poor dead bastard alone.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Mike, but you have a L O N G way to go to figure out just what I do or do not know.  But, in time, you will figure some of that out and you will, no doubt, feel very very stupid making posts like that above.  I'm not even going to bother touching that one, ha haa!

Now you can understand the measure of the stupidity that I feel when I forget your insanity and treat you like an equal.

[Anonymous]

i thnk the mik guy is a hyde troll + not very nice.  not very smart.  be careful ursis

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Mike, but you have a L O N G way to go to figure out just what I do or do not know.  But, in time, you will figure some of that out and you will, no doubt, feel very very stupid making posts like that above.  I'm not even going to bother touching that one, ha haa!

Now you can understand the measure of the stupidity that I feel when I forget your insanity and treat you like an equal.

 That is an important thing to remember when you are dealing with a former Hyde student.  I was talking to this woman that was at Hyde when I was. The whole while I was listening to her I was thinking, "it is like she is still in a seminar in 1977."   I was trying to reconcile that fact with the fact that this woman from outward appearances seems to be a normal human when I recalled a saying from AA: "some are sicker then others."

 Now I know that that applies to me also, for what it is worth. I am just like hyde: still crazy.