Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Hyde Schools => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 03, 2006, 12:54:00 PM
-
The Hyde Woodstock campus has gone over the top this time. After Larry Dubinsky was fired in 2002 for fondling a female student, he is once again back and hungry for more. I can attest to this as I am one of his victims. It is my understanding that he was recently fired from his job for sexual harrassment. This very sick man clearly exhibits a pattern of liking young girls in an inappropriate way, yet Hyde who is very aware of his sickness has rehired him. I am putting this out there for the parents who have daughters enrolled in the school or are contemplating sending their daughter to Hyde. Clearly Hyde is not concerned for the well being of its students, but is more concerned with keeping its cult in tact. BE AWARE.
-
What are you talking about...first, Dubinsky wasn't fired, he resigned while an insane parent took the school to court over a rediculous accusation. The case was thrown out of court.
Secondly, he wasn't rehired by Hyde, he left his last job to work somewhere else.
Quit spreading rumors,,Jeez!
-
On 2006-06-03 22:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What are you talking about...first, Dubinsky wasn't fired, he resigned while an insane parent took the school to court over a rediculous accusation. The case was thrown out of court.
Secondly, he wasn't rehired by Hyde, he left his last job to work somewhere else.
Quit spreading rumors,,Jeez!"
I am a former student at Hyde and although I am not the original poster I wanted to respond to this last "Jeez" post. Dubinsky was FORCED to resign not because of an "insane" parent but because he was sexually harassing female students for years. Secondly the case was not thrown out of court but was settled by Hyde's insurance company. Thirdly you must be a Hyde student or staff member because nothing you said is accurate or true.
-
On 2006-06-03 22:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What are you talking about...first, Dubinsky wasn't fired, he resigned while an insane parent took the school to court over a rediculous accusation. The case was thrown out of court.
Secondly, he wasn't rehired by Hyde, he left his last job to work somewhere else.
Quit spreading rumors,,Jeez!"
So is it true? Did Scary Larry come back to coach a female sports team this year? Is it true he was hired to work at the school for the fall 2006 year?
-
On 2006-06-03 22:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What are you talking about...first, Dubinsky wasn't fired, he resigned while an insane parent took the school to court over a rediculous accusation. The case was thrown out of court.
Secondly, he wasn't rehired by Hyde, he left his last job to work somewhere else.
Quit spreading rumors,,Jeez!"
JEEZ, this must have been written by a Hyde staff member. It is well known that there is a group who monitor this site and sometimes throw in a word or two. Two who come to mind are two who don't know how to spell. One is a very large he/she who has close ties to the person we are talking about, and the other has a cutsy sounding name with a husband who has a temper.......GEEZ....could it be that these are not rumors at all, but the truth? Did we not have another girl this year who complained about this same "ex" staff member?
-
It is well known that there is a group who monitor this site
Actually there is a team of H1B visa bloggers from India on the second floor of the Mansion in Bath that monitors the huge hue and cry from the masses that are dissatisfied with Hyde. We carefuly watch the myriad of web sites where this activity is occuring and formulate dis information to confuse and obfuscate.
Narbda Ben Patal
-
On 2006-06-04 08:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
It is well known that there is a group who monitor this site
Actually there is a team of H1B visa bloggers from India on the second floor of the Mansion in Bath that monitors the huge hue and cry from the masses that are dissatisfied with Hyde. We carefuly watch the myriad of web sites where this activity is occuring and formulate dis information to confuse and obfuscate.
Narbda Ben Patal"
Hi Sue, is your vocabulary suppose to impress us? Maybe this poster does know his facts. You or I don't know this.
-
quote]
So is it true? Did Scary Larry come back to coach a female sports team this year? Is it true he was hired to work at the school for the fall 2006 year? "
[/quote]
OMG, is he really coming back?
-
On 2006-06-04 08:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-04 08:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
It is well known that there is a group who monitor this site
Actually there is a team of H1B visa bloggers from India on the second floor of the Mansion in Bath that monitors the huge hue and cry from the masses that are dissatisfied with Hyde. We carefuly watch the myriad of web sites where this activity is occuring and formulate dis information to confuse and obfuscate.
Narbda Ben Patal"
Hi Sue, is your vocabulary suppose to impress us? Maybe this poster does know his facts. You or I don't know this."
What vocabulary? All the words are I used are or should be in the lexicon of a college grad. I don't know why you use this moniker "Sue" My name is Narba. I work in the bloggger boiler room for Hyde. Speaking of names Leslie Caron great in the part: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051658/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051658/)
Narba
Narbda Ben Patal
-
The question is, did Larry Dubinsky coach a female sports team this year?
-
On 2006-06-04 12:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-04 08:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-04 08:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
It is well known that there is a group who monitor this site
Actually there is a team of H1B visa bloggers from India on the second floor of the Mansion in Bath that monitors the huge hue and cry from the masses that are dissatisfied with Hyde. We carefuly watch the myriad of web sites where this activity is occuring and formulate dis information to confuse and obfuscate.
Narbda Ben Patal"
Hi Sue, is your vocabulary suppose to impress us? Maybe this poster does know his facts. You or I don't know this."
What vocabulary? All the words are I used are or should be in the lexicon of a college grad. I don't know why you use this moniker "Sue" My name is Narba. I work in the bloggger boiler room for Hyde. Speaking of names Leslie Caron great in the part: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051658/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051658/)
Narba
Narbda Ben Patal
"
Which thesaraus you are using? So what is your point about the link to the movie Gigi?
Ura Nuss
-
I'm with you good buddy! What the hell is Dubinsky doing back on campus? The girls would hide out in the dorm rooms rather than going to sports. They weren't too keen on those special back rubs he specialized in.
-
Larry fucking OWNS all you goonballs, fucking geeks. :lol:
-
On 2006-06-04 12:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-04 12:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-04 08:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-04 08:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
It is well known that there is a group who monitor this site
Actually there is a team of H1B visa bloggers from India on the second floor of the Mansion in Bath that monitors the huge hue and cry from the masses that are dissatisfied with Hyde. We carefuly watch the myriad of web sites where this activity is occuring and formulate dis information to confuse and obfuscate.
Narbda Ben Patal"
Hi Sue, is your vocabulary suppose to impress us? Maybe this poster does know his facts. You or I don't know this."
What vocabulary? All the words are I used are or should be in the lexicon of a college grad. I don't know why you use this moniker "Sue" My name is Narba. I work in the bloggger boiler room for Hyde. Speaking of names Leslie Caron great in the part: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051658/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051658/)
Narba
Narbda Ben Patal
"
Which thesaraus you are using? So what is your point about the link to the movie Gigi?
Ura Nuss"
No thesaraus required. Both my parents spoke english and were college grads. I conversed with in english with them. What is your native language?
Narba
-
No thesaraus required. Both my parents spoke english and were college grads. I conversed with in english with them. What is your native language?
Narba
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For you this is a game, but for former students and potential students, there is nothing humorous about the comments on this site.
This is a site to help parents make responsible decisions about whether to consider Hyde. Instead of making this about you, why don't you tell us about your experiences at Hyde. What position do you hold, and what is your opinion about the school. Also since it is obvious that you have ties to the school, why don't you confirm or deny some of what is on this site.
-
On 2006-06-05 05:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"No thesaraus required. Both my parents spoke english and were college grads. I conversed with in english with them. What is your native language?
Narba
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For you this is a game, but for former students and potential students, there is nothing humorous about the comments on this site.
This is a site to help parents make responsible decisions about whether to consider Hyde. Instead of making this about you, why don't you tell us about your experiences at Hyde. What position do you hold, and what is your opinion about the school. Also since it is obvious that you have ties to the school, why don't you confirm or deny some of what is on this site."
I seriously doubt that there is a group that monitors this site. I think the person with "cutsy name" and the other fellow may read this as a hobby, but I doubt it is on the official task list. As a matter of fact I do not believe one of the folk vaguely alluded to does not work for Hyde any more.
The notion that Hyde monitors this site is a delusion of grandeur. The word I get from my source says:
"14 - 15 disaffected former students and parents"
that post here. The idea that Hyde formally monitors this site is akin to the idea that they send staff down to the bars on Front St to see if any one is talking trash or writting anti Hyde graffitti on the bathrooms stalls. It is a notion that is worthy of ridicule so I gave it what I thought it was worth. If you don't like my posts don't read them. You criticize Hyde for "mind control" but then get pissy with me because I am not behaving the way you think is correct. That would be ... let me run and get my dictonary ... it starts with an "H" .....
Narba
-
I don't know about the rest of the posters, but I never took it that Hyde watches this board 24-7 and I doubt this is what the poster meant. The word monitor simply means someone who checks quality or content of something. I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
As far as Hyde believing it is only a select few who are posting, this would only be true if you said that a select few REGULARLY post, but in looking back at all the posts it is obvious there are many former students, current students, former faculty, current parents and former parents who have posted negative comments about their experiences at Hyde. This is not a select few and I think it is time that you admit there are very few success stories at Hyde compared to enrollments. One good example of this is the fact that there were only 29 graduating seniors at Woodstock. What happened to all the seniors? I wish Hyde would take us through the next four years and then tell us about these 29 success stories because when I was there half of the graduating class either didn't go to college or flunked or dropped out by the end of their first year.
I wish Hyde would open up their records to an independent consultant who would record the real stats on Hyde. I believe they are far different from what Hyde says. I don't believe the percentage of students that go to a four year college, I don't believe the credentials listed for the teaching staff, and I don't believe the percentage of acceptances to Hyde. I haven't even been able to get a straight answer as to what kind of degree or degrees the incoming headmaster at Woodstock has attained. You seem to know a lot of inside info, why won't you answer this question?
-
Hey, don't forget Scary Larry Dubinsky. Let's get an answer if he coached this year
-
He did not coach any sport male or female.
He doesn't and probably will never be able to work at Hyde because of his past aggressions.
He works in a restaurant.
And what is a very large he/she?!?
-
I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
I don't. Like I said, it is like reading the graffitti in the restroom. I read it when I am there, I don't go there to read it.
Narba
-
On 2006-06-05 18:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
I don't. Like I said, it is like reading the graffitti in the restroom. I read it when I am there, I don't go there to read it.
Narba
"
Then why were they so concerned about what Lars wrote that they ended up contacting him to discuss it. They even went further by discussing it with his parents. Wrong!! They do read this board more than you think.
-
On 2006-06-05 20:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-05 18:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
I don't. Like I said, it is like reading the graffitti in the restroom. I read it when I am there, I don't go there to read it.
Narba
"
Then why were they so concerned about what Lars wrote that they ended up contacting him to discuss it. They even went further by discussing it with his parents. Wrong!! They do read this board more than you think."
Well, in that case I would like to say hi to the folks: Hi folks!
-
I think the reason they contacted Lars was because when he was at Hyde he was a gung ho follower of the Hyde Line...then after college and time as an attorney, he took a sudden turn for the "bitter". The guy that called him was an old friend, who happens to work at Hyde, who was stunned by his change of attitude and wondered why.
Lars' parents were asked the same question. What went wrong, why is he so bitter.
It wasn't because they were worried about what he was saying. This board definitley is having an impact on the public veiw of the school. But any responsible consumer would not take this site's comments as the gospel They look at all info available.
It's like forming your opinions on politics and issues by just readingt the signs in the crowd on the Today Show.
-
On 2006-06-06 06:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I think the reason they contacted Lars was because when he was at Hyde he was a gung ho follower of the Hyde Line...then after college and time as an attorney, he took a sudden turn for the "bitter". The guy that called him was an old friend, who happens to work at Hyde, who was stunned by his change of attitude and wondered why.
Lars' parents were asked the same question. What went wrong, why is he so bitter.
It wasn't because they were worried about what he was saying. This board definitley is having an impact on the public veiw of the school. But any responsible consumer would not take this site's comments as the gospel They look at all info available.
It's like forming your opinions on politics and issues by just readingt the signs in the crowd on the Today Show."
But how would this "friend who happens to work at Hyde" know about Lars bitterness? He either reads the posts or was informed about them. This is my point, Hyde does keep up with these posts.
I don't know how much this site impacts potential parents as most are so desperate they enroll wherever the Ed Consultants tell them to without investigating. The poor kid ends up being sent to a substandard program because the parents can't handle them, not because they need to be there. Most of them are patterned after the 12 step programs and many times use humiliation,abuse and other types of unacceptable methods to get the kid to conform. Hyde is notorious for making the kids squeal on each other. This is another well known Cult tactic.
There are many articles on the net showing proof that these types of programs do not work. Many times the improvement a kid shows is simply the normal maturing process and has nothing to do with the program. Click on the link above for the Cato Institute. You will find the stats interesting. Spend your money on a good psychologist and keep your kid at home where he can be nutured and loved.
These programs mostly benefit the owners of the program, not the kids.
-
On 2006-06-05 10:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I don't know about the rest of the posters, but I never took it that Hyde watches this board 24-7 and I doubt this is what the poster meant. The word monitor simply means someone who checks quality or content of something. I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
As far as Hyde believing it is only a select few who are posting, this would only be true if you said that a select few REGULARLY post, but in looking back at all the posts it is obvious there are many former students, current students, former faculty, current parents and former parents who have posted negative comments about their experiences at Hyde. This is not a select few and I think it is time that you admit there are very few success stories at Hyde compared to enrollments. One good example of this is the fact that there were only 29 graduating seniors at Woodstock. What happened to all the seniors? I wish Hyde would take us through the next four years and then tell us about these 29 success stories because when I was there half of the graduating class either didn't go to college or flunked or dropped out by the end of their first year.
I wish Hyde would open up their records to an independent consultant who would record the real stats on Hyde. I believe they are far different from what Hyde says. I don't believe the percentage of students that go to a four year college, I don't believe the credentials listed for the teaching staff, and I don't believe the percentage of acceptances to Hyde. I haven't even been able to get a straight answer as to what kind of degree or degrees the incoming headmaster at Woodstock has attained. You seem to know a lot of inside info, why won't you answer this question?"
Narba, would be interested in a response to the above. You seem to be the most frequent visitor/poster with the most knowledge of Hyde Schools who could give a response to this.
Thanx
-
: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =15#199264 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=15689&forum=43&start=15#199264)
-
If someone was bashing you in cyberspace...wouldn't check in every now and then to see what was being said?!
-
On 2006-06-06 10:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If someone was bashing you in cyberspace...wouldn't check in every now and then to see what was being said?!"
I just can't see a staff meeting where Laurie says:
"Bob, give us the latest up date on Fornits activity."
I really don't think it happens. I play a real public figure in my non cyberlife and I know people are saying nasty things about public policy decisions I make. I ignore it. If some one with out an axe to grind wants to discuss and offer constructive critisism, I am all ears. I think most folks that are in the public spot lite, even the one that is a dim as the one I am in, and have a reasonable state of emotional/mental health deal with it that way. I hear a lot of agenda and axe grinding here. I would ignore it. I were them I would write it off as "14 -15 losers." Sorry.
narba
-
On 2006-06-05 10:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I don't know about the rest of the posters, but I never took it that Hyde watches this board 24-7 and I doubt this is what the poster meant. The word monitor simply means someone who checks quality or content of something. I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
As far as Hyde believing it is only a select few who are posting, this would only be true if you said that a select few REGULARLY post, but in looking back at all the posts it is obvious there are many former students, current students, former faculty, current parents and former parents who have posted negative comments about their experiences at Hyde. This is not a select few and I think it is time that you admit there are very few success stories at Hyde compared to enrollments. One good example of this is the fact that there were only 29 graduating seniors at Woodstock. What happened to all the seniors? I wish Hyde would take us through the next four years and then tell us about these 29 success stories because when I was there half of the graduating class either didn't go to college or flunked or dropped out by the end of their first year.
I wish Hyde would open up their records to an independent consultant who would record the real stats on Hyde. I believe they are far different from what Hyde says. I don't believe the percentage of students that go to a four year college, I don't believe the credentials listed for the teaching staff, and I don't believe the percentage of acceptances to Hyde. I haven't even been able to get a straight answer as to what kind of degree or degrees the incoming headmaster at Woodstock has attained. You seem to know a lot of inside info, why won't you answer this question?"
Narba, you are answering all the questions other than the above. Are you avoiding these questions and comments? Come on, what kind of degrees does Laura Gauld have and from where? What about the 29 graduates? Why so few?
-
She has a BS in Ass Faggotry! :lol:
-
On 2006-06-06 14:37:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-05 10:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I don't know about the rest of the posters, but I never took it that Hyde watches this board 24-7 and I doubt this is what the poster meant. The word monitor simply means someone who checks quality or content of something. I do believe Hyde regularly checks this board so in that regard I agree with the person who said they monitor the board.
As far as Hyde believing it is only a select few who are posting, this would only be true if you said that a select few REGULARLY post, but in looking back at all the posts it is obvious there are many former students, current students, former faculty, current parents and former parents who have posted negative comments about their experiences at Hyde. This is not a select few and I think it is time that you admit there are very few success stories at Hyde compared to enrollments. One good example of this is the fact that there were only 29 graduating seniors at Woodstock. What happened to all the seniors? I wish Hyde would take us through the next four years and then tell us about these 29 success stories because when I was there half of the graduating class either didn't go to college or flunked or dropped out by the end of their first year.
I wish Hyde would open up their records to an independent consultant who would record the real stats on Hyde. I believe they are far different from what Hyde says. I don't believe the percentage of students that go to a four year college, I don't believe the credentials listed for the teaching staff, and I don't believe the percentage of acceptances to Hyde. I haven't even been able to get a straight answer as to what kind of degree or degrees the incoming headmaster at Woodstock has attained. You seem to know a lot of inside info, why won't you answer this question?"
Narba, you are answering all the questions other than the above. Are you avoiding these questions and comments? Come on, what kind of degrees does Laura Gauld have and from where? What about the 29 graduates? Why so few?"
I am going to let the monitors answer.
narba
-
Why will you not answer this Narba? You seem to have a lot of information about the school yet you won't reply to these questions. Why are all the Hyde fans avoiding answering these questions? How about some "truth over harmony?"
-
On 2006-06-06 20:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Why will you not answer this Narba? You seem to have a lot of information about the school yet you won't reply to these questions. Why are all the Hyde fans avoiding answering these questions? How about some "truth over harmony?""
Hey,
No harmony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3)
You are looking for statisitics, which we all know Twain labeled one of the three types of lies:
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
why are you obsesed? What is the T on that?
Narba
-
On 2006-06-07 04:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-06 20:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Why will you not answer this Narba? You seem to have a lot of information about the school yet you won't reply to these questions. Why are all the Hyde fans avoiding answering these questions? How about some "truth over harmony?""
Hey,
No harmony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3)
You are looking for statisitics, which we all know Twain labeled one of the three types of lies:
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
why are you obsesed? What is the T on that?
Narba"
Ok, so if you don't want to answer the question on what happened to all the senior kids and why only 29 graduated, then why not answer a simple question about what kind of degree Laura Gauld has.
As far as being obsessed, I feel that parents and potential parents have a right to know the qualifications of the new Headmaster. I am also concerned about the well being of the kids who need a qualified full time Headmaster, not someone who is back and forth to Bath Maine because this is where her husband and kids reside.
I've asked 5 times and I will ask a 6th time, does Laura Gauld have a B.A., Masters, or Doctorate? What are her qualifications for Headmaster besides the fact that she graduated from Hyde, has worked there, and whose Father in Law owns the school.
Another question,why does it say on Hyde's website that Laura Gauld was an honors graduate? Hyde did not have an honors program when she went to Hyde.
-
She has a BA She started at Beloit and finished somewhere else...I don't know.
There WAS an honors program in 76.
Certificate, Diploma, Honors, Hyde Award
Now go away.
-
And she stays in Woodstock and her husband and son come to her.
She said she's heading up to Bath one weekend a month. Enough already!
-
On 2006-06-07 04:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 04:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-06 20:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Why will you not answer this Narba? You seem to have a lot of information about the school yet you won't reply to these questions. Why are all the Hyde fans avoiding answering these questions? How about some "truth over harmony?""
Hey,
No harmony:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3)
You are looking for statisitics, which we all know Twain labeled one of the three types of lies:
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
why are you obsesed? What is the T on that?
Narba"
Ok, so if you don't want to answer the question on what happened to all the senior kids and why only 29 graduated, then why not answer a simple question about what kind of degree Laura Gauld has.
As far as being obsessed, I feel that parents and potential parents have a right to know the qualifications of the new Headmaster. I am also concerned about the well being of the kids who need a qualified full time Headmaster, not someone who is back and forth to Bath Maine because this is where her husband and kids reside.
I've asked 5 times and I will ask a 6th time, does Laura Gauld have a B.A., Masters, or Doctorate? What are her qualifications for Headmaster besides the fact that she graduated from Hyde, has worked there, and whose Father in Law owns the school.
Another question,why does it say on Hyde's website that Laura Gauld was an honors graduate? Hyde did not have an honors program when she went to Hyde."
If you followed the posted link you would see that she has a great deal of experiance. Some of histories' greatest pedagogues did not hold degrees. Van Gogh never when to art school. Edison did not have an engineering degree. The family logistics have been explain on several threads on this forum and are not as you represent. Laura will make a fine Head of School. If I were making the choice of schools for my child, her leadership would be an attraction rather then a concern.
You seem to have this mesianic complex ... a need to warn the posible parents. These folks are smart they will figure out if the school fit for them or not.
If I were you I would try to figure out why you are fixated on Hyde. Heal they self.
-
On 2006-06-07 07:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"She has a BA She started at Beloit and finished somewhere else...I don't know.
There WAS an honors program in 76.
Certificate, Diploma, Honors, Hyde Award
Now go away."
A Headmaster with a B.A.? I have never heard of that before. What kind of Mother leaves her kids in another city Mon-Fri? Don't understand this whole arrangement. It obviously cannot work out for too long.
-
Her daughters go to boarding school. Her son is Autistic and in a program in Maine that is working for him..that's how.
-
What kind of Father/Mother are you? You're obviously looking for a threapy school for your child if you're on this site...where did you fuck up?
-
where did you fuck up?
Your mother fucked up. :lol:
-
On 2006-06-07 07:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 07:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"She has a BA She started at Beloit and finished somewhere else...I don't know.
There WAS an honors program in 76.
Certificate, Diploma, Honors, Hyde Award
Now go away."
A Headmaster with a B.A.? I have never heard of that before. What kind of Mother leaves her kids in another city Mon-Fri? Don't understand this whole arrangement. It obviously cannot work out for too long."
Your mother did. She left you in el Cajon when the Fleet was in, in San Diego. Good thing too. That is how she earned her living.
-
On 2006-06-07 14:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 07:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 07:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"She has a BA She started at Beloit and finished somewhere else...I don't know.
There WAS an honors program in 76.
Certificate, Diploma, Honors, Hyde Award
Now go away."
A Headmaster with a B.A.? I have never heard of that before. What kind of Mother leaves her kids in another city Mon-Fri? Don't understand this whole arrangement. It obviously cannot work out for too long."
Your mother did. She left you in el Cajon when the Fleet was in, in San Diego. Good thing too. That is how she earned her living.
"
Yeah, and look how you turned out ... oh bad example.
-
On 2006-06-04 17:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Larry fucking OWNS all you goonballs, fucking geeks. ::bigsmilebounce:: ::bwahaha2:: ::bwahaha2:: :rofl:
-
On 2006-06-07 08:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Her daughters go to boarding school. Her son is Autistic and in a program in Maine that is working for him..that's how."
Is that boarding school Hyde? When I was there in the '70s, faculty with high school-age kids were required to put their kids in Hyde. In fact that year a husband-wife team of faculty members named Kennedy were forced to resign over that very issue.The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.
-- John Muir
-
On 2006-06-07 20:36:00, tommyfromhyde1 wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 08:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Her daughters go to boarding school. Her son is Autistic and in a program in Maine that is working for him..that's how."
Is that boarding school Hyde? When I was there in the '70s, faculty with high school-age kids were required to put their kids in Hyde. In fact that year a husband-wife team of faculty members named Kennedy were forced to resign over that very issue.The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.
-- John Muir
"
Ditto that!! Tremendous pressure is put on the staff to enroll their kids at Hyde. I can't imagine the Gauld's allowing their kids to go anywhere but Hyde. Maybe Narba can answer this question.
How ya doing Tommy? Haven't seen you around for awhile.
-
On 2006-06-07 20:36:00, tommyfromhyde1 wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 08:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Her daughters go to boarding school. Her son is Autistic and in a program in Maine that is working for him..that's how."
Is that boarding school Hyde? When I was there in the '70s, faculty with high school-age kids were required to put their kids in Hyde. In fact that year a husband-wife team of faculty members named Kennedy were forced to resign over that very issue.The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness.
-- John Muir
"
That would be incorrect. Larry had to resign for being too short.
-
What are you talking about that Larry had to resign for being too short. Larry Dubinsky had to resign for fondling one of the students. He had a long history of sexually harassing the female students. The whole school joked about it which is where he got his name, Scary Larry. Dubinsky is closely tied to Hyde because he is a graduate himself as well as his wife working there. Although they got divorced after the big scandal, they are now getting back together.
Hyde believes the whole family should be involved in their Cult so will certainly try to find a place for him if not now, at some point. I would hate to see this happen as this man is a predator and does not belong around young girls. I know of one girl already this year who found him "creeping her out."
-
On 2006-06-08 05:51:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What are you talking about that Larry had to resign for being too short. Larry Dubinsky had to resign for fondling one of the students. He had a long history of sexually harassing the female students. The whole school joked about it which is where he got his name, Scary Larry. Dubinsky is closely tied to Hyde because he is a graduate himself as well as his wife working there. Although they got divorced after the big scandal, they are now getting back together.
Hyde believes the whole family should be involved in their Cult so will certainly try to find a place for him if not now, at some point. I would hate to see this happen as this man is a predator and does not belong around young girls. I know of one girl already this year who found him "creeping her out.""
Wrong again. I was speaking of Larry Kennedy. Tommy was speaking of the Kennedy's leaving Hyde, an event that neither he or I were present for. Tommy is actually thinking of another family, but can't remember the name due to the brain damage associated with the fall he took when Henry Milton pushed him on the ice.
-
Tommy,
When you were at Hyde the Kennedy's had an infant. (an ugly one at that) but had no child high school age.
-
Okay, okay I must be getting my faculty mixed up. What I stand by is that someone WAS forced to quit. Whoever it was had their kid run away the previous year. They were given the choice of telling their kid to stay out on the street or quit. This was 1976.
There's no "I" in team.
There's no "U" in team, either.
So... if you're not on the team and I'm not on the team, then who's on the fucking team?
yea, the team sux...down with the team
The Great Jack and King Rea
-
I think it was Bud Warren and his son Lenny
-
Thanks for the correction. Wasn't Mr. Warren the guy in charge of the dory trips? Rowing around in those boats was the closest I ever came to enjoying anything at Hyde. That is until a freak tropical storm came in.
I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life -- our desire to go on living -- our dread of coming to an end.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
-
On 2006-06-08 09:33:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I think it was Bud Warren and his son Lenny"
That's correct! that closes out the Hyde f 70's staff trivia catagory.
"I will take Americas Spirit for 100"
He played William Faulkner in the '76 america's spirit before having the piece cut.
Remember to form your answer in the form of a question.
-
On 2006-06-08 08:54:00, tommyfromhyde1 wrote:
"Okay, okay I must be getting my faculty mixed up. What I stand by is that someone WAS forced to quit. Whoever it was had their kid run away the previous year. They were given the choice of telling their kid to stay out on the street or quit. This was 1976.There's no "I" in team.
There's no "U" in team, either.
So... if you're not on the team and I'm not on the team, then who's on the fucking team?
yea, the team sux...down with the team
The Great Jack and King Rea
"
On this one you might have been wrong Tommy, but Hyde does put pressure on faculty to enroll their kids at Hyde. Seldom will they let a faculty member get away with sending a high school kid anywhere but Hyde. They want the whole family to commit and all must join the "process" or risk being confronted constantly. Oh boy, am I accusing them of operating like a Cult? Could it be that they are a Cult?
-
Who is Sumner Hawley?
I'll take the penis mightier for $200...
-
On 2006-06-08 12:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Who is Sumner Hawley?
I'll take the penis mightier for $200..."
That right!
He was notorious for his cocksmanship and made a surprise visit to the Hyde 40th birthday party.
-
On 2006-06-08 12:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 12:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Who is Sumner Hawley?
I'll take the penis mightier for $200..."
That right!
He was notorious for his cocksmanship and made a surprise visit to the Hyde 40th birthday party."
Anyone?
Who was Sam Silsby?
Yes Sam was famous in the girls dorm.
-
On 2006-06-08 13:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 12:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 12:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Who is Sumner Hawley?
I'll take the penis mightier for $200..."
That right!
He was notorious for his cocksmanship and made a surprise visit to the Hyde 40th birthday party."
Anyone?
Who was Sam Silsby?
Yes Sam was famous in the girls dorm."
Was Sam Silsby a student or faculty? What exactly did Sam do in the girls dorm? It seems to me that Hyde completely ignores women's rights to feel safe from harm! Hyde reminds me of these cults that are full of bigamists out west! Didn't both Grant and Gauld have affairs with students years ago? I remember reading how Gauld Sr dated a girl who had just graduated. Is this true Tommy?
-
On 2006-06-09 05:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 13:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 12:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 12:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Who is Sumner Hawley?
I'll take the penis mightier for $200..."
That right!
He was notorious for his cocksmanship and made a surprise visit to the Hyde 40th birthday party."
Anyone?
Who was Sam Silsby?
Yes Sam was famous in the girls dorm."
Was Sam Silsby a student or faculty? What exactly did Sam do in the girls dorm? It seems to me that Hyde completely ignores women's rights to feel safe from harm! Hyde reminds me of these cults that are full of bigamists out west! Didn't both Grant and Gauld have affairs with students years ago? I remember reading how Gauld Sr dated a girl who had just graduated. Is this true Tommy?"
It was a joke. Jeez. Tommy don't know shit. Don't be askin him stuff he don't know. Come on now. The only thing Tommy knows about sex at hyde is Thumballina and her four sisters.
-
Sam Silsby was a shy, pale student, who wouldn't have the gumption to talk to, let alone, harrass a woman.
-
On 2006-06-09 08:51:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Sam Silsby was a shy, pale student, who wouldn't have the gumption to talk to, let alone, harrass a woman.
"
But that boy could run. He got up a 4:30 to run around the block, which was about seven miles. Out to state road, down, to Berry's Mill, down to Phippsburg, round to winnagance back up High Street. I remember Larry Pray, his CC coach telling him not to run so much.
-
On 2006-06-05 14:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"He did not coach any sport male or female.
He doesn't and probably will never be able to work at Hyde because of his past aggressions.
He works in a restaurant.
And what is a very large he/she?!?"
You obviously don't work at Hyde or you would know that he did Asst Coach this year.
-
On 2006-06-10 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-05 14:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"He did not coach any sport male or female.
He doesn't and probably will never be able to work at Hyde because of his past aggressions.
He works in a restaurant.
And what is a very large he/she?!?"
You obviously don't work at Hyde or you would know that he did Asst Coach this year."
So let's here it Hyde. Was that predator coaching this year?
-
If he assisted with any team it would be boys lax. Sometimes he works with the goalies.
-
On 2006-06-11 17:51:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If he assisted with any team it would be boys lax. Sometimes he works with the goalies.
"
[/quote
Sorry fellow posters, but this doesn't sound too cool to me. From what I am reading, this guy was a problem around the girls at school, there was a lawsuit about sexual harassment, and now they have him coaching on campus???? How could Hyde be this dumb?
-
These posts have "personal vendetta" written all over them.
I want you to get to someone and talk it out. Because I don't see anything wrong here!
-
The lawsuit was thrown out of court and the civil suit was settled by the insurance company who just wanted to get the case over. This guy is not a preditor. He's a guy that has boundry issues. He has never done anything sexual other than give more attention to pretty girls. I think he knows that this stuff isn't going to cut it at Hyde and he knows that if it happens again he's not allowed at school.
-
On 2006-06-12 06:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The lawsuit was thrown out of court and the civil suit was settled by the insurance company who just wanted to get the case over. This guy is not a preditor. He's a guy that has boundry issues. He has never done anything sexual other than give more attention to pretty girls. I think he knows that this stuff isn't going to cut it at Hyde and he knows that if it happens again he's not allowed at school.
"
Are you sure this lawsuit against Hyde was, as you say, "thrown out of court"? There's a huge difference between a case being thrown out of court (for example because there are technical legal flaws) and a case being dismissed because the parties settled. If the case was dismissed and settled we can't conclude that there was a problem with the lawsuit. All we can conclude is that the family and Hyde settled for an agreed upon dollar figure.
-
He has never done anything sexual
No wonder he is divorced.
-
He's not divorced.
And the case was thrown out of court because the charges were bullshit. The second case was settled, because it was up to the insurance company and they didn't want to spend anymore money for court costs...
-
On 2006-06-12 11:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"He's not divorced.
And the case was thrown out of court because the charges were bullshit. The second case was settled, because it was up to the insurance company and they didn't want to spend anymore money for court costs..."
How do you know these details about what happened in the court cases?
-
I just do.
-
On 2006-06-12 06:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"These posts have "personal vendetta" written all over them.
I want you to get to someone and talk it out. Because I don't see anything wrong here!"
To the Moron who calls the acts of a sexual predator a "boundary issue" you obviously have attended or worked for Hyde.
To defend a total misfit like Mr Dubinsky and to make light of his bizarre behavior indicates how pathetic your thought process is. Furthermore it is an insult to the girls who he sexually harassed.
It is too bad that a close friend or relative of yours cannot have the glorious experience of being fondled and salaciously viewed by this creep. And furthermore for a "school" to condon such actions by allowing this looser on campus only reinforces what so many people think about this institution. And that is exactly what Hyde is, an institution run by people who belong in one.
-
On 2006-06-12 20:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-12 06:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"These posts have "personal vendetta" written all over them.
I want you to get to someone and talk it out. Because I don't see anything wrong here!"
To the Moron who calls the acts of a sexual predator a "boundary issue" you obviously have attended or worked for Hyde.
To defend a total misfit like Mr Dubinsky and to make light of his bizarre behavior indicates how pathetic your thought process is. Furthermore it is an insult to the girls who he sexually harassed.
It is too bad that a close friend or relative of yours cannot have the glorious experience of being fondled and salaciously viewed by this creep. And furthermore for a "school" to condon such actions by allowing this looser on campus only reinforces what so many people think about this institution. And that is exactly what Hyde is, an institution run by people who belong in one."
It is too bad that a close friend or relative of yours cannot have the glorious experience of being fondled and salaciously viewed
MMM .... you seem to have some issues yourself. Do I need to explain this to you? Or are you a Moron too?
-
I agree with the above poster. It sounds like you've got some serious issues. You are also doing posting...in public...an accusation thatis very serious. Are you saying that LD actually had sexual physical contact with a girl at Hyde? Because if you "are" saying this, you better have some serious proof. You are saying these things in a public forum, and freedom of speech or not, there are people coming on this site and reading this and forming impressions. I can understand that you want to get the word out on a school "a public {yet private} institution) but these comments you're making is about a person. So you better have absolute proof of what you are saying. If not, this is some pretty bad slander!
-
On 2006-06-12 20:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-12 06:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"These posts have "personal vendetta" written all over them.
I want you to get to someone and talk it out. Because I don't see anything wrong here!"
To the Moron who calls the acts of a sexual predator a "boundary issue" you obviously have attended or worked for Hyde.
To defend a total misfit like Mr Dubinsky and to make light of his bizarre behavior indicates how pathetic your thought process is. Furthermore it is an insult to the girls who he sexually harassed.
It is too bad that a close friend or relative of yours cannot have the glorious experience of being fondled and salaciously viewed by this creep. And furthermore for a "school" to condon such actions by allowing this looser on campus only reinforces what so many people think about this institution. And that is exactly what Hyde is, an institution run by people who belong in one."
Take note above. The poster said he "fondled, and salaciously viewed girls." I don't see anywhere mentioned that he slept with the students, but isn't this bad enough or are these ok standards for staff at Hyde? I too was amazed that a pro Hyde person tried to make light of this and said one of their staff has boundary issues. That comment is almost laughable. Hyde, I think you need some counseling yourselves! Maybe step out of those walls that are holding you back and try to raise the bar for yourself.
-
Fondled and boundry issues are EXTREMELY different.
If someone fondled a girl at Hyde, that's totally unacceptable!!!!
But if someone is accusing him of "Fondling" a girl....is there proof?!?!?
If not, please stop the slander and shut up!!!!!
-
On 2006-06-13 06:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Fondled and boundry issues are EXTREMELY different.
If someone fondled a girl at Hyde, that's totally unacceptable!!!!
But if someone is accusing him of "Fondling" a girl....is there proof?!?!?
If not, please stop the slander and shut up!!!!! "
Yes there is proof. I know the meaning of slander and would never put myself in jeopardy by saying something in a public forum that is not true. Yes, Larry Dubinsky touched girls at Hyde in very inappropriate ways. For someone from Hyde to say he has "boundary issues" is sick, sick, sick!!
-
Yes, there were some red-flag touches to say the least...
-
:wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave:
-
::bwahaha:: ::bwahaha:: ::ftard:: :tup:
-
What is inappropriate?
Standing behind and massaging shoulders or grabbing their ass or breasts?
-
On 2006-06-13 04:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I agree with the above poster. It sounds like you've got some serious issues. You are also doing posting...in public...an accusation thatis very serious. Are you saying that LD actually had sexual physical contact with a girl at Hyde? Because if you "are" saying this, you better have some serious proof. You are saying these things in a public forum, and freedom of speech or not, there are people coming on this site and reading this and forming impressions. I can understand that you want to get the word out on a school "a public {yet private} institution) but these comments you're making is about a person. So you better have absolute proof of what you are saying. If not, this is some pretty bad slander!"
What is your definition of "sexual physical contact?" The poster wrote that LD was involved in inappropriate contact, which did involve physical contact,(not an innocent hug) so this is good enough for me to stay the hell away from this guy and not let him anywhere near the girls. :wave: :idea:
-
So were there or were there not any red flag touches???
-
Red Flag Touches for the house!
::cheers:: ::cheers:: ::cheers::
-
On 2006-06-13 07:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What is inappropriate?
Standing behind and massaging shoulders or grabbing their ass or breasts?"
This must be one of my classmates cause we all know Duby loved playing Coach so he could get a quick feel. Is that guy still around?
-
On 2006-06-13 04:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I agree with the above poster. It sounds like you've got some serious issues. You are also doing posting...in public...an accusation thatis very serious. Are you saying that LD actually had sexual physical contact with a girl at Hyde? Because if you "are" saying this, you better have some serious proof. You are saying these things in a public forum, and freedom of speech or not, there are people coming on this site and reading this and forming impressions. I can understand that you want to get the word out on a school "a public {yet private} institution) but these comments you're making is about a person. So you better have absolute proof of what you are saying. If not, this is some pretty bad slander!"
I've read all the posts about Dubinsky. No where is there a post where someone says they know he had sex with a student. On the other hand there are many posts that say he was a staff member at Hyde and was allowed liberties with the young pretty girls that are not of a normal nature. There are also some posts that say he touched some of the female students in inappropriate ways. As long as these people are telling the truth, they have nothing to fear re "slander."
My question to you is do you have proof that he didn't do the things he is accused of?
I remember what another poster said about Dubinsky rubbing the girls backs in lacrosse practice. Many of us would tell him to stop it. He was the creepiest teacher at Hyde. I also remember when he was the Dean of girls and he would make the kids give him details of breaking the sex ethic. Eeeek, it gives me the creeps just thinking about how he got off on this. I can't believe Hyde still allows him to lurk around the school.
-
Yes, he was the creepiest staff member at Hyde, but guess what? He's back. Talk about a liability issue!!! These people at Hyde are nuts!! Hope parents are smart enough to stay away from this crazy school!
-
Yes, he was the creepiest staff member at Hyde, but guess what? He's back. Talk about a liability issue!!! These people at Hyde are nuts!! Hope parents are smart enough to stay away from this crazy school!
Has anyone looked into this??? It seems like there are quite a few people who have said that he was at the very least highly inappropriate with the girls. The original post in this thread says that he was fired for that. What the hell is he doing back there?
-
His wife works at Hyde Woodstock and he has two children attending the school. But he works in a restaurant or something and doesn't work at Hyde. I've heard that every once in a while he warms up the lacrosse goalies on the boys team, but he is not employed by Hyde.
-
He's going for the boys now? That is very funny! :P
-
If this guy has settled cases involving sexual harassment or conduct with any of the kids he's got no business being any where near Hyde. I wonder if the new parents are aware of these settlements?
-
Bump :wave:
-
So, are the parents of "students" currently enrolled at Hyde aware of this Larry guy? Do they know of the settlement? Do they know that he still spends time on campus after being forced to resign due to the settlement? They're certainly entitiled to be informed of who is spending time on campus, no?
-
Holy shit!!!!!! :o :o :o :o This is more than a little disturbing. Are parents aware that this guy is hanging around Hyde? Do any of the defenders of Hyde have anything to say about this?
-
(http://http://www.hyde.edu/galleries/classnotes/cn_dubinsky2.jpg)
1978, 1981
Larry Dubinsky and Donna Leonard Dubinsky were remarried in the Hyde Mansion on June 4. They were attended by their children, Ashley ?05 Woodstock, Joshua ?07 Bath, Allison, and Jenna
http://www.hyde.edu/galleries/classnote ... insky2.jpg (http://www.hyde.edu/galleries/classnotes/cn_dubinsky2.jpg)
Just so I understand, is this the guy we're talking about? He and his ex got remarried on campus?? After he had to resign?
-
Anyone care to discuss how wholly inappropriate (to say the VERY least) it is that this guy is on campus in ANY capacity?
-
Larry Dubinsky is family to the Gaulds. He went to school with Malcolm Gauld and is Malcolm's friend. Larry will always be a part of Hyde in some capacity no matter how much of a threat he is to the female students.
You are right, Dubinsky should not be on campus in any capacity but Hyde uses the justification that because his kids go to Hyde, he must participate in the program.
This is the problem at Hyde. They don't think outside of the box. They don't consider that this man is a danger to young girls even after they were sued and settled. Hyde is a Cult and makes it's own laws. Where else in the U.S. would a known pedephile be able to wander around a school looking for more prey? This happens at Hyde because there is no regulation at private boarding schools. This is what needs to change so that our kids are safe.
-
I'm stilll waiting for a good explanation as to why this guy is allowed anywhere NEAR that campus.
-
Anyone care to answer? I know you've seen this thread along with the others. What's the deal with this guy???
-
Interesting why no one from the school will answer this very good question. Why would a school allow a known predator of young women on their campus? I assume if they don't respond it is because they don't have a good answer.
-
What's up with the staff there?
from Myspace....
i lost my virginity there to. except to the secretary. katie richards, hahaha that was alot of fun. it was during one of those weekends where your parents come down and you do that boring ass therapy shit. got i hated it. i do miss the flying carpet and shit. oh and the barbeque chicken pizza. yummmm. oh other than that fucck hyde.
-
....... Your my girl..... Okay Well Hyde is okay for like the first year but then when your a senior and Dick head Henry Fisher demotes you it sucks.... If You get demoted dont go back trust me..... Also if there is a college intern get close to them they will do so much shit for you like take you to the mall hey you might even fall in love with them.... I know I did...... LOL..... Thats the only reason why I like Hyde last Year...
-
....... Your my girl..... Okay Well Hyde is okay for like the first year but then when your a senior and Dick head Henry Fisher demotes you it sucks.... If You get demoted dont go back trust me..... Also if there is a college intern get close to them they will do so much shit for you like take you to the mall hey you might even fall in love with them.... I know I did...... LOL..... Thats the only reason why I like Hyde last Year...
Don't be so surprised by the postings you see on My Space. Two very high administrators who have been at Hyde for years both had affairs with a student. This is a known fact as they have admitted it.
Please understand that Hyde is a unique school. It is not governed by any agencies, therefore they are free to operate how they want and set their own policies. If you don't like it, you can leave and lose your tuition!
-
If this guy has settled cases involving sexual harassment or conduct with any of the kids he's got no business being any where near Hyde. I wonder if the new parents are aware of these settlements?
Of course the new parents are not aware of this. Even though Hyde stands for honesty and integrity they would never let the student body or parents know that they have a resident pedophile living in one of their faculty housing!
I find it inexcusable that they allow this man on campus after all that he did according to some of the posters. I would think there is a big liability for the school.
-
Why wont anyone from the school respond to this question? Certainly the school watches this board! Please, I would really like to know why the school would think it is appropriate to have a pedophile on campus
-
Why wont anyone from the school respond to this question? Certainly the school watches this board! Please, I would really like to know why the school would think it is appropriate to have a pedophile on campus
'cause maybe "the school" doesn't pay much attention to the distorted drivel on this site. If there were any pedophilia here, why wasn't a legal charge filed with the police or District Attorney? Anyone can lodge a civil charge against someone with even minimal contact. "I put my hand on your shoulder to comfort you, and it's molestation". Sounds like maybe there was no basis for any charges, except if you try and interpret questionable accusations from a disgruntled parent or student. Was this person overly touchy-feely in a creepy sort of way? Maybe, or maybe it was misinterpreted. Regardless, this individual is no longer employed there and has little more contact than you would have passing someone in the street. Why don't you leave them alone and stop this hateful character assassination, unless you have any substantive facts, rather than just hearsay or innuendo.
-
I went to Hyde and I know for a fact that this man did bad things to the girls including me. I would stay in my dorm room and cry at times. My friends also had a lot of problems with him and we all reported it and nothing was done.
Why don't you stop telling people that nothing happened when you don't know. I do.
-
Regardless, this individual is no longer employed there and has little more contact than you would have passing someone in the street.
How can you say something stupid like this. If you work there you know Larry Dubinsky has more contact then passing someone on the street. I know for a fact that at least one girl complained to a faculty member this year about him. Are you implying that all these people are making this up about this one person? How can that be? There has to be some basis for it if so many people are saying the same thing about the same person. Why don't you smarten up and get your head out of the dirt.
Didn't I see that two of his children go to Hyde? If so then he is on campus a lot more than "passing someone in the street." Also doesn't he live in campus housing? I would not call this, "little contact." In most cities sexual offenders are not allowed anywhere near schools, churches, etc. Oh yeah, now you are going to preach about why he hasn't been charged with a crime if these accusations are true. Again, get your head out of the dirt. Most girls don't report these kinds of crimes because they don't want to have to go through the trauma. Kids seldom make these kinds of things up.
-
Why wont anyone from the school respond to this question? Certainly the school watches this board! Please, I would really like to know why the school would think it is appropriate to have a pedophile on campus
'cause maybe "the school" doesn't pay much attention to the distorted drivel on this site. If there were any pedophilia here, why wasn't a legal charge filed with the police or District Attorney? Anyone can lodge a civil charge against someone with even minimal contact. "I put my hand on your shoulder to comfort you, and it's molestation". Sounds like maybe there was no basis for any charges, except if you try and interpret questionable accusations from a disgruntled parent or student. Was this person overly touchy-feely in a creepy sort of way? Maybe, or maybe it was misinterpreted. Regardless, this individual is no longer employed there and has little more contact than you would have passing someone in the street. Why don't you leave them alone and stop this hateful character assassination, unless you have any substantive facts, rather than just hearsay or innuendo.
Don't you think the parents of students have a right to at least know about the settlement so that they can make their own decision about whether or not they want their kid exposed to someone who settled a sexual misconduct suit?
-
Perhaps a plaque on the girls dorm by the entrance? Or maybe put a notation on the cover of the admissions brochures?
-
Perhaps a plaque on the girls dorm by the entrance? Or maybe put a notation on the cover of the admissions brochures?
I don't think either one of these suggestions is appropriate however I do believe he should never be around the school. My girlfriends and I were always freaked out by him and whether he actually molested a girl or not, the man is a creep and made us all feel uncomfortable. Isn't that enough reason to keep him away from us?
-
If all the creeps in the world were rounded up and restricted to one place, we'd have a country bigger than China. Someone gives you the creeps, so they are a pedophile and should be banned from a school?
-
I went to Hyde and I know for a fact that this man did bad things to the girls including me. I would stay in my dorm room and cry at times. My friends also had a lot of problems with him and we all reported it and nothing was done.
Why don't you stop telling people that nothing happened when you don't know. I do.
Since it's anonymous, can you be more specific about these "bad things" you allude to? Did he touch you sexually (and by that I don't mean a "back massage"), proposition you in some way for a sexual act, expose himself? What are we talking about here?
-
I went to Hyde and I know for a fact that this man did bad things to the girls including me. I would stay in my dorm room and cry at times. My friends also had a lot of problems with him and we all reported it and nothing was done.
Why don't you stop telling people that nothing happened when you don't know. I do.
Since it's anonymous, can you be more specific about these "bad things" you allude to? Did he touch you sexually (and by that I don't mean a "back massage"), proposition you in some way for a sexual act, expose himself? What are we talking about here?
So, if a man gives you a back massage when you don't want him touching you, that's ok? No jerk, you are wrong. No one has the right to touch you, rub you, etc when you don't want them to yet you are forced to allow it because he is your teacher and he will make you run laps if you don't. Do you also think it is ok to ask only female students to come swimming in his pool at his house when his wife is out of town? Is it also ok that he looks you up and down and stares at your breasts when he talks to you?
Obviously you are a male pig, (or maybe Dubinsky himself) when implying that a teacher who has control over students can give back rubs, say obscene things to you, and make you completely uncomfortable to the point that he scares you. I know one girl at the school who he rubbed his body all over. Is that ok, too you pig?
-
This is not a debate about whether a teacher had sexual intercourse with a student. This is about a teacher who obviously was very inappropriate with many of the female students. That in itself should be reason to keep this man off campus.
-
I went to Hyde and I know for a fact that this man did bad things to the girls including me. I would stay in my dorm room and cry at times. My friends also had a lot of problems with him and we all reported it and nothing was done.
Why don't you stop telling people that nothing happened when you don't know. I do.
Since it's anonymous, can you be more specific about these "bad things" you allude to? Did he touch you sexually (and by that I don't mean a "back massage"), proposition you in some way for a sexual act, expose himself? What are we talking about here?
So, if a man gives you a back massage when you don't want him touching you, that's ok? No jerk, you are wrong. No one has the right to touch you, rub you, etc when you don't want them to yet you are forced to allow it because he is your teacher and he will make you run laps if you don't. Do you also think it is ok to ask only female students to come swimming in his pool at his house when his wife is out of town? Is it also ok that he looks you up and down and stares at your breasts when he talks to you?
Obviously you are a male pig, (or maybe Dubinsky himself) when implying that a teacher who has control over students can give back rubs, say obscene things to you, and make you completely uncomfortable to the point that he scares you. I know one girl at the school who he rubbed his body all over. Is that ok, too you pig?
You make good points here (other than categorizing me as a pig or jerk for asking for more information), although I'm not sure anything you've said would qualify this person as a pedophile. But extremely creepy, yes, and indicative of tendencies that could easily become physically sexual and very close to the dividing line of being considered pedophilia. If in fact this person gave you the choice of submitting to a backrub or running laps, "rubbed his body all over" a girl or said suggestive or obscene things to you, then they should probably be fired or forced to resign (which it sounds like is what happened as a result of the charges levied against him) and not be in a position of authority over children again.
-
http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsam.asp#hyde (http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsam.asp#hyde)
-
http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsam.asp#hyde[/quote
Wow! It's amazing that this organization discovered the problems at Hyde. I think it's important for people to know that while some parents like Hyde, there are many others who believe that Hyde is and can be very abusive.
-
I recently was alerted to Larry Dubinsky being around campus again through this website. I checked out the link to the Hyde Newsletter and see there is a notice about Donna and Larry's remarriage. I also saw the picture of Dubinsky in the Hyde Newsletter with the notice that they remarried at the "Hyde Mansion."
Can you please tell me how Hyde can justify keeping Dubinsky close to the student body and to the Administration after the many years of complaints by female students? Does Hyde need to see him feeling up one of the girls with their own eyes in order to believe all the many complaints about him?
Get wise Hyde!
-
I too do not know how Hyde would subject themselves to the liability by having a known pedepile on their campus.
Dubinsky should not be allowed within 10 feet of the Hyde Campus. They say because of the past incidences along with the lawsuit against the school several years ago, he won't ever be a full time staff member, but this leaves open the door for other involvements at the school. I was told he helped coach a female sports team last year and is around campus quite often as the husband of a faculty member and parent of a student,
This involvement at the school allows Dubinsky to continue to engage in inappropriate behavior towards females and would not be accepted under any circumstances at a reputable school.. You are right about the liability issue. Hyde is opening itself up to many lawsuits with this known problem. They have a responsibility to the rest of the student body and yet seem to overlook this.
As a professional I highly advise Hyde to keep Dubinsky away from their female population. They know it, they are aware of it, and if they chose to ignore all the warning signs then they open themselves up to future lawsuits of a magnitude they might not be ready for.
-
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:31 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not very nice to keep a perv around who settled a case for sexual harassment against a female student. Not nice to pretend that nothing ever happened. Not nice to not inform the parents that this guy who SETTLED the suit and then was forced to resign is still hanging around campus all the time to 'visit his ex-wife and child'.
Back to top
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the school that settled the case, not the perv, but it is true that he is around campus all the time. He lives in Hyde housing with his wife who is a teacher there. They had gotten divorced but are now remarried. You can read all about it in the Hyde Newsletter.
Hyde hosted the wedding of this PERVERT. What does that tell you about how serious Hyde takes sexual harassment complaints? If someone tries to infer that this was a one time incident, do not believe them. There were complaints for years about this Perv. It was brought to the schools attention after the lawsuit also, but their attitude seems to be that he has every right to participate at the school, live in school housing, and be a guest of the staff at functions related to his kids and also functions for staff.
-
I too do not know how Hyde would subject themselves to the liability by having a known pedepile on their campus.
Dubinsky should not be allowed within 10 feet of the Hyde Campus. They say because of the past incidences along with the lawsuit against the school several years ago, he won't ever be a full time staff member, but this leaves open the door for other involvements at the school. I was told he helped coach a female sports team last year and is around campus quite often as the husband of a faculty member and parent of a student,
This involvement at the school allows Dubinsky to continue to engage in inappropriate behavior towards females and would not be accepted under any circumstances at a reputable school.. You are right about the liability issue. Hyde is opening itself up to many lawsuits with this known problem. They have a responsibility to the rest of the student body and yet seem to overlook this.
As a professional I highly advise Hyde to keep Dubinsky away from their female population. They know it, they are aware of it, and if they chose to ignore all the warning signs then they open themselves up to future lawsuits of a magnitude they might not be ready for.
A professional what, bus driver? Do you know this guy Dubinsky? Have you evaluated him professionally? Did he ever ride your bus? Do you know the facts of the case first-hand, or just the ridiculous crap you read here? If you are a professional at ANYTHING, how can you begin to pass judgement on something based on heresay and innuendo. Go back to your bus...
-
I too do not know how Hyde would subject themselves to the liability by having a known pedepile on their campus.
Dubinsky should not be allowed within 10 feet of the Hyde Campus. They say because of the past incidences along with the lawsuit against the school several years ago, he won't ever be a full time staff member, but this leaves open the door for other involvements at the school. I was told he helped coach a female sports team last year and is around campus quite often as the husband of a faculty member and parent of a student,
This involvement at the school allows Dubinsky to continue to engage in inappropriate behavior towards females and would not be accepted under any circumstances at a reputable school.. You are right about the liability issue. Hyde is opening itself up to many lawsuits with this known problem. They have a responsibility to the rest of the student body and yet seem to overlook this.
As a professional I highly advise Hyde to keep Dubinsky away from their female population. They know it, they are aware of it, and if they chose to ignore all the warning signs then they open themselves up to future lawsuits of a magnitude they might not be ready for.
A professional what, bus driver? Do you know this guy Dubinsky? Have you evaluated him professionally? Did he ever ride your bus? Do you know the facts of the case first-hand, or just the ridiculous crap you read here? If you are a professional at ANYTHING, how can you begin to pass judgement on something based on heresay and innuendo. Go back to your bus...
I did not write the previous post but why are you questioning someones bad experience at Hyde? I don't know if this poster went to Hyde at the same time as me, but yes larry dubinsky was known as "scary larry" and lots of faculty would talk about him and shake their heads or laugh when we told them of the latest b.s. he would try on us. I won't go back to "my bus" or to Hyde. Not ever. They don't take anything seriously and when you try to complain the staff is not interested and instead they put you on 2-4 for an attitude problem. The staff who have been there a long time are afraid to stand up to the Gaulds. When telling my parents they told me to try to put up with it until the end of the year because they had already paid for the full year.
Hyde SUCKS!! Some people might like Hyde, I hated it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
-
I recently was alerted to Larry Dubinsky being around campus again through this website. I checked out the link to the Hyde Newsletter and see there is a notice about Donna and Larry's remarriage. I also saw the picture of Dubinsky in the Hyde Newsletter with the notice that they remarried at the "Hyde Mansion."
Can you please tell me how Hyde can justify keeping Dubinsky close to the student body and to the Administration after the many years of complaints by female students? Does Hyde need to see him feeling up one of the girls with their own eyes in order to believe all the many complaints about him?
Get wise Hyde!
Its just a matter of time that Larry Dubinsky is inapropriate with another girl who stands up to Hyde and another law suit comes about. If that were to occur, Hyde will be screwed. The fact that its gone to court already says something, but for it to happen again I can assure he will be banned from campus. It makes me sick inside to think that it has to take another girl to feel violated by this PERVERT, for the school to do anything about it.
What makes me even more sick inside is Hyde makes anyone who stands up to them considered a perpertraitor and Larry is looked at as a victim. I was an intern when the whole thing went down with Larry. Did you know that when the victim went to the headmaster about Larry's behavior, she then was forced to have a meeting with him and had to tell him exactly what he did to her and how it made her feel. This how they like to handle things "in house". They never even called the girl's parents. I can't imagine how she felt in that meeting. I praise her for her strength and courage. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to these people. It really is like a "cult" and if you don't follow their belief system, you are screwed and have to go through hell and back while there.
I would hate to see this happen to someone else. Keep up the posts and keep potential parents/students informed.
-
Hyde's behavior in all this is old hat and nothing new. They took that stance 30 years ago, they take it now, and they probably took it many times inbetween that we don't (yet) know about.
Always blame the victim. Always confuse the community by spreading lies. Always stand behind the perpetrator - who is, after all, one of them - and shield them from the appropriate justice...
Same old, same old... very very depressing.
I commend the young woman in the current round for her courage and integrity.
-
Hyde's behavior in all this is old hat and nothing new. They took that stance 30 years ago, they take it now, and they probably took it many times inbetween that we don't (yet) know about.
Always blame the victim. Always confuse the community by spreading lies. Always stand behind the perpetrator - who is, after all, one of them - and shield them from the appropriate justice...
Same old, same old... very very depressing.
I commend the young woman in the current round for her courage and integrity.
If this same thing happened in the public school system, the perp would never be allowed on campus again. For that matter he probably would have been arrested. How does Hyde get away with this? Didn't Hyde report the incident? Aren't they required to?
-
Hyde's behavior in all this is old hat and nothing new. They took that stance 30 years ago, they take it now, and they probably took it many times inbetween that we don't (yet) know about.
Always blame the victim. Always confuse the community by spreading lies. Always stand behind the perpetrator - who is, after all, one of them - and shield them from the appropriate justice...
Same old, same old... very very depressing.
I commend the young woman in the current round for her courage and integrity.
If this same thing happened in the public school system, the perp would never be allowed on campus again. For that matter he probably would have been arrested. How does Hyde get away with this? Didn't Hyde report the incident? Aren't they required to?
You would think. It blows my mind. I know for sure that they hide behind the alleged confusion stemming from "he said/she said" confutations, but even if the women ripped off their garments and implored "take me, NOW" it is still statuatory rape, and, in the capacity of being charged with the well-being of minors in their care, they are "mandatory reporters" and are required to report even alleged such abuses. Maybe the laws in Maine and Connecticutt are different, I don't know.
It is almost as if they subscribe to what I have read/been told is one of the key tenets of est, i.e., that you are responsible for everything that happens to you.
In the earlier case, the girl was grilled in meeting after meeting with administrators, and was told that she had responsibility for it (even though she was asleep at the time and BT had to awaken her to do his dirty deed). The fact that he was the Dean of Students at the time and was slated to take over the Assistant Headmaster post the following year no doubt contributed to their interpretation of events.
-
I recently was alerted to Larry Dubinsky being around campus again through this website. I checked out the link to the Hyde Newsletter and see there is a notice about Donna and Larry's remarriage. I also saw the picture of Dubinsky in the Hyde Newsletter with the notice that they remarried at the "Hyde Mansion."
Can you please tell me how Hyde can justify keeping Dubinsky close to the student body and to the Administration after the many years of complaints by female students? Does Hyde need to see him feeling up one of the girls with their own eyes in order to believe all the many complaints about him?
Get wise Hyde!
Your description of Hyde's handling of this awful episode sounds so typical of the Hyde I know. That is, point fingers, try to keep it quiet, don't take responsibility, blame the victim. Hyde seems to operate as a caricature, living in its own worped reality. Hyde needs to feel some intense heat; maybe this web site is turning up the temperature. Only then, I figure, will Hyde end up being held accountable.
Its just a matter of time that Larry Dubinsky is inapropriate with another girl who stands up to Hyde and another law suit comes about. If that were to occur, Hyde will be screwed. The fact that its gone to court already says something, but for it to happen again I can assure he will be banned from campus. It makes me sick inside to think that it has to take another girl to feel violated by this PERVERT, for the school to do anything about it.
What makes me even more sick inside is Hyde makes anyone who stands up to them considered a perpertraitor and Larry is looked at as a victim. I was an intern when the whole thing went down with Larry. Did you know that when the victim went to the headmaster about Larry's behavior, she then was forced to have a meeting with him and had to tell him exactly what he did to her and how it made her feel. This how they like to handle things "in house". They never even called the girl's parents. I can't imagine how she felt in that meeting. I praise her for her strength and courage. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to these people. It really is like a "cult" and if you don't follow their belief system, you are screwed and have to go through hell and back while there.
I would hate to see this happen to someone else. Keep up the posts and keep potential parents/students informed.
-
I recently was alerted to Larry Dubinsky being around campus again through this website. I checked out the link to the Hyde Newsletter and see there is a notice about Donna and Larry's remarriage. I also saw the picture of Dubinsky in the Hyde Newsletter with the notice that they remarried at the "Hyde Mansion."
Can you please tell me how Hyde can justify keeping Dubinsky close to the student body and to the Administration after the many years of complaints by female students? Does Hyde need to see him feeling up one of the girls with their own eyes in order to believe all the many complaints about him?
Get wise Hyde!
Its just a matter of time that Larry Dubinsky is inapropriate with another girl who stands up to Hyde and another law suit comes about. If that were to occur, Hyde will be screwed. The fact that its gone to court already says something, but for it to happen again I can assure he will be banned from campus. It makes me sick inside to think that it has to take another girl to feel violated by this PERVERT, for the school to do anything about it.
What makes me even more sick inside is Hyde makes anyone who stands up to them considered a perpertraitor and Larry is looked at as a victim. I was an intern when the whole thing went down with Larry. Did you know that when the victim went to the headmaster about Larry's behavior, she then was forced to have a meeting with him and had to tell him exactly what he did to her and how it made her feel. This how they like to handle things "in house". They never even called the girl's parents. I can't imagine how she felt in that meeting. I praise her for her strength and courage. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to these people. It really is like a "cult" and if you don't follow their belief system, you are screwed and have to go through hell and back while there.
I would hate to see this happen to someone else. Keep up the posts and keep potential parents/students informed.
Your description of Hyde's handling of this awful episode sounds so typical of the Hyde I know. That is, point fingers, try to keep it quiet, don't take responsibility, blame the victim. Hyde seems to operate as a caricature, living in its own worped reality. Hyde needs to feel some intense heat; maybe this web site is turning up the temperature. Only then, I figure, will Hyde end up being held accountable.
-
In the earlier case, the girl was grilled in meeting after meeting with administrators, and was told that she had responsibility for it (even though she was asleep at the time and BT had to awaken her to do his dirty deed). The fact that he was the Dean of Students at the time and was slated to take over the Assistant Headmaster post the following year no doubt contributed to their interpretation of events.
When you say "earlier case" are you talking about another incident long ago vs the one that seems to have happened a few years back? What campus was this on? Can you say who the perp was or whether he is still involved at Hyde?
As far as the one that happened a few years back, I remember the perp Dubinsky did not have sex with the girl, but touched her in a sexual way. Dubinsky has been pulling this crap for years. He would cop a feel whenever he could get away with it and stare us up and down with his eyes everytime he passed by. He was disgusting. The fact that we got no support from faculty stunk. Everyone joked and laughed about what a pervert he was. Faculty even talked about it. If faculty is honest then why did they keep silent knowing what was going on? They are just as guilty for allowing it and they all did, especially Dubinsky's good friends.
-
In the earlier case, the girl was grilled in meeting after meeting with administrators, and was told that she had responsibility for it (even though she was asleep at the time and BT had to awaken her to do his dirty deed). The fact that he was the Dean of Students at the time and was slated to take over the Assistant Headmaster post the following year no doubt contributed to their interpretation of events.
When you say "earlier case" are you talking about another incident long ago vs the one that seems to have happened a few years back? What campus was this on? Can you say who the perp was or whether he is still involved at Hyde?
As far as the one that happened a few years back, I remember the perp Dubinsky did not have sex with the girl, but touched her in a sexual way. Dubinsky has been pulling this crap for years. He would cop a feel whenever he could get away with it and stare us up and down with his eyes everytime he passed by. He was disgusting. The fact that we got no support from faculty stunk. Everyone joked and laughed about what a pervert he was. Faculty even talked about it. If faculty is honest then why did they keep silent knowing what was going on? They are just as guilty for allowing it and they all did, especially Dubinsky's good friends.
How would you know about BT _and_ Larry at Woodstock?
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
Emil Nightrate
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
Emil Nightrate
Absolutely blew my mind that they would let him back on (both circumstances). But... same old, same old, eh?
-
why you would
warning?
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
Emil Nightrate
Absolutely blew my mind that they would let him back on (both circumstances). But... same old, same old, eh?
It seems so. I honestly was disappointed. It seemed to me like Hyde ws saying after all SF was really at fault. You know I do not care what the circumstances were or how long ago it was. An adult teacher in a postion of power and resposiblity can not in good conscience have sex with minor student especially at a place like Hyde that talks the talk of charater. I don't think Pam Smart will be showing up a Winnacunnet High School reunion any time soon. Of course see will have to be paroled first.
Emil
-
why you would
warning?
curious
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back. Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.
Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back. Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.
Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.
Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt. Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety. Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety. IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often. Because hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.
There is no doubt in my mind about BT.
Emil
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back. Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.
Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.
Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt. Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety. Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety. IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often. Because hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.
There is no doubt in my mind about BT.
Emil
Question for you Emil. Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post? I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD. I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org) and it looks pretty convincing.
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
Totally respect your posts Emil, but have to admit that I too got a little rattled when you said you would give LD the benefit of the doubt. There was a whole lot of stuff going on with LD for many years which even the school admitted to. It was one of the teachers who prodded the girl to come forward so they could finally put an end to all his perverted B.S. Hyde never said the incident didn't happen but they were saying they took the appropriate action in a timely manner. Take it or leave it, but I do have some inside info about this and know that LD was really bringing the school down with his perverted ways.
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back. Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.
Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.
Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt. Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety. Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety. IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often. Because hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.
There is no doubt in my mind about BT.
Emil
Question for you Emil. Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post? I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD. I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org) and it looks pretty convincing.
Because I was not there to talk first hand with the victims as I was with SF. (she actually told me stuff to say to BT that got under him skin. BT had to excuse himself from having to deal with me) and I wanted to make my arguement that hyde is incorrect in it actions based on the assumption of that the defense of LD offered here was true. IF hyde is incorrect in this situation, the best case, it certainly is if the charges are true.
Emil
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back. Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.
Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.
Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt. Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety. Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety. IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often. Because hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.
There is no doubt in my mind about BT.
Emil
Question for you Emil. Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post? I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD. I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org) and it looks pretty convincing.
Let's face it. Hyde has a very long track record that's very disturbing. There's a whole host of nasty incidents that Hyde hasn't handled responsibly, honorably, or effectively. I'm pretty confident that Hyde staff never imagined that all of these embarrassing episodes in the school's history would come back to haunt them. Years ago they had no idea there would by something called the Internet that would cast light on Hyde's dirty secrets. But, here we are. I'm pretty sure all this bad publicity has Hyde staff feeling very nervous. With good reason, many educational consultants and parents who were considering Hyde are being scared off. I wouldn't be surprised if all this exposure is hurting Hyde's reputation very badly and is affecting enrollments. Hyde is now getting what it has deserved for so long. The hypocrisy that saturates Hyde, which seems to have a very difficult time honoring its own principle of truth over harmony, may be the root of the school's demise. This lousy publicity HAS to be hurting Hyde in the pocketbook pretty significantly, as it should.
-
earlier case: 1975, BT, Bath
recent case: 200X, LD, Woodstock
Right,
But you seem to have first hand knowledge of both. Which would make you a member of a very small set. I am wondering, knowing that Hyde reads this board why you would identifiy yourself. Are you pissed at hyde?
I would have to say that having Larry back on campus seems like very poor judgement to me. I was shocked that no one grabbed BT and walked off campus when he was there recently. It was like letting Charlie Manson out on parole and letting him vistit the Tate/Labanca house. OK gross hyperbole.
OK you caught my interest. Who is BT?
Emil Nightrate
Yeah, who is BT?
I would say it was worse than poor judgement to allow him LD back on campus the same way that BT should not have been allowed back. Hyde's actions are like rubbing salt into the wounds when these poor victims see that Hyde has welcomed these perverts back into open arms.
Certainly there can be a problem with a bad staff member at any institution whether public or private, but what is important here is the way that Hyde continues to handle these types of issues. They don't seem to learn their lesson or they just don't care.
Well I am giving LD that benifit of the doubt. Assuming that LD defenders are correct, LD has done nothing and Hyde caved in the civil suite to save money, having him on campus creates the apperance of impropriety. Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety. IF hyde truely felt that LD was not guilty even at the lower level of civil action, as an intitution of principal it should have stood trial and "bet[ted] on the truth" as Joe said so often. Because hyde took the path of expidiency it can no longer embrace LD and claim any kind of moral authority.
There is no doubt in my mind about BT.
Emil
Question for you Emil. Why are you giving Larry Dubinsky and Hyde the benefit of the doubt in your post? I have read some pretty convincing things from students other than the accuser who also say there was a problem with LD. I also read through the legal complaint on www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org) and it looks pretty convincing.
Let's face it. Hyde has a very long track record that's very disturbing. There's a whole host of nasty incidents that Hyde hasn't handled responsibly, honorably, or effectively. I'm pretty confident that Hyde staff never imagined that all of these embarrassing episodes in the school's history would come back to haunt them. Years ago they had no idea there would by something called the Internet that would cast light on Hyde's dirty secrets. But, here we are. I'm pretty sure all this bad publicity has Hyde staff feeling very nervous. With good reason, many educational consultants and parents who were considering Hyde are being scared off. I wouldn't be surprised if all this exposure is hurting Hyde's reputation very badly and is affecting enrollments. Hyde is now getting what it has deserved for so long. The hypocrisy that saturates Hyde, which seems to have a very difficult time honoring its own principle of truth over harmony, may be the root of the school's demise. This lousy publicity HAS to be hurting Hyde in the pocketbook pretty significantly, as it should.
Yes, this negative publicity is probably haunting Hyde big time. I've noticed that this Fornits website is climbing higher in the rankings when you Google "Hyde School." It used to be buried; now it's showing up on Google's page 9, which increases the likelihood that anyone exploring Hyde will discover this website. This can't be good news for Hyde's future.
-
google 'hyde school + abuse' and it comes up at the bottom of page 1.
whatever happened to all those negative reviews from unhappy parents that were submitted to amazon.com (the Gauld books)? they aren't there anymore? did someone pressure amazon to pull them?
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
Totally respect your posts Emil, but have to admit that I too got a little rattled when you said you would give LD the benefit of the doubt. There was a whole lot of stuff going on with LD for many years which even the school admitted to. It was one of the teachers who prodded the girl to come forward so they could finally put an end to all his perverted B.S. Hyde never said the incident didn't happen but they were saying they took the appropriate action in a timely manner. Take it or leave it, but I do have some inside info about this and know that LD was really bringing the school down with his perverted ways.
If the case is "There was a whole lot of stuff going on with LD for many years which even the school admitted to" having him in on campus housing is not a good idea. My wife deals with sexual offenders as a social worker. Recidivism is very high even in our state which has a model program. She never argues with me when I assert that those that prey on the young should be brought 'round back of the milk shed and shot. My feeling on this are a dark spot of conservatism on my other wise sunny liberal demeanor.
IF what you are saying is true, LD should be no where near teenage girls. Having some one like that on a campus with underage girls is like having a recovering alcoholic as a bartender. This just makes no sense from so many angles, Maybe if hyde passes what ever they are smoking to me I might be able to see thier POV.
-
google 'hyde school + abuse' and it comes up at the bottom of page 1.
whatever happened to all those negative reviews from unhappy parents that were submitted to amazon.com (the Gauld books)? they aren't there anymore? did someone pressure amazon to pull them?
They are stil on Amazon.com. Here is one of the most recent
Reviewer: Bonnie Height "NEbooklover" - See all my reviews
While this book does provide sound principles for developing a youngster's character, in practice, the Hyde experience does not play out as described. The principles in the book when put into practice at the school create a punitive environment for not just the students but the parents. Never have I felt my privacy or that of my family so invaded. I pulled my child out of Hyde after only one semester, as the cult atmosphere and the requirement that everyone fall in line without question reminded me of a similar experience I had years back with the "Landmark Forum" or EST, where you are made to feel that everything you've done up until now is just plain wrong. My child did much better away from Hyde and has gone on to be a successful adult. When we withdrew, we were told our child could never come back to visit Hyde friends. The realities of Hyde School seriously undermine some of the good information in the book. Read the book if you must, but run from the school.
-
google 'hyde school + abuse' and it comes up at the bottom of page 1.
whatever happened to all those negative reviews from unhappy parents that were submitted to amazon.com (the Gauld books)? they aren't there anymore? did someone pressure amazon to pull them?
They are stil on Amazon.com. Here is one of the most recent
Reviewer: Bonnie Height "NEbooklover" - See all my reviews
While this book does provide sound principles for developing a youngster's character, in practice, the Hyde experience does not play out as described. The principles in the book when put into practice at the school create a punitive environment for not just the students but the parents. Never have I felt my privacy or that of my family so invaded. I pulled my child out of Hyde after only one semester, as the cult atmosphere and the requirement that everyone fall in line without question reminded me of a similar experience I had years back with the "Landmark Forum" or EST, where you are made to feel that everything you've done up until now is just plain wrong. My child did much better away from Hyde and has gone on to be a successful adult. When we withdrew, we were told our child could never come back to visit Hyde friends. The realities of Hyde School seriously undermine some of the good information in the book. Read the book if you must, but run from the school.
You can find other critical reviews of the Gauld book about Hyde at:
http://www.amazon.com/Character-First-H ... F8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Character-First-Hyde-School-Works/dp/0761501606/sr=1-4/qid=1169321719/ref=sr_1_4/103-5603793-2618211?ie=UTF8&s=books)
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
Totally respect your posts Emil, but have to admit that I too got a little rattled when you said you would give LD the benefit of the doubt. There was a whole lot of stuff going on with LD for many years which even the school admitted to. It was one of the teachers who prodded the girl to come forward so they could finally put an end to all his perverted B.S. Hyde never said the incident didn't happen but they were saying they took the appropriate action in a timely manner. Take it or leave it, but I do have some inside info about this and know that LD was really bringing the school down with his perverted ways.
If the case is "There was a whole lot of stuff going on with LD for many years which even the school admitted to" having him in on campus housing is not a good idea. My wife deals with sexual offenders as a social worker. Recidivism is very high even in our state which has a model program. She never argues with me when I assert that those that prey on the young should be brought 'round back of the milk shed and shot. My feeling on this are a dark spot of conservatism on my other wise sunny liberal demeanor.
IF what you are saying is true, LD should be no where near teenage girls. Having some one like that on a campus with underage girls is like having a recovering alcoholic as a bartender. This just makes no sense from so many angles, Maybe if hyde passes what ever they are smoking to me I might be able to see thier POV.
I ditto this! How stupid is Hyde by profiling in their hewsletter someone who was fired for inappropriate behavior against female students? Are they nuts? Could not believe when I checked it out and saw that they profiled the remarriage of Larry and Donna and worse than that they married at the Hyde Bath Campus. This shows the true picture of the arrogance of Hyde. They should run from any association with LD and instead they embrace him. I would never send my child to this school until the current board is gone.
-
Because they see themselves as "the city on top of the hill" (debatable perception, I might add), they should not be held to the same standards of protocol and decency, not to mention the law? "Arrogance" is the most diluted way to spell it!
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
"Wormy" thats an understatement. I would avoid going outside b/c I knew he would be lurching around trying to talk to any cute girl that was around. In the summer time he would always ask the girls to come to his house and go swimming in his filthy pool. Might I add his house was grimy as hell. The place was absolutely disgusting and I would shower everytime I had been over there.
Instead of Hyde trying to help this very sick man, all they are doing is enabling him and putting themselves in danger of future law suits. Such idiots.......thats all I can say. They really should move the school to Park City, Utah. They would fit right in. They're already are all married to eachother.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ::puke::
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
"Wormy" thats an understatement. I would avoid going outside b/c I knew he would be lurching around trying to talk to any cute girl that was around. In the summer time he would always ask the girls to come to his house and go swimming in his filthy pool. Might I add his house was grimy as hell. The place was absolutely disgusting and I would shower everytime I had been over there.
Instead of Hyde trying to help this very sick man, all they are doing is enabling him and putting themselves in danger of future law suits. Such idiots.......thats all I can say. They really should move the school to Park City, Utah. They would fit right in. They're already are all married to eachother.
Was the school aware of how he was with the girls? You were obviously a student there. Can you tell us whether he was ever reported to the staff and what kind of action they took against him? Is it true that he was school chum of Malcolm Gauld? I am wondering if this played a role in Hyde not doing anything about him all those years.
-
I wonder what LD's wife thinks of all this. She must have had an inkling previous, hence (along with other factors, I'm sure) the divorce... But still... I guess being made head of the History Dept. along with the Technology Dept. must fulfill certain needs...
-
I wonder what LD's wife thinks of all this. She must have had an inkling previous, hence (along with other factors, I'm sure) the divorce... But still... I guess being made head of the History Dept. along with the Technology Dept. must fulfill certain needs...
Mrs. LD was often present as he would massage my shoulders in Yearbook class. She also had no issues with his offer for me to sit on his lap in a crowded car. I"m often curious how he interacts with his daughters...
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
"Wormy" thats an understatement. I would avoid going outside b/c I knew he would be lurching around trying to talk to any cute girl that was around. In the summer time he would always ask the girls to come to his house and go swimming in his filthy pool. Might I add his house was grimy as hell. The place was absolutely disgusting and I would shower everytime I had been over there.
Instead of Hyde trying to help this very sick man, all they are doing is enabling him and putting themselves in danger of future law suits. Such idiots.......thats all I can say. They really should move the school to Park City, Utah. They would fit right in. They're already are all married to eachother.
Was the school aware of how he was with the girls? You were obviously a student there. Can you tell us whether he was ever reported to the staff and what kind of action they took against him? Is it true that he was school chum of Malcolm Gauld? I am wondering if this played a role in Hyde not doing anything about him all those years.
YES, he is a good friend of Malcolm and Ken Grant as well as a VERY close friend of Pam Bertchy. And yes, the school was aware of it. We all talked about it all the time and the staff even got sick of his perverted ways. One student stood up in front of staff, administration and students and announced that LD made all the girls feel uncomfortable. One of you asked why the school did nothing until a parent finally went to court. Answer is, I don't know. I suppose it is their arrogance and protecting their own
-
Emil, you are so right-on! when you say
Those in public life know that is the higher standard that you must uphold. IF you hold your self as a moral beacon, a "City on a Hill" if you will, as has hyde, it must not only refrain from impropriety it must refrain from the apperance of impropriety.
but this is really the most benign position that Hyde could morally defend itself on. And it hasn't, and doesn't. It has abdicated all responsibility for the sake of expediency, as you say. Actually, expediency - in itself - is probably the nicest way to interpret it. I might go further...
I might also add that your perspective, which I truly do value, is giving LD a bit too much the benefit of the doubt. He was kind of wormy even when he was at Bath, albeit a smaller, skinnier one.
"Wormy" thats an understatement. I would avoid going outside b/c I knew he would be lurching around trying to talk to any cute girl that was around. In the summer time he would always ask the girls to come to his house and go swimming in his filthy pool. Might I add his house was grimy as hell. The place was absolutely disgusting and I would shower everytime I had been over there.
Instead of Hyde trying to help this very sick man, all they are doing is enabling him and putting themselves in danger of future law suits. Such idiots.......thats all I can say. They really should move the school to Park City, Utah. They would fit right in. They're already are all married to eachother.
Was the school aware of how he was with the girls? You were obviously a student there. Can you tell us whether he was ever reported to the staff and what kind of action they took against him? Is it true that he was school chum of Malcolm Gauld? I am wondering if this played a role in Hyde not doing anything about him all those years.
YES, he is a good friend of Malcolm and Ken Grant as well as a VERY close friend of Pam Bertchy. And yes, the school was aware of it. We all talked about it all the time and the staff even got sick of his perverted ways. One student stood up in front of staff, administration and students and announced that LD made all the girls feel uncomfortable. One of you asked why the school did nothing until a parent finally went to court. Answer is, I don't know. I suppose it is their arrogance and protecting their own
I find it disturbing, not that people like him, because he probably is a likable guy ( if you were a guy and not a teenage girl), not that when it was brought to light that Hyde defended itself because that is just common sense, not that the community wants to help him because to not help some one they have made co dependant would be immoral. The thing that is disturbing is that Hyde has not figured out a way to do this at arms length, as the lawyers say. It is either stupid or arrogant, perhaps both.
-
I find it disturbing, not that people like him, because he probably is a likable guy ( if you were a guy and not a teenage girl), not that when it was brought to light that Hyde defended itself because that is just common sense, not that the community wants to help him because to not help some one they have made co dependant would be immoral. The thing that is disturbing is that Hyde has not figured out a way to do this at arms length, as the lawyers say. It is either stupid or arrogant, perhaps both.[/quote]
But weighted toward stupidity. Joe Gauld et al. seek to replace intellectual education by moral education. The whole point of the scathing denunciation of them here is that they are not true to the religion they profess and their own better knowledge.
-
I find it disturbing, not that people like him, because he probably is a likable guy ( if you were a guy and not a teenage girl), not that when it was brought to light that Hyde defended itself because that is just common sense, not that the community wants to help him because to not help some one they have made co dependant would be immoral. The thing that is disturbing is that Hyde has not figured out a way to do this at arms length, as the lawyers say. It is either stupid or arrogant, perhaps both.
But weighted toward stupidity. Joe Gauld et al. seek to replace intellectual education by moral education. The whole point of the scathing denunciation of them here is that they are not true to the religion they profess and their own better knowledge.[/quote]
The best part of this fellow posters is that LD still comes on campus and still harasses the girls. Because I am not there I do not have all the details, but was told this year there were more complaints about him and once again Hyde was warned, but nothing done. It is disturbing that Hyde cares so little about the female students and what this might do to them psychologically. Could it be that they are a bunch of male chauvenist pigs who don't take things like this seriously?
You are right. This school is suppose to teach about morale and character and here they are not giving a damn about those things. I remember the headmaster would not listen to a bunch of us when we confronted him about the way they handled the whole LD thing. It was at that moment that I realized I had to simply keep my mouth shut and get through that year as best I could and then distance myself from that school forever.
Gary, you have more courage than anyone I know. Ironically you are a great example of a Hyde graduate. Someone who speaks up and speaks out and is not afraid to confront. Everything they probably hate about you now is what they have been teaching for years, ha!!!!!
-
I find it disturbing, not that people like him, because he probably is a likable guy ( if you were a guy and not a teenage girl), not that when it was brought to light that Hyde defended itself because that is just common sense, not that the community wants to help him because to not help some one they have made co dependant would be immoral. The thing that is disturbing is that Hyde has not figured out a way to do this at arms length, as the lawyers say. It is either stupid or arrogant, perhaps both.
But weighted toward stupidity. Joe Gauld et al. seek to replace intellectual education by moral education. The whole point of the scathing denunciation of them here is that they are not true to the religion they profess and their own better knowledge.
The best part of this fellow posters is that LD still comes on campus and still harasses the girls. Because I am not there I do not have all the details, but was told this year there were more complaints about him and once again Hyde was warned, but nothing done. It is disturbing that Hyde cares so little about the female students and what this might do to them psychologically. Could it be that they are a bunch of male chauvenist pigs who don't take things like this seriously?
You are right. This school is suppose to teach about morale and character and here they are not giving a damn about those things. I remember the headmaster would not listen to a bunch of us when we confronted him about the way they handled the whole LD thing. It was at that moment that I realized I had to simply keep my mouth shut and get through that year as best I could and then distance myself from that school forever.
Gary, you have more courage than anyone I know. Ironically you are a great example of a Hyde graduate. Someone who speaks up and speaks out and is not afraid to confront. Everything they probably hate about you now is what they have been teaching for years, ha!!!!![/quote]
One minute! It's true that I'm a Hyde graduate, but my name is not Gary; it's Mike. I'll thank you just the same though.
-
THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
-
I find it disturbing, not that people like him, because he probably is a likable guy ( if you were a guy and not a teenage girl), not that when it was brought to light that Hyde defended itself because that is just common sense, not that the community wants to help him because to not help some one they have made co dependant would be immoral. The thing that is disturbing is that Hyde has not figured out a way to do this at arms length, as the lawyers say. It is either stupid or arrogant, perhaps both.
But weighted toward stupidity. Joe Gauld et al. seek to replace intellectual education by moral education. The whole point of the scathing denunciation of them here is that they are not true to the religion they profess and their own better knowledge.
The best part of this fellow posters is that LD still comes on campus and still harasses the girls. Because I am not there I do not have all the details, but was told this year there were more complaints about him and once again Hyde was warned, but nothing done. It is disturbing that Hyde cares so little about the female students and what this might do to them psychologically. Could it be that they are a bunch of male chauvenist pigs who don't take things like this seriously?
You are right. This school is suppose to teach about morale and character and here they are not giving a damn about those things. I remember the headmaster would not listen to a bunch of us when we confronted him about the way they handled the whole LD thing. It was at that moment that I realized I had to simply keep my mouth shut and get through that year as best I could and then distance myself from that school forever.
Gary, you have more courage than anyone I know. Ironically you are a great example of a Hyde graduate. Someone who speaks up and speaks out and is not afraid to confront. Everything they probably hate about you now is what they have been teaching for years, ha!!!!!
One minute! It's true that I'm a Hyde graduate, but my name is not Gary; it's Mike. I'll thank you just the same though.[/quote]
Can anyone explain to me why all these Hyde cult members are still dealing w/ the same problems they did when they were students?Doesn't that tell us something? Aren't people supposed to deal w/ their issues and move on?? I strongly believe that Hyde thrives on people's emotional pain. Also, I never understood what good it does to tell your deepest secrets to a bunch of strangers that are completely screwed up themselves, and having it be facilitated by Hyde staff that have NO training in any form of psychology, except by other Hyde cult members. Btw it is really sick how they are all married to eachother. The saying "keeping it in the family" strongly applies to these people.
-
Can anyone explain to me why all these Hyde cult members are still dealing w/ the same problems they did when they were students?Doesn't that tell us something? Aren't people supposed to deal w/ their issues and move on?? I strongly believe that Hyde thrives on people's emotional pain. Also, I never understood what good it does to tell your deepest secrets to a bunch of strangers that are completely screwed up themselves, and having it be facilitated by Hyde staff that have NO training in any form of psychology, except by other Hyde cult members. Btw it is really sick how they are all married to eachother. The saying "keeping it in the family" strongly applies to these people.
My friend, when you have been brainwashed as long and with such consequences as we have, it is not as simple a matter as merely recognizing that in order to move on. There is rage over that lost, there is decompression, there is coordinating the past with the present, and there is a certain amount of healing that needs to happen.
As far as telling deep secrets to screwed up strangers, that is one hell of a question. Honest to God, I'm not sure I can give you a good answer. I guess we didn't realize how screwed up they were, they passed themselves off as experts, and they sure crammed it down our throats just how messed up WE were. And our parents went along with that, and participated in the same spiel. I don't think anyone even thought to question the academic background (or lack thereof) of any of the faculty, at least to my awareness at the time. If someone did, it certainly wasn't common knowledge. I can't imagine anyone not questioning that nowadays, but apparently people still don't. Maybe they are just so grateful that someone is "helping" their kid that they don't want to know...
-
Can anyone explain to me why all these Hyde cult members are still dealing w/ the same problems they did when they were students?Doesn't that tell us something? Aren't people supposed to deal w/ their issues and move on?? I strongly believe that Hyde thrives on people's emotional pain. Also, I never understood what good it does to tell your deepest secrets to a bunch of strangers that are completely screwed up themselves, and having it be facilitated by Hyde staff that have NO training in any form of psychology, except by other Hyde cult members. Btw it is really sick how they are all married to eachother. The saying "keeping it in the family" strongly applies to these people.
My friend, when you have been brainwashed as long and with such consequences as we have, it is not as simple a matter as merely recognizing that in order to move on. There is rage over that lost, there is decompression, there is coordinating the past with the present, and there is a certain amount of healing that needs to happen.
As far as telling deep secrets to screwed up strangers, that is one hell of a question. Honest to God, I'm not sure I can give you a good answer. I guess we didn't realize how screwed up they were, they passed themselves off as experts, and they sure crammed it down our throats just how messed up WE were. And our parents went along with that, and participated in the same spiel. I don't think anyone even thought to question the academic background (or lack thereof) of any of the faculty, at least to my awareness at the time. If someone did, it certainly wasn't common knowledge. I can't imagine anyone not questioning that nowadays, but apparently people still don't. Maybe they are just so grateful that someone is "helping" their kid that they don't want to know...
Thanks for the reasonable answer. You obviously have turned out well IN SPITE of Hyde.
-
Can anyone explain to me why all these Hyde cult members are still dealing w/ the same problems they did when they were students?Doesn't that tell us something? Aren't people supposed to deal w/ their issues and move on?? I strongly believe that Hyde thrives on people's emotional pain. Also, I never understood what good it does to tell your deepest secrets to a bunch of strangers that are completely screwed up themselves, and having it be facilitated by Hyde staff that have NO training in any form of psychology, except by other Hyde cult members. Btw it is really sick how they are all married to eachother. The saying "keeping it in the family" strongly applies to these people.
My friend, when you have been brainwashed as long and with such consequences as we have, it is not as simple a matter as merely recognizing that in order to move on. There is rage over that lost, there is decompression, there is coordinating the past with the present, and there is a certain amount of healing that needs to happen.
As far as telling deep secrets to screwed up strangers, that is one hell of a question. Honest to God, I'm not sure I can give you a good answer. I guess we didn't realize how screwed up they were, they passed themselves off as experts, and they sure crammed it down our throats just how messed up WE were. And our parents went along with that, and participated in the same spiel. I don't think anyone even thought to question the academic background (or lack thereof) of any of the faculty, at least to my awareness at the time. If someone did, it certainly wasn't common knowledge. I can't imagine anyone not questioning that nowadays, but apparently people still don't. Maybe they are just so grateful that someone is "helping" their kid that they don't want to know...
Thanks for the reasonable answer. You obviously have turned out well IN SPITE of Hyde.
Ursus and friends,
Let's turn the spotlight back on to Hyde, where it belongs. Several people have asked what Larry Dubinsky was like as a student. What I recall most is how he fawned around the popular kids like a cocker spaniel.
Ursus, you've stated that you went to Hyde with MC, PS, GW, NC, RS, and the P brothers, which puts you squarely in the LSD timeframe, yet you've been uncharacteristically mute on this subject. What were your thoughts when you learned of his pedophilia?
Mike
-
Ursus and friends,
Let's turn the spotlight back on to Hyde, where it belongs. Several people have asked what Larry Dubinsky was like as a student. What I recall most is how he fawned around the popular kids like a cocker spaniel.
Ursus, you've stated that you went to Hyde with MC, PS, GW, NC, RS, and the P brothers, which puts you squarely in the LSD timeframe, yet you've been uncharacteristically mute on this subject. What were your thoughts when you learned of his pedophilia?
Mike
Hi Mike,
I honestly don't remember Larry very well. I have a vague recollection of him falling into the category of sycophant, but then a lot of kids fell into that category, not necessarily for nefarious reasons. It was most certainly a survival mechanism for some, and then, of course, you had the kids who were earnestly trying to "get it" because they were good sorts, albeit a little dense (although not all such were sycophants in said pursuit).
::seg:: Didn't realize I was mute on this subject, perhaps you've missed some of my usual piss and vinegar...
Quite frankly, at this point, I think Hyde nurtures and hence selects for such pedophilic deviants. There have been just too many cases over the years, and these are just the ones we know about. And each time, we hear of some less than even perfunctory slap on the wrist as a consequence, if one at all. Most schools would have taken strong action against these perpetrators, perhaps even resorting to legal means. Yet Hyde extends welcoming hands towards them, attempting to keep these individuals in the community. The victims, the kids, whose education and well being are ostensibly the basis for Hyde's existence in the first place, are the ones who are ostracized, humiliated, and effectively excised for their troubles. One has to wonder as to the veracity of the official word Hyde tells us of these situations, as it does not appear to comport with their behavior.
Looking at your line-up of initials, I can figure everyone out save PS and RS. Perhaps my brain just isn't working at the moment... refresh my memory, who are you referring to?
-
Ursus and friends,
Let's turn the spotlight back on to Hyde, where it belongs. Several people have asked what Larry Dubinsky was like as a student. What I recall most is how he fawned around the popular kids like a cocker spaniel.
Ursus, you've stated that you went to Hyde with MC, PS, GW, NC, RS, and the P brothers, which puts you squarely in the LSD timeframe, yet you've been uncharacteristically mute on this subject. What were your thoughts when you learned of his pedophilia?
Mike
Hi Mike,
I honestly don't remember Larry very well. I have a vague recollection of him falling into the category of sycophant, but then a lot of kids fell into that category, not necessarily for nefarious reasons. It was most certainly a survival mechanism for some, and then, of course, you had the kids who were earnestly trying to "get it" because they were good sorts, albeit a little dense (although not all such were sycophants in said pursuit).
Didn't think I was mute on this subject, perhaps you've missed some of my usual piss and vinegar... Quite frankly, at this point, I think Hyde nurtures and hence selects for such pedophilic deviants. There have been just too many cases over the years, and these are just the ones we know about. And each time, we hear of some less than even perfunctory slap on the wrist as a consequence, if one at all. Most schools would have taken legal action against these perpetrators. Yet Hyde extends welcoming hands towards them, attempting to keep these individuals in the community. The victims, the kids, whose education and well being are ostensibly the basis for Hyde's existence in the first place, are the ones who are ostracized, humiliated, and effectively excised for their troubles. One has to wonder as to the veracity of the official word Hyde tells us of these situations, as it does not appear to comport with their behavior.
Looking at your line-up of initials, I can figure everyone out save PS and RS. Perhaps my brain just isn't working at the moment... refresh my memory, who are you referring to?
Phil Smith --- you remember him, don't you? --- and Robbie Stafford.
I wonder if Dubinsky would have turned out not to be such a Humbert Humbert if at least one popular girl had returned his affections. Boy, is he stuck!
If sexual predators are a menace, then this is true to a greater extent at Hyde. In that closed community not only are cultural norms eroded but students and teachers are required to share intimate secrets, often in private, one on one. It's a culture rife with opportunities for pedophiles. I honestly can't understand why Hyde tolerates his presence on campus other than to conclude that they take a laxer view of pedophilia than the rest of society.
Mike
-
Can anyone explain to me why all these Hyde cult members are still dealing w/ the same problems they did when they were students?Doesn't that tell us something? Aren't people supposed to deal w/ their issues and move on?? I strongly believe that Hyde thrives on people's emotional pain. Also, I never understood what good it does to tell your deepest secrets to a bunch of strangers that are completely screwed up themselves, and having it be facilitated by Hyde staff that have NO training in any form of psychology, except by other Hyde cult members. Btw it is really sick how they are all married to eachother. The saying "keeping it in the family" strongly applies to these people.
My friend, when you have been brainwashed as long and with such consequences as we have, it is not as simple a matter as merely recognizing that in order to move on. There is rage over that lost, there is decompression, there is coordinating the past with the present, and there is a certain amount of healing that needs to happen.
As far as telling deep secrets to screwed up strangers, that is one hell of a question. Honest to God, I'm not sure I can give you a good answer. I guess we didn't realize how screwed up they were, they passed themselves off as experts, and they sure crammed it down our throats just how messed up WE were. And our parents went along with that, and participated in the same spiel. I don't think anyone even thought to question the academic background (or lack thereof) of any of the faculty, at least to my awareness at the time. If someone did, it certainly wasn't common knowledge. I can't imagine anyone not questioning that nowadays, but apparently people still don't. Maybe they are just so grateful that someone is "helping" their kid that they don't want to know...
Thanks for the reasonable answer. You obviously have turned out well IN SPITE of Hyde.
Ursus and friends,
Let's turn the spotlight back on to Hyde, where it belongs. Several people have asked what Larry Dubinsky was like as a student. What I recall most is how he fawned around the popular kids like a cocker spaniel.
Ursus, you've stated that you went to Hyde with MC, PS, GW, NC, RS, and the P brothers, which puts you squarely in the LSD timeframe, yet you've been uncharacteristically mute on this subject. What were your thoughts when you learned of his pedophilia?
Mike
What we now know about Hyde, and this is indisputable, is that the school has a history of accepting quite a few deeply troubled students. Some of these students walk through Hyde's "hallowed" front door with histories of substance abuse, defiant behavior, legal troubles, and very complicated emotional and mental illness issues.
So, what does Hyde do? Hyde foists upon them lectures about character, as if Hyde's superficial, glib and formulaic preachings are going to get at the root of that kind of complex set of challenges. Joe Gauld and his minions know how to cure all these ills.
Give me a break. Hyde takes in these students and doesn't have one iota of bona fide mental health services on its campus. This is a recipe for disaster, and Hyde has had plenty of them. What Virginia Tech has taught us, yet again, is that academic institutions, Hyde included, need to have sophisticated protocols in place. Virginia Tech, at least, has a genuine student mental health center, the way any legitimate, professionally run school would. (There's only so much a school can do to prevent what happened at Virginia Tech.) Hyde, on the other hand, takes in a very high-risk population (unlike Virginia Tech) and has NO THERAPISTS ON STAFF. Is that bizarre, or what?
What will it take for Hyde to learn? Parents, is this the environment you want your child in?
-
...Quite frankly, at this point, I think Hyde nurtures and hence selects for such pedophilic deviants. There have been just too many cases over the years, and these are just the ones we know about. And each time, we hear of some less than even perfunctory slap on the wrist as a consequence, if one at all. Most schools would have taken legal action against these perpetrators. Yet Hyde extends welcoming hands towards them, attempting to keep these individuals in the community. The victims, the kids, whose education and well being are ostensibly the basis for Hyde's existence in the first place, are the ones who are ostracized, humiliated, and effectively excised for their troubles. One has to wonder as to the veracity of the official word Hyde tells us of these situations, as it does not appear to comport with their behavior.
Looking at your line-up of initials, I can figure everyone out save PS and RS. Perhaps my brain just isn't working at the moment... refresh my memory, who are you referring to?
Phil Smith --- you remember him, don't you? --- and Robbie Stafford.
I wonder if Dubinsky would have turned out not to be such a Humbert Humbert if at least one popular girl had returned his affections. Boy, is he stuck!
If sexual predators are a menace, then this is true to a greater extent at Hyde. In that closed community not only are cultural norms eroded but students and teachers are required to share intimate secrets, often in private, one on one. It's a culture rife with opportunities for pedophiles. I honestly can't understand why Hyde tolerates his presence on campus other than to conclude that they take a laxer view of pedophilia than the rest of society.
Mike
Phil and Robbie... of course, what was I thinking!
I just want to say one more thing, in keeping with my contention that Hyde is a community that not only coddles, but actually nurtures pedophilic deviants of the sort of Dubinsky, Thurrell, and Milton, as well as countless others I canÂ’t think of at the moment or donÂ’t even know of, that is, that this is not an unheard of phenomenon in insular communities with ideologies perceived as being at odds with the world at large.
A year or so ago, I had some news program on (maybe 20/20?) that focused on the case of this young Amish woman who had left her community. She had endured years of sexual abuse at the hands of three of her brothers. Her mother did nothing. Her father did nothing, I believe it was a stepfather; perhaps he was even involved, I donÂ’t completely remember. Locking the door to her bedroom did nothing; the brothers would take the door off of its hinges (one has to wonder why the door was installed with the hinges on the outside in the first place). She had brought up the situation to the local Amish elders many times. Each time the brothers would admit to the crime, to lie was apparently an even bigger sin than raping your sister. Each time the perpetrators received the same punishment: a talking to and 6 weeks banishment from attending religious services. One brother in particular was more persistent than the others.
Finally she turned to outside the community for help. BIG sin, to Amish eyes, worse than incest. Police came in, the brothers were arrested. She pressed charges, she had absolutely had it. The case went to trial. In the courtroom, as part of the spectator contingent, were about a hundred Amish women -- not in support for this poor girl, but for the brothers! When the sentencing came down for the most egregious perpetrator, the women actually wept for him en masse! Tell me this doesnÂ’t make you sick.
It all goes to show you the extent to which insular communities, sects, cults, what have you, will go in order to protect the sanctity of the group. HydeÂ’s behavior with regard to protecting sexual predators from the consequences of their actions is totally in keeping with this modus operandi. As far as preserving the intactness of the community is concerned, victims of these sicko low-life bottom-feeders are merely incidental road kill along the way, unavoidable carnage, unimportant in the larger scheme of things.
-
Ursus and friends,
Let's turn the spotlight back on to Hyde, where it belongs. Several people have asked what Larry Dubinsky was like as a student. What I recall most is how he fawned around the popular kids like a cocker spaniel.
Ursus, you've stated that you went to Hyde with MC, PS, GW, NC, RS, and the P brothers, which puts you squarely in the LSD timeframe, yet you've been uncharacteristically mute on this subject. What were your thoughts when you learned of his pedophilia?
Mike
Hi Mike,
I honestly don't remember Larry very well. I have a vague recollection of him falling into the category of sycophant, but then a lot of kids fell into that category, not necessarily for nefarious reasons. It was most certainly a survival mechanism for some, and then, of course, you had the kids who were earnestly trying to "get it" because they were good sorts, albeit a little dense (although not all such were sycophants in said pursuit).
Didn't think I was mute on this subject, perhaps you've missed some of my usual piss and vinegar... Quite frankly, at this point, I think Hyde nurtures and hence selects for such pedophilic deviants. There have been just too many cases over the years, and these are just the ones we know about. And each time, we hear of some less than even perfunctory slap on the wrist as a consequence, if one at all. Most schools would have taken legal action against these perpetrators. Yet Hyde extends welcoming hands towards them, attempting to keep these individuals in the community. The victims, the kids, whose education and well being are ostensibly the basis for Hyde's existence in the first place, are the ones who are ostracized, humiliated, and effectively excised for their troubles. One has to wonder as to the veracity of the official word Hyde tells us of these situations, as it does not appear to comport with their behavior.
Looking at your line-up of initials, I can figure everyone out save PS and RS. Perhaps my brain just isn't working at the moment... refresh my memory, who are you referring to?
Phil Smith --- you remember him, don't you? --- and Robbie Stafford.
I wonder if Dubinsky would have turned out not to be such a Humbert Humbert if at least one popular girl had returned his affections. Boy, is he stuck!
If sexual predators are a menace, then this is true to a greater extent at Hyde. In that closed community not only are cultural norms eroded but students and teachers are required to share intimate secrets, often in private, one on one. It's a culture rife with opportunities for pedophiles. I honestly can't understand why Hyde tolerates his presence on campus other than to conclude that they take a laxer view of pedophilia than the rest of society.
Mike
Hi Mike and All,
Does Hyde work? Not based on what I see. We have been hearing stories of the staff at Hyde still stuck where they were 30 years ago while students at Hyde. Hyde has not been "raising the bar" for themselves as they try to teach. This thread is about Dubinsky so I will stay focused on him.
So many things come to my mind when watching the tv coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre. Many people are questioning why no one did anything when realizing that Mr Cho was a very sick man. There is speculation that many families will sue the school. They say that the school could very well be liable if they can prove they were aware of the danger of allowing Mr Cho to remain on campus with such a sordid past.
How is this different from Hyde School? Hyde has been aware in the past of violent behavior of students. I remember a student telling his father in seminar, "I am going to snuff you out." Hyde did nothing about this other than a concern meeting.
The relation to Dubinsky is the following.......The school has been aware of inappropriate and bizarre behavior by Dubinsky for years based on what I read. Hyde has chosen to allow this man access to campus even though there have been multiple reports of abuse and inappropriate behavior. Hyde even provides housing for him which I find unacceptable since he should be kept away from all female students.
Hyde has a responsibility to keep their students safe. In my estimation Hyde is not doing this. Please be on notice Hyde that should any other incidences occur concerning staff members who have been reported, you will be liable. You are hereby notified that you have a dangerous situation, maybe a time bomb waiting to explode and you need to do something about it.
-
Does Hyde work?
Define your terms and I will give you a definitive answer.
-
I wonder if Dubinsky would have turned out not to be such a Humbert Humbert if at least one popular girl had returned his affections. Boy, is he stuck!
I seriously doubt it. This is no simple longing for love and affection. There are power issues at work in such a mind. Were there complaints about Larry feeling up the female faculty members? No, he targets the more vulnerable prey, the young girls who are less able to defend themselves both physically and morally.
If sexual predators are a menace, then this is true to a greater extent at Hyde. In that closed community not only are cultural norms eroded but students and teachers are required to share intimate secrets, often in private, one on one. It's a culture rife with opportunities for pedophiles. I honestly can't understand why Hyde tolerates his presence on campus other than to conclude that they take a laxer view of pedophilia than the rest of society.
I don't think that they see it as pedophilia. For some reason, teenage girls at Hyde are thought to be on par with sage adults when it comes to taking responsibility for sexual activity, never mind that, in this case at least, it was unwarranted, unwanted, and an out and out assault. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around this one, but this is clearly the way the place is run, as this kind of modus operandi has been in place for years, decades, really.
It kind of makes me wonder about this sick subtext at Hyde, just where does it come from? I don't think that it is a fluke that this issue has come up so many times before.
-
There are power issues at work in such a mind.
True. This type of predilection is the symptom of low self esteem rather then a sexual preference.
-
There are power issues at work in such a mind.
True. This type of predilection is the symptom of low self esteem rather then a sexual preference.
Did Socrates have low self-esteem?
Laertes Dubinskastotle
-
There are power issues at work in such a mind.
True. This type of predilection is the symptom of low self esteem rather then a sexual preference.
Did Socrates have low self-esteem?
Laertes Dubinskastotle
No because, Hera gave him a magic potion to drink to make it right and his slaves sacrificed a calf at the alter of Zeus to make buggery sweet with the gods.
-
Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.
I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky. There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base. The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.
-
Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.
I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky. There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base. The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?
-
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
I never claimed that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. Nor did I address "societies" by describing Hyde as paternalistic and atavistic. I specifically made comment about Hyde operating from a paternalistic and atavistic base. Your faulty logic, let alone faulty reading ability, is somewhat disturbing. Must I make a new post for every single concept addressed? This is generally accomplished via the use of paragraphs.
I am, quite frankly, not too interested in esoteric polemic of the evolution of right and wrong and American or any other culture's attitude towards homosexuality or any other sexual behavior.
I am, quite frankly, more than a little concerned about the right here and now, mundane realities of what goes on at Hyde and how it affects people, and the fact that nothing has been done by Hyde to address that. Stuff happened, shit went down, and people got hurt in very real, visceral, and no-argument-about-it ways. And Hyde has never fully addressed that let alone acknowledge their responsibility in not only allowing such events to occur, but perpetrating the damage and making it even far worse than it had been to begin with, which was certainly bad enough.
There is a sick subtext underneath all the discussion of "character development" and "unique potential" at Hyde, and it focuses on control of people's psyches by exploiting their emotional vulnerabilities.
--------------------------------------
Insinuations about my virtue or lack thereof will not go far, as far as I am concerned. Where I park my fat ass is nobody's business but my own, and the respective party or parties involved. Suffice it to say that nobody gets hurt.
-
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
I never claimed that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. Nor did I address "societies" by describing Hyde as paternalistic and atavistic. I specifically made comment about Hyde operating from a paternalistic and atavistic base. Your faulty logic, let alone faulty reading ability, is somewhat disturbing. Must I make a new post for every single concept addressed? This is generally accomplished via the use of paragraphs.
I am, quite frankly, not too interested in esoteric polemic of the evolution of right and wrong and American or any other culture's attitude towards homosexuality or any other sexual behavior.
I am, quite frankly, more than a little concerned about the right here and now, mundane realities of what goes on at Hyde and how it affects people, and the fact that nothing has been done by Hyde to address that. Stuff happened, shit went down, and people got hurt in very real, visceral, and no-argument-about-it ways. And Hyde has never fully addressed that let alone acknowledge their responsibility in not only allowing such events to occur, but perpetrating the damage and making it even far worse than it had been to begin with, which was certainly bad enough.
There is a sick subtext underneath all the discussion of "character development" and "unique potential" at Hyde, and it focuses on control of people's psyches by exploiting their emotional vulnerabilities.
--------------------------------------
Insinuations about my virtue or lack thereof will not go far, as far as I am concerned. Where I park my fat ass is nobody's business but my own, and the respective party or parties involved. Suffice it to say that nobody gets hurt.
You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.
-
You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.
Certainly there is a place for analytical introspection as well. And I am happy for you that your experience at Hyde allows for you to have emerged more or less unscathed. Of course, it would be nice if you at least tried being a little less smug about it.
Unfortunately, your experience is not that of all students, former staff, or parents. I'm not even going to pass conjecture as to how many. Suffice to say that the annals of fornits alone--disregarding for the sake of argument all the other sources of discontent that have been voiced about this place--is testimony to an appalling and egregious lack of professionalism or true commitment to the ideals that are claimed by Hyde. And for these people, the people who have been hurt, cool detachment is a luxury that they can ill afford for their own psychological well-being.
For my own sake, for me to not take a stand on this would be morally dishonest, not to mention emotional suicide. And, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if I am the only living person on the face of this planet who feels that way. There are some circumstances that just force you--if you are any kind of living being--to be on one side of the fence or the other. And that's just the way it is.
-
You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.
Certainly there is a place for analytical introspection as well. And I am happy for you that your experience at Hyde allows for you to have emerged more or less unscathed. Of course, it would be nice if you at least tried being a little less smug about it.
Unfortunately, your experience is not that of all students, former staff, or parents. I'm not even going to pass conjecture as to how many. Suffice to say that the annals of fornits alone--disregarding for the sake of argument all the other sources of discontent that have been voiced about this place--is testimony to an appalling and egregious lack of professionalism or true commitment to the ideals that are claimed by Hyde. And for these people, the people who have been hurt, cool detachment is a luxury that they can ill afford for their own psychological well-being.
For my own sake, for me to not take a stand on this would be morally dishonest, not to mention emotional suicide. And, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if I am the only living person on the face of this planet who feels that way. There are some circumstances that just force you--if you are any kind of living being--to be on one side of the fence or the other. And that's just the way it is.
Good for you, Ursus. Hyde fans and apologists seem to have a real hard time with constructive criticism. I don't blame them for rejecting criticism that is cruel and hits below the belt. But you've been completely above board, constructive, purposeful, and principled. Lots of people at Hyde seem to believe that only they can criticize. Keep it up -- your commentary is making a difference, especially among parents who are Googling Hyde and finding comments like yours.
-
You sound just like one of them. The endless moralizing, name-calling, and dizzying hyperbole. Joe's reflection. I'll take "academic" anyday, if by that you mean detached, analytical, cool. Better to figure it out than to abuse it ad nauseam.
Certainly there is a place for analytical introspection as well. And I am happy for you that your experience at Hyde allows for you to have emerged more or less unscathed. Of course, it would be nice if you at least tried being a little less smug about it.
Unfortunately, your experience is not that of all students, former staff, or parents. I'm not even going to pass conjecture as to how many. Suffice to say that the annals of fornits alone--disregarding for the sake of argument all the other sources of discontent that have been voiced about this place--is testimony to an appalling and egregious lack of professionalism or true commitment to the ideals that are claimed by Hyde. And for these people, the people who have been hurt, cool detachment is a luxury that they can ill afford for their own psychological well-being.
For my own sake, for me to not take a stand on this would be morally dishonest, not to mention emotional suicide. And, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if I am the only living person on the face of this planet who feels that way. There are some circumstances that just force you--if you are any kind of living being--to be on one side of the fence or the other. And that's just the way it is.
Hyde has hurt many, and some of the wounds are fresh and still smarting. But you've been out for thirty something years. I don't know what happened to you there, and I don't want to know. But I've known many people in my life who have been to hell and back ---and I'm talking about traumas besides which Hyde pales --- who snapped out of it in a lot less time than you. Like it or not, I think you have a hidden agenda, which is to become the working class hero of Fornits, the leader of the oppressed, the loudest, most vituperative voice of all. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, Ursus, but it strikes me as a pose.
-
Hyde has hurt many, and some of the wounds are fresh and still smarting. But you've been out for thirty something years. I don't know what happened to you there, and I don't want to know. But I've known many people in my life who have been to hell and back ---and I'm talking about traumas besides which Hyde pales --- who snapped out of it in a lot less time than you. Like it or not, I think you have a hidden agenda, which is to become the working class hero of Fornits, the leader of the oppressed, the loudest, most vituperative voice of all. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, Ursus, but it strikes me as a pose.
You can judge me all you want; it's certainly your prerogative. But I can assure you of one thing: no hidden agenda, no pose.
-
Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.
I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky. There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base. The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?
It is not a counter example.
1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society
It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues. Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice, the same inference could not be fairly drawn.
-
At last! An argument based on fine deductive reasoning rather than inference! :tup:
-
Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.
I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky. There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base. The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?
It is not a counter example.
1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society
It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues. Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice, the same inference could not be fairly drawn.
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
-
Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.
I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky. There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base. The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?
It is not a counter example.
1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society
It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues. Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice, the same inference could not be fairly drawn.
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
"2)" Is exactly my point. Thanks for making for me again. "1)" is correct. I have not.
-
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip! The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece. He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!
You really need to bone up on your logic.
-
Although a discussion of the social mores in Socrates time might pique my interest from a purely academic stand point, I seriously doubt that anyone would want said mores applied to circumstances in the here and now as a rationalization for current behavior.
I really do believe this issue goes far and beyond Larry Dubinsky. There is something really sick about a place that operates from such an atavistic and paternalistic base. The way Hyde has handled this situation, and other situations like it (and the fact that there have been so many other situations like it), not to mention Gauld's own "idiosyncratic" sexual proclivities, coupled with the inherent dynamic of what goes on in seminars and Family Weekends, i.e, a most unhealthy preoccupation with disclosure of people's sexual secrets, etc. ... This whole picture is one seedy sorry mess.
Socrates is a counterexample to JoeSoulBro's claim that pedophiles have low self-esteem. I can also adduce counterexamples to your claim that pedophilia is typical of paternalistic or atavistic societies. In human sexuality, determinations of right and wrong seem to be culture-specific and always on the move. Consider the evolution of American attitudes to homosexuality in your own lifetime.
Ah, the beautiful green moral high ground. Did you reach it by turning down one young beauty after another? Or by a cloistered virtue that never had an opportunity to be tested? Or by a hypocrisy learned at Hyde?
It is not a counter example.
1) we do not know what Socrates' self esteem was like
2)homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society
It is fairly well known/accepted in the practice of modern psychology that people that seek non-peer relation ships are acting out control/power issues frequently driven by esteem issues. Because in the time of the
ancient greeks buggery of young boys was an acceptable practice, the same inference could not be fairly drawn.
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
"2)" Is exactly my point. Thanks for making for me again. "1)" is correct. I have not.
I know it's exactly your point. Now prove it. Tip: Infer your conclusion from two (2) premises, not one.
-
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip! The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece. He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!
You really need to bone up on your logic.
Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.
-
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip! The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece. He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!
You really need to bone up on your logic.
Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.
I think you are being a tad pedantic.
-
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip! The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece. He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!
You really need to bone up on your logic.
Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.
I think you are being a tad pedantic.
Lame excuse for unclear presentation of ideas and invalid inference.
-
Presentation could have been clearer but was adequate.
Deductive reasoning was correct.
Argument was valid.
All in all, better than arguing for argument's sake cause someone is in a hissy fit about something else.[/url][/u]
-
Presentation could have been clearer but was adequate.
Deductive reasoning was correct.
Argument was valid.
All in all, better than arguing for argument's sake cause someone is in a hissy fit about something else.[/url][/u]
"No" on all four counts. Getting in the last word won't change that.
-
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip! The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece. He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!
You really need to bone up on your logic.
Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.
I think you are being a tad pedantic.
Lame excuse for unclear presentation of ideas and invalid inference.
Well there is the kettle calling the pot black. Justify a dead greek boy fucker as a counter example.
-
1) You obviously haven't read Plato's Dialogues, Aristophanes, or Xenophon.
2) Homosexual pedophilia was accepted by Socrates' society. Therefore, modern psychology does not apply to the psychology of ancient Greece. Fine deductive reasoning notwithstanding, I don't know how the hell you got your single premise to your conclusion, which don't even share a common term.
Geez Louise, Mike (?), get a grip! The other poster never tried to apply modern psychology to ancient Greece. He/she made the point that you shouldn't try to apply the psychology of ancient Greece to modern times, especially given the fact that homosexual pedophilia was accepted in his society and it is not in ours!
You really need to bone up on your logic.
Oh, well that clears everything up. I've got a similar argument: All triangles have three sides. Therefore, God exists.
I think you are being a tad pedantic.
Lame excuse for unclear presentation of ideas and invalid inference.
Well there is the kettle calling the pot black. Justify a dead greek boy fucker as a counter example.
Now in English, please.
-
It is almost bed time. Larry baiting will not work. Larry can't turn on a computer.
-
But his wife sure can!
-
hi Donna
-
Bear baiting is still legal in the state of Maine.
http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Mai ... 40412.html (http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Maine/Bear_Baiting_Referendum_Defeated_11040412.html)
-
Hyde has hurt many, and some of the wounds are fresh and still smarting. But you've been out for thirty something years. I don't know what happened to you there, and I don't want to know. But I've known many people in my life who have been to hell and back ---and I'm talking about traumas besides which Hyde pales --- who snapped out of it in a lot less time than you. Like it or not, I think you have a hidden agenda, which is to become the working class hero of Fornits, the leader of the oppressed, the loudest, most vituperative voice of all. I don't mean to come down on you so hard, Ursus, but it strikes me as a pose.
You can judge me all you want; it's certainly your prerogative. But I can assure you of one thing: no hidden agenda, no pose.
It's been almost 30 years since I was at Hyde, as well. Have had a good life, with much personal and professional prosperity--just a few emotional brush fires along the way. Didn't think much about the place. However, there's something about being in one's 40's, about raising one's own children, which compels a look back.
And now enough of my life has passed to be able to draw the arc back to Hyde. (About time, you say? Well, just you wait and see:-) I came to Hyde fresh frome a small-town elementary school (Junior School, anyone?), dropping right into the intrigues surrounding the Legg-Gauld war, and all the other dramas of that era. It was formative.
Finding this forum has been a gift. Despite the fact that we get a little overblown at times, the dissection of shared memories has been helpful--maybe even essential. We were sitting in the same room thinking--this is wrong! I don't want to be a part of this! And now we know we weren't alone, and that we aren't crazy (much). It helps.
All this to say--lay off Ursus. Wounds needn't be fresh to inspire dramatic comment.
Lurker
-
Hey Lurker,
So what do you remember from the Legg-Gauld war?
-
My general impression was that Legg wanted to give
"leadership experience," to "good kids" from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds, and that Gauld wanted to cultivate "character based education" among the affluent and troubled. There was a lot of pressure among the faculty (and key
students and alumni) to choose sides. The Leggs had some serious misgivings about Joe's abusive manipulations of all around him (despite --or perhaps because of--the fact that they were pretty bought into the seminar process). Gauld doubted that Legg had the financial best interests of the school at heart. Not a big fan of all the scholarship kids, I think (at least from a budgetary perspective). Plus, he wanted back in.
Mostly, I remember that everyone was stressed and unhappy
L
-
My general impression was that Legg wanted to give
"leadership experience," to "good kids" from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds, and that Gauld wanted to cultivate "character based education" among the affluent and troubled. There was a lot of pressure among the faculty (and key
students and alumni) to choose sides. The Leggs had some serious misgivings about Joe's abusive manipulations of all around him (despite --or perhaps because of--the fact that they were pretty bought into the seminar process). Gauld doubted that Legg had the financial best interests of the school at heart. Not a big fan of all the scholarship kids, I think (at least from a budgetary perspective). Plus, he wanted back in.
Mostly, I remember that everyone was stressed and unhappy
L
How did Joe eventually lose? What staff left with him?
-
Thank you, Lurker and kind Guest, for your votes of affirmation. I am sure that if it wasn't the 30-year issue it would be something else. Mike has a thirst for polemic that goes beyond any rational explanation, so I'm not even going to try.
What concerns me most about the pick-pick-picking is the undoubtedly chilling effect this particular issue might have on other posters and readers regarding their own experiences. I've come across this same sentiment whilst trawling the archives here, the "get over it already" and the "there must be something wrong with you if you don't" mentality of some seemingly most robust psyches, and it simply smacks of petty intimidation. Pretty similar, if you ask me, to the conformist mindset I remember from Hyde. And pretty sad, when you consider that we're really all in this together.
Yes, finding this Forum have been a gift. A most life-affirming gift, at least for me.
-
He didn't, Legg left. And left education for a long time. I don't remember who stayed and for how long after. Notably, though, many of the Gauld extended family (who are now staff, headmasters, etc.) were students at that time or shortly before.
L
-
Personally I have no use for Gauld nor Legg. They were both sadistic in their own peculiar and idiosyncratic ways.
It was an interesting impression that Lurker had regarding the financial aspects. Certainly confirms the perception of many on Fornits of the Gauld family's real priorities with regards to educational ideals!
In my time, I am hard-pressed to remember any scholarship kids, although I believe they did take some during the summers. Perhaps I was just not very "tuned in" to that aspect at the time. Of course, the tuition was far less prohibitive then than it is now...
-
Ursus-
I forget when your time was. When I was there, a fair number of kids (about 10%, I think, trending toward increasing #'s) came from recruiting programs in inner-city D.C., NYC and Boston. Brought in some interesting kids. Plus, there were lots of faculty kids on scholarship.
L
-
I remember a few kids from NYC in the summer, but few made it back for the regular year. I think there was a lot of pressure on their families to come up with the cash from other sources than Hyde, and that wasn't always possible. Whether or not Hyde gave them a scholarship depended a lot on their "attitude," and only bona fide converts qualified for that no matter how badly they might want to come for other reasons.
But I'm probably not the most accurate source to cite for that; as I mentioned earlier, I was a bit obtuse to that kind of info at the time. And I must also say, the whole "Brother's Keeper" concept gave me the willies, so much so that it sorely dampened my friendships. I figured I wouldn't need to say anything about anything I didn't know about, and that accentuated my innate shyness to an even greater degree than it had been to begin with.
Faculty kids always got scholarships and that was a most compelling reason to continue teaching there for certainly some of the faculty. When the kid left, so did the parents. Although I can remember one case in which it was not clear who left first, the parent or the kid! Ha!
Email me or PM me about when I was there, the address is in my profile.
-
I remember a few kids from NYC in the summer, but few made it back for the regular year. I think there was a lot of pressure on their families to come up with the cash from other sources than Hyde, and that wasn't always possible. Whether or not Hyde gave them a scholarship depended a lot on their "attitude," and only bona fide converts qualified for that no matter how badly they might want to come for other reasons.
But I'm probably not the most accurate source to cite for that; as I mentioned earlier, I was a bit obtuse to that kind of info at the time. And I must also say, the whole "Brother's Keeper" concept gave me the willies, so much so that it sorely dampened my friendships. I figured I wouldn't need to say anything about anything I didn't know about, and that accentuated my innate shyness to an even greater degree than it had been to begin with.
Faculty kids always got scholarships and that was a most compelling reason to continue teaching there for certainly some of the faculty. When the kid left, so did the parents. Although I can remember one case in which it was not clear who left first, the parent or the kid! Ha!
Email me or PM me about when I was there, the address is in my profile.
During my time at Hyde the "poster children," the ones who really bought into Hyde and were "on track" were often the faculty kids. Rarely were the poster kids made up of the troubled teens that end up at Hyde because the parents ran out of options. Hyde loved to parade the "on track" kids around as evidence of Hyde's wonderful effectiveness. Thing is, Hyde didn't acknowledge that most of these kids didn't have major issues to begin with. They were the cream of the crop. Hyde didn't publicize the many disasters, the kids who melted down, ran away, got kicked out, were on 2-4 chronically, etc. My impression is that Hyde was ill equipped to deal with truly troubled kids. Cramming the attitude stuff down their throats seemed pretty naive to me, especially since many of these kids were coping with heavy psychiatric problems.
-
Thank you, Lurker and kind Guest, for your votes of affirmation. I am sure that if it wasn't the 30-year issue it would be something else. Mike has a thirst for polemic that goes beyond any rational explanation, so I'm not even going to try.
What concerns me most about the pick-pick-picking is the undoubtedly chilling effect this particular issue might have on other posters and readers regarding their own experiences. I've come across this same sentiment whilst trawling the archives here, the "get over it already" and the "there must be something wrong with you if you don't" mentality of some seemingly most robust psyches, and it simply smacks of petty intimidation. Pretty similar, if you ask me, to the conformist mindset I remember from Hyde. And pretty sad, when you consider that we're really all in this together.
Yes, finding this Forum have been a gift. A most life-affirming gift, at least for me.
I am not sure what is up with that.
-
Thank you, Lurker and kind Guest, for your votes of affirmation. I am sure that if it wasn't the 30-year issue it would be something else. Mike has a thirst for polemic that goes beyond any rational explanation, so I'm not even going to try.
What concerns me most about the pick-pick-picking is the undoubtedly chilling effect this particular issue might have on other posters and readers regarding their own experiences. I've come across this same sentiment whilst trawling the archives here, the "get over it already" and the "there must be something wrong with you if you don't" mentality of some seemingly most robust psyches, and it simply smacks of petty intimidation. Pretty similar, if you ask me, to the conformist mindset I remember from Hyde. And pretty sad, when you consider that we're really all in this together.
Yes, finding this Forum have been a gift. A most life-affirming gift, at least for me.
I am not sure what is up with that.
:lol: :lol: While composing that during a lull, the discussion picked up and changed, so that when it was submitted, it appeared to be completely out of context! You'll have to go back to earlier today to understand its context. Entire exchange occurred today, but I think there were a few pages filled...
-
I remember a few kids from NYC in the summer, but few made it back for the regular year. I think there was a lot of pressure on their families to come up with the cash from other sources than Hyde, and that wasn't always possible. Whether or not Hyde gave them a scholarship depended a lot on their "attitude," and only bona fide converts qualified for that no matter how badly they might want to come for other reasons.
But I'm probably not the most accurate source to cite for that; as I mentioned earlier, I was a bit obtuse to that kind of info at the time. And I must also say, the whole "Brother's Keeper" concept gave me the willies, so much so that it sorely dampened my friendships. I figured I wouldn't need to say anything about anything I didn't know about, and that accentuated my innate shyness to an even greater degree than it had been to begin with.
Faculty kids always got scholarships and that was a most compelling reason to continue teaching there for certainly some of the faculty. When the kid left, so did the parents. Although I can remember one case in which it was not clear who left first, the parent or the kid! Ha!
Email me or PM me about when I was there, the address is in my profile.
During my time at Hyde the "poster children," the ones who really bought into Hyde and were "on track" were often the faculty kids. Rarely were the poster kids made up of the troubled teens that end up at Hyde because the parents ran out of options. Hyde loved to parade the "on track" kids around as evidence of Hyde's wonderful effectiveness. Thing is, Hyde didn't acknowledge that most of these kids didn't have major issues to begin with. They were the cream of the crop. Hyde didn't publicize the many disasters, the kids who melted down, ran away, got kicked out, were on 2-4 chronically, etc. My impression is that Hyde was ill equipped to deal with truly troubled kids. Cramming the attitude stuff down their throats seemed pretty naive to me, especially since many of these kids were coping with heavy psychiatric problems.
My daughter got a pair of really nice track shorts out of the lost and found the other day. It got me thinking about this kid that was there back in the day.
Peter L*** called me into the basement one late spring day. He gave me an over coat and said "put it on." IT was small for me but I put it on. I said 'So?" He said "put your hands in the pockets" There were no pockets. and there were holes in the liners. I took the coat off and looked at name in the label. It belonged to this kid that was famous in the dorm as a chronic masturbator.
So here is this kid that is going through the school year walking around in public masturbating, Nothing was done for this kid. How many kids went through that place and never got the kind of attention they needed to deal with their problems?
Who on the staff had the skill to scratch the surface of a behavioral problem like that?
-
My daughter got a pair of really nice track shorts out of the lost and found the other day. It got me thinking about this kid that was there back in the day.
Peter L*** called me into the basement one late spring day. He gave me an over coat and said "put it on." IT was small for me but I put it on. I said 'So?" He said "put your hands in the pockets" There were no pockets. and there were holes in the liners. I took the coat off and looked at name in the label. It belonged to this kid that was famous in the dorm as a chronic masturbator.
So here is this kid that is going through the school year walking around in public masturbating, Nothing was done for this kid. How many kids went through that place and never got the kind of attention they needed to deal with their problems?
Who on the staff had the skill to scratch the surface of a behavioral problem like that?
Were the staff aware of this kid's predilection? I almost hope not, because the way they would have focused on it and made him "confess," would have only made it worse. Certainly there was no one there who could have done anything but make life an even worse hell than it already was.
Was your friend Peter Love?
-
During my time at Hyde the "poster children," the ones who really bought into Hyde and were "on track" were often the faculty kids. Rarely were the poster kids made up of the troubled teens that end up at Hyde because the parents ran out of options. Hyde loved to parade the "on track" kids around as evidence of Hyde's wonderful effectiveness. Thing is, Hyde didn't acknowledge that most of these kids didn't have major issues to begin with. They were the cream of the crop. Hyde didn't publicize the many disasters, the kids who melted down, ran away, got kicked out, were on 2-4 chronically, etc. My impression is that Hyde was ill equipped to deal with truly troubled kids. Cramming the attitude stuff down their throats seemed pretty naive to me, especially since many of these kids were coping with heavy psychiatric problems.
In my time, Gauld liked to say that the more troubled kids had "more potential." I think the extreme difference between the before and after pictures gave him a bigger ego rush. Of course, those kids that had the biggest such difference often went right back to the before picture once they had been out for awhile. They didn't get the help they needed at Hyde, they had just changed their behavior in response to their environment.
-
My daughter got a pair of really nice track shorts out of the lost and found the other day. It got me thinking about this kid that was there back in the day.
Peter L*** called me into the basement one late spring day. He gave me an over coat and said "put it on." IT was small for me but I put it on. I said 'So?" He said "put your hands in the pockets" There were no pockets. and there were holes in the liners. I took the coat off and looked at name in the label. It belonged to this kid that was famous in the dorm as a chronic masturbator.
So here is this kid that is going through the school year walking around in public masturbating, Nothing was done for this kid. How many kids went through that place and never got the kind of attention they needed to deal with their problems?
Who on the staff had the skill to scratch the surface of a behavioral problem like that?
Were the staff aware of this kid's predilection? I almost hope not, because the way they would have focused on it and made him "confess," would have only made it worse. Certainly there was no one there who could have done anything but make life an even worse hell than it already was.
Was your friend Peter Love?
IT would be hard to believe they did not know about him. Yes p e t e L o v e. Just try not to make innocent people googlabe.
-
Thank you, Lurker and kind Guest, for your votes of affirmation. I am sure that if it wasn't the 30-year issue it would be something else. Mike has a thirst for polemic that goes beyond any rational explanation, so I'm not even going to try.
What concerns me most about the pick-pick-picking is the undoubtedly chilling effect this particular issue might have on other posters and readers regarding their own experiences. I've come across this same sentiment whilst trawling the archives here, the "get over it already" and the "there must be something wrong with you if you don't" mentality of some seemingly most robust psyches, and it simply smacks of petty intimidation. Pretty similar, if you ask me, to the conformist mindset I remember from Hyde. And pretty sad, when you consider that we're really all in this together.
Yes, finding this Forum have been a gift. A most life-affirming gift, at least for me.
I am not sure what is up with that.
:lol: :lol: While composing that during a lull, the discussion picked up and changed, so that when it was submitted, it appeared to be completely out of context! You'll have to go back to earlier today to understand its context. Entire exchange occurred today, but I think there were a few pages filled...
No I get the context. What I mean is I don't know what his motivations are. I think he may be concerned about you. Brothers Keeper!
-
No I get the context. What I mean is I don't know what his motivations are. I think he may be concerned about you. Brothers Keeper!
MMMmmm... right. I am just overwhelmed by the caring and concern dripping from his words...
BTW, Emil (aka a-MEAL), I did check out the link you provided and was unable to determine the 3 methods of bear hunting mentioned in the article; that degree of detail seemed outside the focus of the Fish and Game crowd. Outside of that, no mention was made of "baiting." Personally, I rather abhor baiting; seems kind of unfair to the bear. Probably shouldn't worry me, though, as them be black bears, and I am an ecru polar bear! Hmmph!
::seg:: ::seg:: ::haloslips::
-
No I get the context. What I mean is I don't know what his motivations are. I think he may be concerned about you. Brothers Keeper!
MMMmmm... right. I am just overwhelmed by the caring and concern dripping from his words...
BTW, Emil (aka a-MEAL), I did check out the link you provided and was unable to determine the 3 methods of bear hunting mentioned in the article; that degree of detail seemed outside the focus of the Fish and Game crowd. Outside of that, no mention was made of "baiting." Personally, I rather abhor baiting; seems kind of unfair to the bear. Probably shouldn't worry me, though, as them be black bears, and I am an ecru polar bear! Hmmph!
::seg:: ::seg:: ::haloslips::
IT is great for the hunter: dump a big pile of apples laced with bacon dripping, climb up in your tree stand and wait.
BANG
Bear Steak! By jezum crow that some good eatin' Lot better then raccoon.
Emil, from Egypt Me, Nightrate
-
I do think there is a distinction between hunting for food and hunting for sport.
-
No I get the context. What I mean is I don't know what his motivations are. I think he may be concerned about you. Brothers Keeper!
MMMmmm... right. I am just overwhelmed by the caring and concern dripping from his words...
BTW, Emil (aka a-MEAL), I did check out the link you provided and was unable to determine the 3 methods of bear hunting mentioned in the article; that degree of detail seemed outside the focus of the Fish and Game crowd. Outside of that, no mention was made of "baiting." Personally, I rather abhor baiting; seems kind of unfair to the bear. Probably shouldn't worry me, though, as them be black bears, and I am an ecru polar bear! Hmmph!
::seg:: ::seg:: ::haloslips::
IT is great for the hunter: dump a big pile of apples laced with bacon dripping, climb up in your tree stand and wait.
BANG
Bear Steak! By jezum crow that some good eatin' Lot better then raccoon.
Emil, from Egypt Me, Nightrate
The second way is like in Robinson Crusoe: get the bear to chase you up a tree, jump down, and shoot it as it climbs back down.
The third method of bear-baiting is like in the Sot-weed Factor: get the bear to chase you up a tree, jump down, and impale it up the ass with a long pointed stake as it climbs back down.
A concerned and caring friend
-
Thanks for all the friendly and explicit detail, but I'd really appreciate it if you re-focused that kind of energy elsewhere.
-
Thanks for all the friendly and explicit detail, but I'd really appreciate it if you re-focused that kind of energy elsewhere.
Kind of hard to bear?
-
I do think there is a distinction between hunting for food and hunting for sport.
By the Jesus it's both up here in Egypt. It's like goin' down to the legion on saturday night. Theres sport to it and there's a practical side too. If you can get a woman to come home with ya she moight do some cookin for ya.
Emil Of Egypt Maine
-
Peter L*** called me into the basement one late spring day. He gave me an over coat and said "put it on." IT was small for me but I put it on. I said 'So?" He said "put your hands in the pockets" There were no pockets. and there were holes in the liners. I took the coat off and looked at name in the label. It belonged to this kid that was famous in the dorm as a chronic masturbator.
So here is this kid that is going through the school year walking around in public masturbating, Nothing was done for this kid. How many kids went through that place and never got the kind of attention they needed to deal with their problems?
Who on the staff had the skill to scratch the surface of a behavioral problem like that?
That kid was unnoteworthy in every way except for his problem. During one America's Spirit rehearsal he locked himself in a toilet stall shortly before his act and I was sent in to coax him out. In no time at all there were a crowd of us standing shoulder to shoulder in the john negotiating for his self-release. Mortified, and perhaps fearful of school-wide attention, he emerged trying to cover a large wet stain on his crotch. This botched scenario was followed up by a dorm meeting in which everyone including the faculty resident talked about masturbating. The meeting was frank and sincere but totally failed of its ostensible purpose of curing the kid of his problem.
-
That kid was unnoteworthy in every way except for his problem. During one America's Spirit rehearsal he locked himself in a toilet stall shortly before his act and I was sent in to coax him out. In no time at all there were a crowd of us standing shoulder to shoulder in the john negotiating for his self-release. Mortified, and perhaps fearful of school-wide attention, he emerged trying to cover a large wet stain on his crotch. This botched scenario was followed up by a dorm meeting in which everyone including the faculty resident talked about masturbating. The meeting was frank and sincere but totally failed of its ostensible purpose of curing the kid of his problem.
I was unaware of this; it sounds like it happened shortly after my time, although I did participate in America's Spirit in its early stages and I do vaguely remember Peter L., so maybe I just had my head up in the usual clouds...
I can't imagine a meeting like that doing anything but making it worse. The walk back to that kid's room must have seemed the longest of his life, with everyone staring at him behind seemingly averted eyes...
I don't really know a whole lot about obsessive masturbation, but it would seem to me that the "problem" is usually not the masturbation, but something else. And focusing on the sexual release aspect of it isn't going to do a damn thing about the real root of the matter. What focusing on sexual behaviors of teenagers by singling them out in public does do is traumatize or stigmatize them in ways far more damaging than the original said sin.
-
Peter L*** called me into the basement one late spring day. He gave me an over coat and said "put it on." IT was small for me but I put it on. I said 'So?" He said "put your hands in the pockets" There were no pockets. and there were holes in the liners. I took the coat off and looked at name in the label. It belonged to this kid that was famous in the dorm as a chronic masturbator.
So here is this kid that is going through the school year walking around in public masturbating, Nothing was done for this kid. How many kids went through that place and never got the kind of attention they needed to deal with their problems?
Who on the staff had the skill to scratch the surface of a behavioral problem like that?
That kid was unnoteworthy in every way except for his problem. During one America's Spirit rehearsal he locked himself in a toilet stall shortly before his act and I was sent in to coax him out. In no time at all there were a crowd of us standing shoulder to shoulder in the john negotiating for his self-release. Mortified, and perhaps fearful of school-wide attention, he emerged trying to cover a large wet stain on his crotch. This botched scenario was followed up by a dorm meeting in which everyone including the faculty resident talked about masturbating. The meeting was frank and sincere but totally failed of its ostensible purpose of curing the kid of his problem.
"Unnoteworthy?" I think he had a very interesting sense of humor. I am sure having a bunch of kids embarrass him was much better then having some one with a clinical back ground form some plan to deal with his behaviour. Yes have Jack or Rodger smash his glasses that will help.
-
I can't imagine a meeting like that doing anything but making it worse.
If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.
-
I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him.
And the ultimate wielder of that power is the seminar "moderator" and host, Hyde.
-
If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.
I'm not saying that this is a bad dynamic per se. Isn't it a description of love? Love is very empowering.
-
If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.
I'm not saying that this is a bad dynamic per se. Isn't it a description of love? Love is very empowering.
A description of love? Perhaps in a David Lynch movie.
-
If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.
I'm not saying that this is a bad dynamic per se. Isn't it a description of love? Love is very empowering.
A description of love? Perhaps in a David Lynch movie.
Are you comparing Bath to Twin Peaks: those you trust the most are those you should trust the least and those who will hurt you the most? Ask Laura Palmer and Annie.
Seriously, isn't love about telling all? If you've been there, you know it puts you in the clouds.
-
I'm not saying that this is a bad dynamic per se. Isn't it a description of love? Love is very empowering.
Yeah, but... I think if the object of your affection sent you out on work crew too many times, and made you compose essays on your sins, and humiliated you in public to the point of feeling suicidal, you'd wise up pretty quick that she doesn't exactly have your best interests in mind. Not so at Hyde (speedy realization).
-----------------------------
Excerpted From:
Pathology as "Personal Growth":
A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
Psychiatry, Vol 46, August 1983
By Janice Haaken, Ph.D. and Richard Adams, Ph.D.
The interpretive framework adopted here is supported by several psychoanalytic premises concerning group behavior. In discussing the relationship between ego functions and group behavior, Freud noted that "intensification of the affects and the inhibition of the intellect" characterized "primitive groups" (1959 p20). Primitive groups promote the blurring of ego boundaries and psychological merger with the group leader, who serves as an ego ideal for group members. By projecting ego and superego functions, e.g. the regulation and control of impulses, into the leader, members may express infantile aggressive and libidinal drives normally held in constraint (Kernberg 1980 p212). This psychological state may be described as regressive in that it is reminiscent of the experience of early childhood--the oceanic experience of oneness with the all-good, protective parent who mediates between the child's immediate needs and the external world.
Regression, however, does not inevitably imply pathology. From a psychoanalytic perspective, many healthy and adaptive forms of human activity, such as falling in love (Grunberger 1979 pp5-6) and artistic achievement (Kris 1964 p28), require the capacity to regress. When falling in love, one must be able to experience temporary states of psychological merger with another person and artistic achievement often involves access to impulses and irrational of primitive fantasies. In addition, the ability to work in groups or to engage in collective forms of social action requires the capacity to merge with the group ideals and group interests. The critical distinction in determining pathology in group members concerns the extent of regression--i.e., the dominance of primitive fantasies or impulses and the level of ego control maintained. By ego control, we mean the capacity for reality testing, for mobilizing adaptive defenses, for distinguishing between internal and external events, and for bringing affective states under rational control.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifespring/lifespring4.html)
-
I'm not saying that this is a bad dynamic per se. Isn't it a description of love? Love is very empowering.
Yeah, but... I think if the object of your affection sent you out on work crew too many times, and made you compose essays on your sins, and humiliated you in public to the point of feeling suicidal, you'd wise up pretty quick that she doesn't exactly have your best interests in mind. Not so at Hyde (speedy realization).
-----------------------------
Excerpted From:
Pathology as "Personal Growth":
A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
Psychiatry, Vol 46, August 1983
By Janice Haaken, Ph.D. and Richard Adams, Ph.D.
The interpretive framework adopted here is supported by several psychoanalytic premises concerning group behavior. In discussing the relationship between ego functions and group behavior, Freud noted that "intensification of the affects and the inhibition of the intellect" characterized "primitive groups" (1959 p20). Primitive groups promote the blurring of ego boundaries and psychological merger with the group leader, who serves as an ego ideal for group members. By projecting ego and superego functions, e.g. the regulation and control of impulses, into the leader, members may express infantile aggressive and libidinal drives normally held in constraint (Kernberg 1980 p212). This psychological state may be described as regressive in that it is reminiscent of the experience of early childhood--the oceanic experience of oneness with the all-good, protective parent who mediates between the child's immediate needs and the external world.
Regression, however, does not inevitably imply pathology. From a psychoanalytic perspective, many healthy and adaptive forms of human activity, such as falling in love (Grunberger 1979 pp5-6) and artistic achievement (Kris 1964 p28), require the capacity to regress. When falling in love, one must be able to experience temporary states of psychological merger with another person and artistic achievement often involves access to impulses and irrational of primitive fantasies. In addition, the ability to work in groups or to engage in collective forms of social action requires the capacity to merge with the group ideals and group interests. The critical distinction in determining pathology in group members concerns the extent of regression--i.e., the dominance of primitive fantasies or impulses and the level of ego control maintained. By ego control, we mean the capacity for reality testing, for mobilizing adaptive defenses, for distinguishing between internal and external events, and for bringing affective states under rational control.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifespring/lifespring4.html)
Those are my ideas. Why aren't these guys citing me?
Forget work crew and all that. Let the control be a willing subject, fed up with the past and ready for reform. You're saying, or at least your articles is, that if Hyde limited the extent of ego regression, then it could work.
-
If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.
I'm not saying that this is a bad dynamic per se. Isn't it a description of love? Love is very empowering.
A description of love? Perhaps in a David Lynch movie.
Are you comparing Bath to Twin Peaks: those you trust the most are those you should trust the least and those who will hurt you the most? Ask Laura Palmer and Annie.
Seriously, isn't love about telling all? If you've been there, you know it puts you in the clouds.
Actually I was thinking of Eraserhead or Blue Velvet.
I don't know what Love is but I know what it isn't. Love isn't exposing your inner self to a group. I love my wife. I don't tell her everything. I love my kids, but I don't tell them how often I masturbate or what I think about when I do, for example. They say Jesus loved us so he let him self get nailed to a tree. I don't love any of you that much. You all gonna have to die for your own sins if it is up to me.
-
I don't know what Love is but I know what it isn't. Love isn't exposing your inner self to a group. I love my wife. I don't tell her everything. I love my kids, but I don't tell them how often I masturbate or what I think about when I do, for example.
That's all for the best. You sound like a real monster.
-
Those are my ideas. Why aren't these guys citing me?
Forget work crew and all that. Let the control be a willing subject, fed up with the past and ready for reform. You're saying, or at least your articles is, that if Hyde limited the extent of ego regression, then it could work.
No... I actually think it is a very dangerous business to be mucking around with people's ideals and self-concepts like that, let alone adolescents who are at a very vulnerable point in their development, and hence even easier cannon fodder than the adults in the LGAT investigated in that article, let alone adolescents who are a captive audience in a boarding school and can not go home to exercise some reality-checks at the end of the day.
The excerpt I cited specifically mentions being in love as an example of a usually non-pathological ego regression. At Hyde this cannot happen because:
- you are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)
- you are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)
- you are dealing with a megalomaniac who want to make money off of you ('nuff said)
The coercive nature of the program along with the blatant goals of behavior modification put Hyde squarely in the realm of pathological. And since Hyde School can not exist without the conditions noted by the bullets above, continued existence of Hyde will always be inherently pathological.
-
Excerpted From:
Pathology as "Personal Growth":
A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
Psychiatry, Vol 46, August 1983
By Janice Haaken, Ph.D. and Richard Adams, Ph.D.
The interpretive framework adopted here is supported by several psychoanalytic premises concerning group behavior. In discussing the relationship between ego functions and group behavior, Freud noted that "intensification of the affects and the inhibition of the intellect" characterized "primitive groups" (1959 p20). Primitive groups promote the blurring of ego boundaries and psychological merger with the group leader, who serves as an ego ideal for group members. By projecting ego and superego functions, e.g. the regulation and control of impulses, into the leader, members may express infantile aggressive and libidinal drives normally held in constraint (Kernberg 1980 p212). This psychological state may be described as regressive in that it is reminiscent of the experience of early childhood--the oceanic experience of oneness with the all-good, protective parent who mediates between the child's immediate needs and the external world.
Regression, however, does not inevitably imply pathology. From a psychoanalytic perspective, many healthy and adaptive forms of human activity, such as falling in love (Grunberger 1979 pp5-6) and artistic achievement (Kris 1964 p28), require the capacity to regress. When falling in love, one must be able to experience temporary states of psychological merger with another person and artistic achievement often involves access to impulses and irrational of primitive fantasies. In addition, the ability to work in groups or to engage in collective forms of social action requires the capacity to merge with the group ideals and group interests. The critical distinction in determining pathology in group members concerns the extent of regression--i.e., the dominance of primitive fantasies or impulses and the level of ego control maintained. By ego control, we mean the capacity for reality testing, for mobilizing adaptive defenses, for distinguishing between internal and external events, and for bringing affective states under rational control.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifespring/lifespring4.html)
The gist of the your excerpt is that Hyde or any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior can succeed at no psychological cost. There must be a balance between ego regression and ego control.
As for your objections:
"You are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)"
I don't think teens are at a higher risk. Ego regression can be a danger to adults as well as teens. The ego of an adult can regress to that of an adolescent, and beyond. We see this in cults.
"You are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)"
It is reasonable to assume that reality checks can be implemented at Hyde, just as they are at other boarding schools.
""You are dealing with a megalomaniac who wants to make money off of you ('nuff said)"
So they'll have to lose you know who.
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
-
The gist of the your excerpt is that Hyde or any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior can succeed at no psychological cost. There must be a balance between ego regression and ego control.
The excerpt does not imply that there is no cost, although I will concede that the excerpt I chose (due to its reference to the state of falling in love) is considerably less emphatic about that point than the rest of the article. If you go back to the link and read the article, you will see what I mean. If you prefer a pdf download, there is a link in the "Burnside's piece on Mr. W" thread, which I believe is still about half way down the first page of topics in the Hyde Index. The link is somewhere on page 2 of that thread. Incidentally, the Mr. W incident is a prescient case in point as well. You might want to read that whole thread (only 2 pages, less than 20 posts).
As for your objections:
"You are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)"
I don't think teens are at a higher risk. Ego regression can be a danger to adults as well as teens. The ego of an adult can regress to that of an adolescent, and beyond. We see this in cults.
I disagree with your contention re. risk. Empirical evidence from Hyde School "graduates" on its own should be sufficient to prove that. And it has been my own personal experience that this is a very bad situation. And there are numerous articles on adolescent psychology and the effects of thought coercion and behavior modification on adults, let alone teenagers, that attest to that as well. Good point re. cults!
"You are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)"
It is reasonable to assume that reality checks can be implemented at Hyde, just as they are at other boarding schools.
Hyde's perception of reality is not the same as the rest of society's, and certainly not like that of other boarding schools. If the Catholic Church still can not adequately police their own, what makes you think that Hyde can fare any better? Don't get me started on that nemesis this particular thread is named after...
"You are dealing with a megalomaniac who wants to make money off of you ('nuff said)"
So they'll have to lose you know who.
And what do you think the well-groomed progeny are for?
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Sorry if I seem a bit strident about this, but such is my lot! ::seg:: ::seg:: ::seg::
What is your history or interest in all this?
-
The gist of the your excerpt is that Hyde or any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior can succeed at no psychological cost. There must be a balance between ego regression and ego control.
The excerpt does not imply that there is no cost, although I will concede that the excerpt I chose (due to its reference to the state of falling in love) is considerably less emphatic about that point than the rest of the article. If you go back to the link and read the article, you will see what I mean. If you prefer a pdf download, there is a link in the "Burnside's piece on Mr. W" thread, which I believe is still about half way down the first page of topics in the Hyde Index. The link is somewhere on page 2 of that thread. Incidentally, the Mr. W incident is a prescient case in point as well. You might want to read that whole thread (only 2 pages, less than 20 posts).
As for your objections:
"You are dealing with adolescents (self concept still not fully formed)"
I don't think teens are at a higher risk. Ego regression can be a danger to adults as well as teens. The ego of an adult can regress to that of an adolescent, and beyond. We see this in cults.
I disagree with your contention re. risk. Empirical evidence from Hyde School "graduates" on its own should be sufficient to prove that. And it has been my own personal experience that this is a very bad situation. And there are numerous articles on adolescent psychology and the effects of thought coercion and behavior modification on adults, let alone teenagers, that attest to that as well. Good point re. cults!
"You are dealing with a long-term residential habitat (no reality checks)"
It is reasonable to assume that reality checks can be implemented at Hyde, just as they are at other boarding schools.
Hyde's perception of reality is not the same as the rest of society's, and certainly not like that of other boarding schools. If the Catholic Church still can not adequately police their own, what makes you think that Hyde can fare any better? Don't get me started on that nemesis this particular thread is named after...
"You are dealing with a megalomaniac who wants to make money off of you ('nuff said)"
So they'll have to lose you know who.
And what do you think the well-groomed progeny are for?
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Sorry if I seem a bit strident about this, but such is my lot! ::seg:: ::seg:: ::seg::
What is your history or interest in all this?
Note that I was not defending Hyde as we know it, which, I agree, is, to use the article's terms, ego regression without ego control. I was postulating what Hyde --- we needn't even call it Hyde --- what any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior could be. The article, as distinct from personal opinion, suggests that given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, such an entity could be a positive influence.
-
Note that I was not defending Hyde as we know it, which, I agree, is, to use the article's terms, ego regression without ego control. I was postulating what Hyde --- we needn't even call it Hyde --- what any entity engaged in group-mediated behavior could be. The article, as distinct from personal opinion, suggests that given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, such an entity could be a positive influence.
I did get that, although it is helpful to be crystal clear about some things, and that is one of them. Ha!
-
I can't imagine a meeting like that doing anything but making it worse.
If I were that kid, I'd probably take comfort in the false sense of equality and sympathy created by that seminar. But as I said, the seminar was ineffectual in solving his problem. Based on two years of empirical observation, I contend that those seminars do not solve anyone's problems. What seminars do achieve is the transfer of information from the individual to the group. And because that information is essentially one's selfhood, that information is power. When an individual relinquishes information to the group, in the form of public confession, he relinquishes a share of his power to the group. A seminar weakens an individual while, at the same time, it strengthens the group's hold on him. My hypothesis is that those who really believe in Hyde and give themselves over to it are those who get torn apart after graduation.
Very intelligent take on the whole Hyde philosophy! You made me take a step back and look at what bothered me so much about Hyde especially the seminars. It is true about the hold they have on people who speak about their personal and private matters. I believe this is the reason most families don't look back once they leave Hyde.
I think that potential parents should think very carefully before they commit to joining this Cult because this is exactly what it is, a Cult.
-
I don't know what Love is but I know what it isn't. Love isn't exposing your inner self to a group. I love my wife. I don't tell her everything. I love my kids, but I don't tell them how often I masturbate or what I think about when I do, for example.
That's all for the best. You sound like a real monster.
Thanks for sharing!
-
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Is character education possible? Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde, then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.
What is character education? Can you define it? Can you describe a method to measure it? ................ Didn't think so.
-
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Is character education possible? Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde, then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.
What is character education? Can you define it? Can you describe a method to measure it? ................ Didn't think so.
I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.
-
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Is character education possible? Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde, then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.
What is character education? Can you define it? Can you describe a method to measure it? ................ Didn't think so.
I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.
Needless to say, Hyde does not seek to develop students in the other direction! So extroversion, compliance, and sobriety mark off some of the territory of "character education," but not introversion, rebelliousness, or dependency. Unfortunately, character education does not include many admirable qualities that are deemed too close to the undesirable qualities. Thus, reticence, critical thinking, or curiosity put a student beyond the pale of character education. So, there exists a definition of character education, even if it's not the one that Hyde attempts to capture in its five concepts.
-
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Is character education possible? Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde, then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.
What is character education? Can you define it? Can you describe a method to measure it? ................ Didn't think so.
I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.
Needless to say, Hyde does not seek to develop students in the other direction! So extroversion, compliance, and sobriety mark off some of the territory of "character education," but not introversion, rebelliousness, or dependency. Unfortunately, character education does not include many admirable qualities that are deemed too close to the undesirable qualities. Thus, reticence, critical thinking, or curiosity put a student beyond the pale of character education. So, there exists a definition of character education, even if it's not the one that Hyde attempts to capture in its five concepts.
Afterthought: the reticent, critical, and curious student will not get a diploma --- I should know! --- not only because those qualities are too close to undesirable, but because they are ingredients of the "ego control" discussed above. If Hyde is to work, it must begin to incorporate those qualities into character education.
-
Seems to me that anytime you use manipulative means towards any end, regardless of how laudable, you compromise the allegedly intended results. It's common sense that when you feel your vulnerabilities have been exploited (e.g., via the use of ego regression), it kind of sours the milk and you turn elsewhere for your next breakfast. I would imagine this has a lot to do with the low rate of alumni return.
-
Seems to me that anytime you use manipulative means towards any end, regardless of how laudable, you compromise the allegedly intended results. It's common sense that when you feel your vulnerabilities have been exploited (e.g., via the use of ego regression), it kind of sours the milk and you turn elsewhere for your next breakfast. I would imagine this has a lot to do with the low rate of alumni return.
To the extent that you are a member of any group you are liable to group-mediated behavior. As a Westerner, an American, a voter, an activist, a worker, a family member, and so on, you undergo a degree of ego regression. You also undergo a degree of empowerment in joining these coalitions. But you are one player in an ocean of individually insignificant players, and the will of the majority influences you more than you influence it. The article suggests that this is a healthy setup given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, and I agree. I don't see why a school like Hyde that engages in group-mediated behavior can't help out the helpless student given that ideal balance. The low alumni giving is due to the fact that Hyde never struck that balance, but shot toward the pathological end of the continuum of ego regression, under the influence of a power-hungry man.
-
The article suggests that this is a healthy setup given the right balance between ego regression and ego control, and I agree.
The article does not suggest this. Please read the entire article if you wish to use it to bolster your argument:
Pathology as "Personal Growth": A Participant-Observation Study of Lifespring Training
http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifespring/lifespring4.html)
The first two sentences of this paper state (emphasis added):
This paper presents an overview of a Lifespring Basic Training workshop from a psychoanalytic perspective. Basing our conclusions on a participant-observation study, we argue that the impact of the training was essentially pathological.
---------------------------------
The paragraphs quoted on a previous page of this thread were part of the introduction. In the introduction, the researchers described various more or less benign forms of ego regression as a means of establishing a theoretical context for investigating the effect Lifespring had on its participants.
All of the more or less benign forms of ego regression cited in the introduction used a small number of players:
- parent and child
- two parties in love
- self and artistic revelation
NONE of these examples of more or less benign forms of ego regression utilized the effect of group-with-vested-interests on individual. That is because this latter dynamic is inherent in the development of a cult.
-
I'm unqualified to judge here; I'm just working with the given materials. But as I understand your article, character education is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, particularly when they have put as much work into articulating it as you obviously have. However, given the current trends in education, not to mention society as a whole, I find the term "character education" a cliche'ed oxymoron at best. At its less than best, it's a catchy misnomer dressing up atavistic and control-oriented behavior modification programs that use thought coercion to do the job that a smack on the hands with a ruler by a nun used to do. At least it was clear what the smack, in fact, was. Behavior mod is less obvious, and has the potential to do some real and long-lasting psychological damage because it fucks with your mind, not with your knuckles.
Is character education possible? Well if your institution defines what it is, as does Hyde, then uses a secret formula to decide if that education has been absorbed by the student, as does Hyde, and then make no effort to track the long term effects of said education, as Hyde assiduously avoids doing, then yes it is.
What is character education? Can you define it? Can you describe a method to measure it? ................ Didn't think so.
I think that it's done on a case-by-case basis. If you were an introvert as an incoming student, then character education is extroversion. If you were rebellious, then its compliance. If you were a substance abuser, then it's sobriety. Along with a general ability to follow the rules.
Needless to say, Hyde does not seek to develop students in the other direction! So extroversion, compliance, and sobriety mark off some of the territory of "character education," but not introversion, rebelliousness, or dependency. Unfortunately, character education does not include many admirable qualities that are deemed too close to the undesirable qualities. Thus, reticence, critical thinking, or curiosity put a student beyond the pale of character education. So, there exists a definition of character education, even if it's not the one that Hyde attempts to capture in its five concepts.
Afterthought: the reticent, critical, and curious student will not get a diploma --- I should know! --- not only because those qualities are too close to undesirable, but because they are ingredients of the "ego control" discussed above. If Hyde is to work, it must begin to incorporate those qualities into character education.
So basically your problem with Hyde is that they did not recognize your character development. You believe in Hyde or something Hyde like in the abstract, but in specific Hyde is faulty in not acknowledging the validity of your experience.
You can fix that. Hyde will give you a diploma. Bob was in your dorm at summer school send him an email.
http://www.hyde.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=40143 (http://www.hyde.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=40143)
-
All of the more or less benign forms of ego regression cited in the introduction used a small number of players:
- parent and child
- two parties in love
- self and artistic revelation
NONE of these examples of more or less benign forms of ego regression utilized the effect of group-with-vested-interests on individual. That is because this latter dynamic is inherent in the development of a cult.
We join coalitions to maximize our utility, that is, to further our individual interests. Are you a member of a school board, a union, a political party, a lobby, a stock, a partnership? Lifespring, Hyde, and cults are indeed coalitions, but they constitute a pathological subset and do not characterize all coalitions. I believe that Hyde could join the family of coalitions that are benefical to its their members and benefitted by their members, as sketched out above.
-
So basically your problem with Hyde is that they did not recognize your character development. You believe in Hyde or something Hyde like in the abstract, but in specific Hyde is faulty in not acknowledging the validity of your experience.
You can fix that. Hyde will give you a diploma. Bob was in your dorm at summer school send him an email.
I need a Hyde diploma like a fish needs a bicycle.
-
"Well then," he continued, "solutions are needed. New ways of living must be devised, new institutions built within which people can organize their lives. The family is collapsing in this country, and that's the only instrument we've had for providing love and security and training in fundamental values. The schools don't do that; they're designed only to teach skills. They can't teach wisdom, good sense, decision making, even if they pretend otherwise. The churches can't--not in one hour per weekend. And in any case, the churches are dying. If the society can't transmit its values, people are going to tear each other apart. They're already beginning to."
Mark looked for a moment at the settlement laid out below us and tugged at his overall's strap. "This is almost too much for your first day; I'm only beginning to get a grasp of the Synanon idea myself. But I didn't want you to think of Synanon as just some sort of repair shop for dope fiends or other kinds of people with broken heads. Drug addition is only a symptom. The real disease is 'character disorder,' a condition of psychological and spiritual malnutrition. Synanon doesn't cure addiction. It heals character disorder by taking dope fiends into a morally and psychologically nourishing environment. That's the important work. A recovered dope fiend, or for that matter," he smiled, "a fulfilled graudate student is just a by-product."
From: Paradise, Incorporated: Synanon; A Personal Account by David U. Gerstel; 1982, Presidio Press
This conversation allegedly takes place in October, 1969; Synanon was begun in 1958.
-
So basically your problem with Hyde is that they did not recognize your character development. You believe in Hyde or something Hyde like in the abstract, but in specific Hyde is faulty in not acknowledging the validity of your experience.
You can fix that. Hyde will give you a diploma. Bob was in your dorm at summer school send him an email.
I need a Hyde diploma like a fish needs a bicycle.
Hey Irena,
You know that something is holding you back. You can feel it. You know that in many ways you feel yourself a failure. It is because you leave things undone. You need to get right with yourself. You need to take the place in your life that you know that you deserve. You need to take power, to control your destiny your unique potential. As Joe said, "never make a decision based on fear", the fear that Hyde will reject you again, Step to the challenge and change your life, for the better, for ever. Contact Bob Today!
http://www.hyde.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=204 (http://www.hyde.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=204)
-
So basically your problem with Hyde is that they did not recognize your character development. You believe in Hyde or something Hyde like in the abstract, but in specific Hyde is faulty in not acknowledging the validity of your experience.
You can fix that. Hyde will give you a diploma. Bob was in your dorm at summer school send him an email.
I need a Hyde diploma like a fish needs a bicycle.
Hey Irena,
You know that something is holding you back. You can feel it. You know that in many ways you feel yourself a failure. It is because you leave things undone. I want you to get right with yourself. I want you to take the place in your life that you know that you deserve. I want you to take power, to control your destiny your unique potential. As Joe said, "never make a decision based on fear", the fear that Hyde will reject you again, Step to the challenge and change your life, for the better, for ever. Contact Bob Today!
http://www.hyde.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=204 (http://www.hyde.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=204)
Found a great pic of a fish on a bike. Too illiterate to copy it here.
-
(http://http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/3255/images/tosrv.gif)
-
(http://http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/3255/images/tosrv.gif)
-
Very attractive fish, especially using the subSilver theme. Wonder what it would look like in Acid Tech? Mmmm....
-
How far to Bath?
-
Very attractive fish, especially using the subSilver theme. Wonder what it would look like in Acid Tech? Mmmm....
Beats me. The whole thing would work better on linux. I would never put a MySQL backend on a windows box.
-
AcidTechEx and AcidTechBloodEx give a bluish silver fish with black (outlined in silver) highlights on a dark brown background.
BrinkOfInsanity gives a grayish silver and black fish on a medium light blue background.
GreenTech gives a primarily gray and black fish on a pale green background.
subSilver gives a primarily gray and black fish on a pale blue or mauve background, depending on whether it is an even or an odd-numbered post (depends on your browser too)...
I didn't check the default Fornits theme, but I imagine it is brown?
-
How far to Bath?
Sweet, so you are going to do it! I will be there and give you a hug after your speech and we both can cry.
-
Beats me. The whole thing would work better on linux. I would never put a MySQL backend on a windows box.
This is totally outside of my realm, but I do believe that it used to be on a Unix-based system not all that long ago. However, there were a variety of hosting problems with one company or another, until Kelly agreed to take it over. Kelly is Microsoft-based due to the fact that her other clients want that. So it was switched from MySQL to MSSQL 2005; we are not on MySQL any more...
-
Beats me. The whole thing would work better on linux. I would never put a MySQL backend on a windows box.
This is totally outside of my realm, but I do believe that it used to be on a Unix-based system not all that long ago. However, there were a variety of hosting problems with one company or another, until Kelly agreed to take it over. Kelly is Microsoft-based due to the fact that her other clients want that. So it was switched from MySQL to MSSQL 2005; we are not on MySQL any more...
The day Microsoft makes a product that does not suck is that day microsoft makes vacuums.
-
With the exception of Xbox which has a really cool PowerPC chip in it
-
back to the topic of the thread:
(http://http://www.rondamatson.com/images/ericlarryatfireflys.jpg)
Is that really Larry?
the ISAC site is the #1 google pick.
-
A bit more portly than I remember him, hard to say... That equine smile, however, does look a little familiar...
-
A bit more portly than I remember him, hard to say... That equine smile, however, does look a little familiar...
Yep, that's the sick pup!! Looks like he is standing in front of a bar. Wonder if he is picking up older chicks now? I heard he still hangs around Hyde's females and lives in campus housing!!8R2MHF
-
That photo is from Ronda Matson's website; Ronda is an acoustic guitarist (along with other stringed instruments) who performs mostly in Massachusetts. She has a lot of photos on her website of her musical endeavors and venues. The Bar in question is The Firefly, according to Ronda Matson. The caption maintains that "Larry Dubinsky runs the restaurant show;" the other fellow in the photo is the bartender.
There is a Firefly's BBQ and Grill in Framingham, MA. This is not close to Woodstock-CT, but doable. There is also a Firefly's in Marlborough which sounds more likely (same organization). But both seem to have open-mike nights on Wednesdays (subject of the photo), so I am not sure...
-
I hate to admit my ignorance, but was is
8R2MHF
-
Dunno... Maybe Guest's "name?"
Maybe Larry should sue Hyde for providing him with an immoral education. Didn't he overlap with Bob Thurrell? Maybe the latter provided him with pointers in the art of... Although, apparently, not in how to get away with it, at least as far as public sentiment is concerned (I don't consider Hyde in sync with public sentiment). ...Too bad the internet wasn't around in the mid-70's.
-
I hate to admit my ignorance, but was is
8R2MHF
Maybe I am Joe's Soul Sista.
8R2MHF
-
Dunno... Maybe Guest's "name?"
Maybe Larry should sue Hyde for providing him with an immoral education. Didn't he overlap with Bob Thurrell? Maybe the latter provided him with pointers in the art of... Although, apparently, not in how to get away with it, at least as far as public sentiment is concerned (I don't consider Hyde in sync with public sentiment). ...Too bad the internet wasn't around in the mid-70's.
Hyde would be an enabler in the argot of self help. What was the name of the lacrosse coach that told the boys to run two miles a day over spring break and that the act of sexual intercourse was equivalent to running a mile?
-
Hyde would be an enabler in the argot of self help.
I think it's a bit more than "self help." There is a sick subtext of condoning, coddling, and perpetrating a certain preoccupation with sex that goes far beyond any "enabling." It sure is a favorite subject of seminars, not to mention cause for plying judgment onto people's character in and out of seminar...
-
Maybe Larry should sue Hyde for providing him with an immoral education. Didn't he overlap with Bob Thurrell? Maybe the latter provided him with pointers in the art of... Although, apparently, not in how to get away with it, at least as far as public sentiment is concerned (I don't consider Hyde in sync with public sentiment). ...Too bad the internet wasn't around in the mid-70's.
What's Mr. Thurell have to do wit Larry Dubinsky?
-
teaches at a Waldorf School now.
A5 Woodworking · Robert Thurrell · Starting with a piece of butternut we will have fashioned a spoon by the end of this workshop through sawing, rasping, carving, sanding and applying finish. (Participants will need closed toed shoes)
http://www.waldorfeducation.org/conf2004.html (http://www.waldorfeducation.org/conf2004.html)
-
teaches at a Waldorf School now.
A5 Woodworking · Robert Thurrell · Starting with a piece of butternut we will have fashioned a spoon by the end of this workshop through sawing, rasping, carving, sanding and applying finish. (Participants will need closed toed shoes)
http://www.waldorfeducation.org/conf2004.html (http://www.waldorfeducation.org/conf2004.html)
From high schoolers to middle schoolers. Must've gotten a nice character reference from Hyde.
-
I've checked out that above link, it appears to be from some conference. Here's another one, from a year ago:
April 2006 conference (http://http://www.mtwashingtonvalley.org/calendar/web_calendar_listing.cfm?start_month=4&start_year=2006)
Seeing the Marvels of Science Around You - The Waldorf Approach to Science; April 29
White Mountain Waldorf School is happy to present "Seeing the Marvels of Science Around You" - a presentation with experiments by teachers Bob and Lynn Thurrell of Merriconeag Waldorf School in Freeport Maine. In addition to a lecture there will be an experiment presented by Bob that a Waldorf middle school age student would typically perform. Come and learn about the "phenomenological" approach to science used in the Waldorf curriculum. There will also be lecture about the developmental changes that children experience from lower to upper middle school. Please join on Saturday April 29 at 7pm in this adult evening of socializing, music, great food, and learning. The event will be held in the Legend's Room at Eastern Slope Inn, next to Flatbread pizza, suggested donation of $5. White Mountain Waldorf School has offered educational programs in the Mount Washington Valley for 21 years and non-profit organization offering early childhood and elementary programs. For more information call 603 447-3168 or visit our website at www.wmws.org (http://www.wmws.org)
-
After lunch, handwork teacher Christine Colson instructs half of the class in the art of chain-stitching a paisley pattern on scraps of denim, while woodwork teacher Robert Thurrell guides the other half in carving Viking butter paddles out of foot-long pieces of maple stock. A fourth-grade classroom armed with carving knives would be cause for concern in most public schools, but at Merriconeag, the students diligently whittle away the remains of the day. The day ends at 3:05.
Excerpt from: 'The Waldorf Way,' archived Boston Globe article 04/16/2001
link to full article here (http://http://www.waldorfschoolofcapecod.org/news-bglobe-waldorf-way.htm)
-
teaches at a Waldorf School now.
A5 Woodworking · Robert Thurrell · Starting with a piece of butternut we will have fashioned a spoon by the end of this workshop through sawing, rasping, carving, sanding and applying finish. (Participants will need closed toed shoes)
http://www.waldorfeducation.org/conf2004.html (http://www.waldorfeducation.org/conf2004.html)
From high schoolers to middle schoolers. Must've gotten a nice character reference from Hyde.
To be fair, the incident in question was thirty plus years ago. He was a good teacher and coach abet with a character flaw. I am not excusing what he did nor saying that Hyde feet should not be held to the fire over the issue of this kind of thing happening repeatedly throughout hydes 40 year history. I am just saying you could lighten up a little on him if you are trying to tie his name to Hyde's systemic sexual problems. How his name got mentioned in this thread to start with was in reference to the culturally pervasive preoccupation with sex and the male chauvinistic way in which the victims of male sexual misbehavior have been marginalized. I don't think that was his fault. It certainly is not his fault that, apparently, the same conditions exist 30 year after he left. So if you are trying to make his name google, I for one would rather you did not. I think the man has already paid.
Emil
-
Maybe Larry should sue Hyde for providing him with an immoral education. Didn't he overlap with Bob Thurrell? Maybe the latter provided him with pointers in the art of... Although, apparently, not in how to get away with it, at least as far as public sentiment is concerned (I don't consider Hyde in sync with public sentiment). ...Too bad the internet wasn't around in the mid-70's.
What's Mr. Thurell have to do wit Larry Dubinsky?
Robert Thurrell was accused of raping one Hyde student and sexually harrassing several others until his dismissal in 1976. He was to have become assistant headmaster the following year. The parents of the alleged rape victim sued the school, and the case was settled out of court. Thurrell found a teaching job at a nearby middle school. It can be assumed that Joseph Gauld and Edward Legg, Thurrell's only superiors, provided him with the necessary character references.
-
Sorry, Emil, gotta disagree with you on this one. He was a mentor to me too during those days... one of the few teachers there who appreciated academic striving, and thus mentor to a small handful of us on that count alone.
But he raped someone, and he got away with it. There are two major guilty parties here, him and the school. He did the deed, he lied about it, the school did not address the situation appropriately, and lots of people got hurt. I say lots, because had the school addressed the situation appropriately, perhaps there would not have been the Larry Dubinsky case, not to mention everything else that has happened inbetween...
And I doubt very very much that he's paid his dues. He should not be in any kind of situation where he has exposure to kids. I am just so disgusted with this whole issue right now...
He works at the Waldorf School because his wife has been with them for 15 years or so. She went back to school and got an additional degree, and I strongly suspect that she is the more credentialed one in that situation. It wouldn't be the first time that Waldorf has done insufficient background checks on their teachers and administrators, although, thanks to Hyde School, it is unlikely they would have had any way of knowing in this case.
-
Sorry, Emil, gotta disagree with you on this one. He was a mentor to me too during those days... one of the few teachers there who appreciated academic striving, and thus mentor to a small handful of us on that count alone.
But he raped someone, and he got away with it. There are two major guilty parties here, him and the school. He did the deed, he lied about it, the school did not address the situation appropriately, and lots of people got hurt. I say lots, because had the school addressed the situation appropriately, perhaps there would not have been the Larry Dubinsky case, not to mention everything else that has happened inbetween...
And I doubt very very much that he's paid his dues. He should not be in any kind of situation where he has exposure to kids. I am just so disgusted with this whole issue right now...
He works at the Waldorf School because his wife has been with them for 15 years or so. She went back to school and got an additional degree, and I strongly suspect that she is the more credentialed one in that situation. It wouldn't be the first time that Waldorf has done insufficient background checks on their teachers and administrators, although, thanks to Hyde School, it is unlikely they would have had any way of knowing in this case.
I take it you just disagree with my assertion that bob should not be tarred after 30 years. You do not disagree there that there is a cultural sexual problem at Hyde.
Emil
-
I take it you just disagree with my assertion that bob should not be tarred after 30 years. You do not disagree there that there is a cultural sexual problem at Hyde.
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao::
Okay, you did get me to laugh...
So to clarify, given that I was perhaps too "subtle" earlier: Yes, I disagree with your original assertion that Bob should not be tarred... But I totally agree that there is a cultural sexual problem at Hyde.
-
I take it you just disagree with my assertion that bob should not be tarred after 30 years. You do not disagree there that there is a cultural sexual problem at Hyde.
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao::
Okay, you did get me to laugh...
So to clarify, given that I was perhaps too "subtle" earlier: Yes, I disagree with your original assertion that Bob should not be tarred... But I totally agree that there is a cultural sexual problem at Hyde.
Wow, the discovery never seems to end re Hyde's ignoring sexual indiscretions on the staff's part. I think all of the perps should be tarred and feathered ASAP. NO ONE should get away with taking advantage of young innocent girls. This is disgusting that Hyde School sweeps this type of crime under the carpet! They did it 30 years ago and they obviously are still doing it!
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
Ah, yes, institutional S H A M E... Noteworthy for its absence in the Thurrell affair as well... But they sure know how to transfer that to the students and their parents, eh? What happens to a kid that gets a load of that bull dumped into his lap? Will he/she be able to recognize it for what it is? Will he/she go through life thinking it's okay to treat others that way? Or will he/she go through life thinking that it's okay for others to treat him/her that way, because there is something wrong with him/her?
I think the latter case scenario is a real danger in instances where a kid has been excessively singled out, hardly rare at Hyde.
-
Maybe Larry should sue Hyde for providing him with an immoral education. Didn't he overlap with Bob Thurrell? Maybe the latter provided him with pointers in the art of... Although, apparently, not in how to get away with it, at least as far as public sentiment is concerned (I don't consider Hyde in sync with public sentiment). ...Too bad the internet wasn't around in the mid-70's.
What's Mr. Thurell have to do wit Larry Dubinsky?
Robert Thurrell was accused of raping one Hyde student and sexually harrassing several others until his dismissal in 1976. He was to have become assistant headmaster the following year. The parents of the alleged rape victim sued the school, and the case was settled out of court. Thurrell found a teaching job at a nearby middle school. It can be assumed that Joseph Gauld and Edward Legg, Thurrell's only superiors, provided him with the necessary character references.
I think your wrong about the parents.This was some time after.
-
Maybe Larry should sue Hyde for providing him with an immoral education. Didn't he overlap with Bob Thurrell? Maybe the latter provided him with pointers in the art of... Although, apparently, not in how to get away with it, at least as far as public sentiment is concerned (I don't consider Hyde in sync with public sentiment). ...Too bad the internet wasn't around in the mid-70's.
What's Mr. Thurell have to do wit Larry Dubinsky?
Robert Thurrell was accused of raping one Hyde student and sexually harrassing several others until his dismissal in 1976. He was to have become assistant headmaster the following year. The parents of the alleged rape victim sued the school, and the case was settled out of court. Thurrell found a teaching job at a nearby middle school. It can be assumed that Joseph Gauld and Edward Legg, Thurrell's only superiors, provided him with the necessary character references.
I think your wrong about the parents.This was some time after.
Was the dismissal a result of the girl's testimony and not part of a settlement or pending lawsuit? Surprise me.
-
he was never dismissed. He left (75)... to do some thinking, as they put it
-
he was never dismissed. He left (75)... to do some thinking, as they put it
Funny thing for the next assistant headmaster to opt for unemployment checks. Is it possible that "some thinking" is a euphemism for "some ass covering"?
-
you got it
-
you got it
In a way these guys are just victims of the system.
-
In a way these guys are just victims of the system.
OUCH. Yes, all too true, I absolutely agree that they are. But... that's also a little like saying the guys just couldn't help it. It's one thing to participate in some abusive "seminaring," and I don't want to belittle that by any means. But the mere physicality of wriggling your dick on someone else's body, let alone in it, crosses from the gray into the absolutely black area of culpability, as far as I'm concerned.
A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
There are actually some very clear lines drawn by the legal system in this country.
-
In a way these guys are just victims of the system.
OUCH. Yes, all too true, I absolutely agree that they are. But... that's also a little like saying the guys just couldn't help it. It's one thing to participate in some abusive "seminaring," and I don't want to belittle that by any means. But the mere physicality of wriggling your dick on someone else's body, let alone in it, crosses from the gray into the absolutely black area of culpability, as far as I'm concerned.
A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
There are actually some very clear lines drawn by the legal system in this country.
Yes but we are talking statutory here not rape by force. When I was 19 I had consensual sex with a girl that was 17. In the state that occurred in that was statutory rape. The age difference between RT and SF was not that much greater. I think the real problem is the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped. For example the relationship between JG and AVH violated no law. Was it ethical?
I think the problem is you have/had a culture where the norms of behaviour in the general society are held in abeyance for those in power. Could you imagine Joes rants in a public school? I think you have a culture where there are signals that say it is ok to cross those kinds of boundaries. I the case of LD there is evidence that the folks in power knew lines were crossed and did nothing. What kind of message does that send? If I was LD I would say "green light"
It is a sort of nature or nurture question. I think it is a little of both.
-
In a way these guys are just victims of the system.
OUCH. Yes, all too true, I absolutely agree that they are. But... that's also a little like saying the guys just couldn't help it. It's one thing to participate in some abusive "seminaring," and I don't want to belittle that by any means. But the mere physicality of wriggling your dick on someone else's body, let alone in it, crosses from the gray into the absolutely black area of culpability, as far as I'm concerned.
A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
There are actually some very clear lines drawn by the legal system in this country.
Yes but we are talking statutory here not rape by force. When I was 19 I have consensual sex with a girl that was 17. In the state that occurred in that was statutory rape. The age difference between RT and SF was not that much greater. I think the real problem is the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped. For example the relationship between JG and AVH violated no law. Was it ethical?
I think the problem is you have/had a culture where the norms of behaviour in the general society are held in abeyance for those in power. Could you imagine Joes rants in a public school? I think you have a culture where there are signals that say it is ok to cross those kinds of boundaries. I the case of LD there is evidence that the folks in power knew lines were crossed and did nothing. What kind of message does that send? If I was LD I would say "green light"
It is a sort of nature or nurture question. I think it is a little of both.
The age difference was actually significantly greater. SF was 17; Thurrell was 30, married, and his wife was expecting their first child. I don't think you can equate that situation with consensual sex between two teenagers.
Moreover, how do you know how much "force" was used? He planned the circumstances beforehand, he set it up with forethought and deliberation. And by Hyde's own admission, he had attempted this a few times before. I doubt very much that this was entered willingly on the part of SF, although I doubt she knew about his previous attempts. None of us knew. But Hyde knew, and did nothing.
I totally agree with you re. "the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped" in the case of Joe Gauld and AVH. She was younger than two of his children. And a former student, not long out in the "real" world. And he's still married to Blanche. That situation strikes me as surreal. I can not imagine how she can come to terms with that event in her life. To think that he would actually write a book entitled "Character First...;" I'm sorry, it just makes me puke. I can't believe people still eat that stuff up.
-
In a way these guys are just victims of the system.
OUCH. Yes, all too true, I absolutely agree that they are. But... that's also a little like saying the guys just couldn't help it. It's one thing to participate in some abusive "seminaring," and I don't want to belittle that by any means. But the mere physicality of wriggling your dick on someone else's body, let alone in it, crosses from the gray into the absolutely black area of culpability, as far as I'm concerned.
A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
There are actually some very clear lines drawn by the legal system in this country.
Yes but we are talking statutory here not rape by force. When I was 19 I have consensual sex with a girl that was 17. In the state that occurred in that was statutory rape. The age difference between RT and SF was not that much greater. I think the real problem is the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped. For example the relationship between JG and AVH violated no law. Was it ethical?
I think the problem is you have/had a culture where the norms of behaviour in the general society are held in abeyance for those in power. Could you imagine Joes rants in a public school? I think you have a culture where there are signals that say it is ok to cross those kinds of boundaries. I the case of LD there is evidence that the folks in power knew lines were crossed and did nothing. What kind of message does that send? If I was LD I would say "green light"
It is a sort of nature or nurture question. I think it is a little of both.
The age difference was actually significantly greater. SF was 17; Thurrell was 30, married, and his wife was expecting their first child. I don't think you can equate that situation with consensual sex between two teenagers.
Moreover, how do you know how much "force" was used? He planned the circumstances beforehand, he set it up with forethought and deliberation. And by Hyde's own admission, he had attempted this a few times before. I doubt very much that this was entered willingly on the part of SF, although I doubt she knew about his previous attempts. None of us knew. But Hyde knew, and did nothing.
I totally agree with you re. "the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped" in the case of Joe Gauld and AVH. She was younger than two of his children. And a former student, not long out in the "real" world. And he's still married to Blanche. That situation strikes me as surreal. I can not imagine how she can come to terms with that event in her life. To think that he would actually write a book entitled "Character First...;" I'm sorry, it just makes me puke. I can't believe people still eat that stuff up.
I thought he was in his early twenties. When did Hyde ever admit anything about the affair. I don't recall that piece.
-
Just for the sake of equal time: have you heard an any of the stories about Marsha Milton having sex with male students?
-
In a way these guys are just victims of the system.
OUCH. Yes, all too true, I absolutely agree that they are. But... that's also a little like saying the guys just couldn't help it. It's one thing to participate in some abusive "seminaring," and I don't want to belittle that by any means. But the mere physicality of wriggling your dick on someone else's body, let alone in it, crosses from the gray into the absolutely black area of culpability, as far as I'm concerned.
A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
There are actually some very clear lines drawn by the legal system in this country.
Yes but we are talking statutory here not rape by force. When I was 19 I have consensual sex with a girl that was 17. In the state that occurred in that was statutory rape. The age difference between RT and SF was not that much greater. I think the real problem is the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped. For example the relationship between JG and AVH violated no law. Was it ethical?
I think the problem is you have/had a culture where the norms of behaviour in the general society are held in abeyance for those in power. Could you imagine Joes rants in a public school? I think you have a culture where there are signals that say it is ok to cross those kinds of boundaries. I the case of LD there is evidence that the folks in power knew lines were crossed and did nothing. What kind of message does that send? If I was LD I would say "green light"
It is a sort of nature or nurture question. I think it is a little of both.
The age difference was actually significantly greater. SF was 17; Thurrell was 30, married, and his wife was expecting their first child. I don't think you can equate that situation with consensual sex between two teenagers.
Moreover, how do you know how much "force" was used? He planned the circumstances beforehand, he set it up with forethought and deliberation. And by Hyde's own admission, he had attempted this a few times before. I doubt very much that this was entered willingly on the part of SF, although I doubt she knew about his previous attempts. None of us knew. But Hyde knew, and did nothing.
I totally agree with you re. "the violation of trust that should exist between pedagogue and ped" in the case of Joe Gauld and AVH. She was younger than two of his children. And a former student, not long out in the "real" world. And he's still married to Blanche. That situation strikes me as surreal. I can not imagine how she can come to terms with that event in her life. To think that he would actually write a book entitled "Character First...;" I'm sorry, it just makes me puke. I can't believe people still eat that stuff up.
I've been only a casual reader of these postings about the astonishing pattern of misbehavior and cover-ups at Hyde. Have these details been widely known for years, or are they just coming out now because of this website? This pattern is truly disturbing. What a sick, sick environment Hyde is.
-
I thought he was in his early twenties. When did Hyde ever admit anything about the affair. I don't recall that piece.
Affair? Please explain. Perhaps I am missing something here.
Just for the sake of equal time: have you heard an any of the stories about Marsha Milton having sex with male students?
Just what was told us here on the forum (TD). Not exactly my cup of tea, either.
-
Just for the sake of equal time: have you heard an any of the stories about Marsha Milton having sex with male students?
I can lend some insight into the Miltons' sexual orientation. It is in the summer of 1975, and Marsha Milton is my summer session group supervisor. She and I are having a drink at the water fountain near the sunken garden, alone. As she finishes and I step up to the fountain, she grabs my arm and pulls me very close ... but I'm not desperate.
And now, the curtain rises on Act 2 of the comedy --- a month or two later. It's the regular year, and my then ex-girlfriend has just run away. As I'm walking by Henry Milton, he grabs me by the arm and pulls me very close, and says, consolingly, "You know that she was using you, don't you?" I'm thinking, Ok, now I have it on good authority.
It makes me wonder whose taste for teenage boys came first: Henry's or Marsha's? The chicken or the egg?
-
Just for the sake of equal time: have you heard an any of the stories about Marsha Milton having sex with male students?
I can lend some insight into the Miltons' sexual orientation. It is in the summer of 1975, and Marsha Milton is my summer session group supervisor. She and I are having a drink at the water fountain near the sunken garden, alone. As she finishes and I step up to the fountain, she grabs my arm and pulls me very close ... but I'm not desperate.
And now, the curtain rises on Act 2 of the comedy --- a month or two later. It's the regular year, and my then ex-girlfriend has just run away. As I'm walking by Henry Milton, he grabs me by the arm and pulls me very close, and says, consolingly, "You know that she was using you, don't you?" I'm thinking, Ok, now I have it on good authority.
It makes me wonder whose taste for teenage boys came first: Henry's or Marsha's? The chicken or the egg?
Perhaps this predatory behavior was, in fact, a tacit understanding between the two of them... perhaps not even tacit... a sickening thought... When did the Miltons start working at Hyde? Wasn't it the summer of 1975? Or was it the year before? And didn't they come there based on the recommendation of another faculty member?
The Thurrell incident came to light during the summer of 1975. Perhaps the way that shit went down sent signals as to what was and what was not okay to get away with at Hyde (i.e., just don't get caught, but green light otherwise).
-
Perhaps this predatory behavior was, in fact, a tacit understanding between the two of them... perhaps not even tacit... a sickening thought...
Menage a trois?
-
Not sure, especially when it comes to juveniles. Wouldn't rule it out, though.
The impression I'm getting and gut feeling from memory is more that of an "open" relationship between Henry and Marsha, and by "open" I am not referring to lots of feel-good discussion.
-
I've been only a casual reader of these postings about the astonishing pattern of misbehavior and cover-ups at Hyde. Have these details been widely known for years, or are they just coming out now because of this website? This pattern is truly disturbing. What a sick, sick environment Hyde is.
Some people know some things.
But Hyde knows all these things.
Hyde is not honest. Truth over Harmony?
-
I've been only a casual reader of these postings about the astonishing pattern of misbehavior and cover-ups at Hyde. Have these details been widely known for years, or are they just coming out now because of this website? This pattern is truly disturbing. What a sick, sick environment Hyde is.
Some people know some things.
But Hyde knows all these things.
Hyde is not honest. Truth over Harmony?
Well the truth is, we at Hyde know what is best for you. That is the truth, not these sordid talks of personal peccadilloes of long departed faculty. You really need to examine why you are so preoccupied with this stuff and admit that Hyde is your Higher Power. You must surrender to your Higher Power and come to Hyde to be healed. Otherwise your life will be meaningless struggle to find your destiny, your unique potential. Only Hyde can help you find the Truth. Examine your inner feelings, look into you heart, you know it is true.
-
Principle Number 4: Truth
Truth is our primary guide.
Truth is the cement that holds together the foundation of the character-unique potential community. Individuals may disagree over the nature of a higher power or argue the priority of certain values, but we all accept truth as life's ultimate guide. Our beliefs may or may not be correct, but the truth is the truth, whether we believe it or not. Accepting truth as "a greater power" bonds the community.
Although truth is one of the foundations of Hyde School, it is not our only value. Blurting out the truth in every situation shows little judgment or discrimination. We must rely on conscience to dictate what to say or not to say in a given situation. A good rule of thumb is, When in doubt, bet on the truth.
The greatest gift we can give our children is the truth. If we suffer from some dark secret, then our children will suffer as well. Not knowing the truth has led many people to think the worst of themselves or their families; only the truth can set them free.
As parents and teachers, we will inevitably misperceive the truth at times; we all make mistakes. But giving children our best perception of the truth expresses our love and concern and allows them to trust us at the deepest level.
From: Character First: The Hyde School Difference, pp27-28; by Joseph W. Gauld, 1993 ICS Press
-
"Truth is our primary guide." Pray tell, to what?
"Accepting truth as 'a greater power' bonds the community." It would appear that Hyde is not so well bonded.
"When in doubt, bet on the truth." I guess they don't have any doubts... about their real primary goals.
"The greatest gift we can give our children is the truth." I can think of some gifts certain male faculty were rather fond of giving...
"Not knowing the truth has led many people to think the worst of themselves or their families..." Yes, well, can't please everyone. There's bound to be some fatalities along the road to greater glory.
"...only the truth can set them free." Yeah, this was a real favorite phrase at Synanon too, a key reason for practicing and participating in The Game (their version of confrontational "therapy," aka Hyde seminars)... although I do believe it is Biblical in origin. (see below)
"{G}iving children our best perception of the truth expresses our love and concern and allows them to trust us at the deepest level." Seems to me the only depths Hyde is really concerned about are related to what's in the paying parents' pockets.
********
What gets me is that deftly inserted amongst all the syrupy hash about Truth with a capital "T," are the proverbial ways out of a sticky situation, i.e., how to rationalize not telling the truth:
"Blurting out the truth in every situation shows little judgment or discrimination."
"As parents and teachers, we will inevitably misperceive the truth at times; we all make mistakes."
*********
Addendum:
From St John's gospel, Ch 8 v.32. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (King James version)
-
(http://http://www.answers.com/topic/groisman-fewgood-jpg)
Son ..... the truth is you can't handle the truth
-
(http://http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/4f/220px-Groisman_FewGood.jpg)
Joe, you can't handle the truth
-
All work and no play, make Jack a very dull boy...
-
Well the truth is, we at Hyde know what is best for you. That is the truth, not these sordid talks of personal peccadilloes of long departed faculty.
HMmm... All very easy for you to say. Our banter aside, I wonder just how the respective personally affected kids felt in the aftermath. How have they been able to come to terms with being taken advantage of sexually by faculty members? Also -- in the cases that came to light while they were there -- how have they dealt with how Hyde has/had chosen to deal with said circumstances? Anybody hear anything of/from these kids?
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.
The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.
The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?
Following up my previous post, I don't think Hyde keeps Dubinsky around because they value him more than the bad publicity. Hyde markets itself as a provider of character. Now, there are probably only a handful of corporations in America that would not dismiss Dubinsky at the first allegation of child molestation. For Hyde to do so, however, would amount to an admission of its gross judgment mistakes and fallibility in the character arena, thereby undermining its entire marketing platform. In effect, there is an incentive to retain disgraced teachers like Dubinsky.
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.
The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?
Following up my previous post, I don't think Hyde keeps Dubinsky around because they value him more than the bad publicity. Hyde markets itself as a provider of character. Now, there are probably only a handful of corporations in America that would not dismiss Dubinsky at the first allegation of child molestation. For Hyde to do so, however, would amount to an admission of its gross judgment mistakes and fallibility in the character arena, thereby undermining its entire marketing platform. In effect, there is an incentive to retain disgraced teachers like Dubinsky.
This leads to an evolutionary dynamic that prioritizes "the bad genes." Hyde entrusts character education, increasingly over time, to those least qualified to teach it.
-
I don't think Hyde sees the connection between the sick subtext of seminaring people's sexual secrets to death, and the confess all in the name of "truth" mentality that is part and parcel of their modus operandi, and the tacit green light given pedophiles like Dubinsky, Thurrell, Milton(s) et al.
It was no coincidence that Larry Dubinsky was the person these kids had to confess all their sexual indiscretions to (Dean's Area?), and that he prodded them to go into far greater detail than any normal person would have felt comfortable hearing.
People like these latter examples have more wrong with them than mere pedagogues are capable of addressing. It would appear that Hyde seeks to deal with them the same way they deal with every thing else: they need an attitude adjustment! Ha!Ha!
Of course once an appropriate amount of effacement has been undergone, they are welcomed back into the fold of high esteem, if they ever left in the first place. "We're all just one big happy family, eh?" Yet, somehow, surprising to Hyde, yet not surprising in the least bit to any sane person on this earth, the victimized kids feel too ostracized to return. I guess they don't have enough commitment. Or enough character.
If you molly-coddle pedophiles, they will continue to abuse. No amount of "contemplation" will even start to scratch that surface.
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.
The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?
They are all SICK!! I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls. He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.
What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students. Isn't this a little odd? We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him. Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble. The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female. In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently. The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way. The police would have been called in. Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once. Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away. Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim. Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school? Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?
That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down! I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School
-
What impresses me the most in Hyde's reaction to the Dubinsky affair is the total absence of shame. But the feeling of shame has evolved to enhance survival. How can it be that now it is the lack of shame that enhances (institutional) survival? Shouldn't the lack of shame in an institution --- in and of itself --- disqualify it from a leadership position?
On second thought, I wonder if there isn't a factor of shame precisely in Hyde's decision to trust Dubinsky among its female population: the fear of the shame that will be attached to its name as an institution that admits its colossal failure as a judge of human character. This is shame that will permanently be attached to its name, forever and ever. At least if they retain Dubinsky they have a chance to expunge the shame, to do something to clear his name, to minimize the failure, to prove that he was a gentleman then by showing that he is a gentleman now.
The question of whether errant faculty should be given a second chance is absolutely crucial: can Hyde teachers who have badly blundered be trusted to learn from their own experience, to be more humble, less arrogant, wiser?
They are all SICK!! I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls. He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.
What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students. Isn't this a little odd? We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him. Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble. The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female. In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently. The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way. The police would have been called in. Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once. Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away. Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim. Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school? Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?
That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down! I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School
I wrote the post that you quoted. I have to admit that, having left many years ago without suffering any major trauma, I devote a few minutes of my day to this site primarily for amusement; it's rebellious and fun, just like old times. The subject of Hyde as the microcosm of a small state run by madmen also holds some interest for me. But when I read posts like yours I am reminded of the very real suffering going on there, and I feel for you kids. I agree with you 200% that "the Hyde way" should be banned, and I am optimistic that it will be when children's rights and the harmfulness of homespun mental health therapies like Gauld's become a big enough public issue. Hopefully, our insights and testimonies will hasten that day.
-
They are all SICK!! I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls. He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.
What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students. Isn't this a little odd? We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him. Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble. The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female. In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently. The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way. The police would have been called in. Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once. Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away. Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim. Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school? Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?
That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down! I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School
I wrote the post that you quoted. I have to admit that, having left many years ago without suffering any major trauma, I devote a few minutes of my day to this site primarily for amusement; it's rebellious and fun, just like old times. The subject of Hyde as the microcosm of a small state run by madmen also holds some interest for me. But when I read posts like yours I am reminded of the very real suffering going on there, and I feel for you kids. I agree with you 200% that "the Hyde way" should be banned, and I am optimistic that it will be when children's rights and the harmfulness of homespun mental health therapies like Gauld's become a big enough public issue. Hopefully, our insights and testimonies will hasten that day.
What the hell is wrong with a place that sacrifices the psychological health, not to mention sanity, of its students and families to protect one of its own? Guest is right, these people are SICK!! Oh, there are regulations alright, but Hyde places itself above them.
Hyde School knowingly declines to report sexual abuses committed by its faculty, knowingly withholds information of such activity from the rest of the community, and knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone. What does this say about Hyde's modus operandi?
Hyde considers itself above the law. Think about that for a minute. Think about the sheer arrogance that it takes to continue that mind set for decades. The Dubinsky case is nothing new to Hyde. Laura Denton Gauld and Laurie Gauld Hurd were both students at Hyde when the Thurrell incident occurred. They have both been well schooled in the art of protecting the Hyde cabal at the expense of the victimized student.
-
Hyde School knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.
Are you sure about this?
-
Hyde School knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.
Are you sure about this?
Which part, that they knowingly reinstate and/or abet, or that they do this once the student and their family have gone?
I actually was trying to give them the benefit of doubt by saying that the student and their family have gone. I think they do this while the student and the family are/were still involved with the school. That is, at least, what they did in Thurrell's case. From what I've heard about the Dubinsky case, that is what they did as well. Dubinsky continued to live in faculty housing, whether that was on campus or a few houses up the street, it certainly wasn't far enough away.
I suppose one might also consider what constitutes "abet." And I don't know exactly what they do re. reinstatement, which is why I phrased it "knowingly reinstate and/or abet." I don't know exactly what they do, but clear it is that they help this faculty member in some way from facing the consequences of their actions, and do not help the students in question in dealing with the circumstances of the assault in some healthy way. This is above and beyond the mind-boggling illegalities of the whole scenario.
Their behavior would suggest that they consider the student a greater liability than the faculty member in circumstances like these. And that says a lot about their avowed ideals vis a vis education in general, not to mention a "character-based" one.
-
Hyde School knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone.
Are you sure about this?
Which part, that they knowingly reinstate and/or abet, or that they do this once the student and their family have gone?
The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?
-
The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?
Good question. I have no idea. But the middle school placement appears to be a relatively recent entry in Thurrell's illustrious teaching career. It may well be that his wife is more responsible for the requisite "character reference." One would imagine that a Waldorf school would require more than that. Perhaps the current Hyde School administration could attest to giving said reference?
I was under the impression that once you are guilty of such a transgression, you are not supposed to teach kids again.
-
I thnk Bob was teaching kids at some boat building place near Portland about 5 ys ago.
-
the Thurrells used to live in an apt on top of the girls dorm, prob. how he set things up in the 1st place. one of the students who was there for summer school the year this shit hit told me Bob used to come home drunk all the time, that she would smell alcohol on his breth and that he appeared to be having marital difficulties. she didnt say more than that, but she was upset.
-
I thnk Bob was teaching kids at some boat building place near Portland about 5 ys ago.
That sounds about right...
-
including crying on our shoulders about his marriage
I thought Hyde taught character. That is pretty weak. Crying to an underage girl about your wife for a pity fuck. Sad.
-
The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?
Good question. I have no idea. But the middle school placement appears to be a relatively recent entry in Thurrell's illustrious teaching career. It may well be that his wife is more responsible for the requisite "character reference." One would imagine that a Waldorf school would require more than that. Perhaps the current Hyde School administration could attest to giving said reference?
I was under the impression that once you are guilty of such a transgression, you are not supposed to teach kids again.
Thurrell was not found guilty of statutory rape; the case was settled out of court. Unless stipulated otherwise in the settlement, Thurrell can continue to teach minors and Hyde can write him glowing character references. Unethical, yes; illegal, no. I'm inclined to believe that Legg would behave ethically and not furnish Thurrell with character references; but that's just my personal bias.
-
The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?
Good question. I have no idea. But the middle school placement appears to be a relatively recent entry in Thurrell's illustrious teaching career. It may well be that his wife is more responsible for the requisite "character reference." One would imagine that a Waldorf school would require more than that. Perhaps the current Hyde School administration could attest to giving said reference?
I was under the impression that once you are guilty of such a transgression, you are not supposed to teach kids again.
Thurrell was not found guilty of statutory rape; the case was settled out of court. Unless stipulated otherwise in the settlement, Thurrell can continue to teach minors and Hyde can write him glowing character references. Unethical, yes; illegal, no. I'm inclined to believe that Legg would behave ethically and not furnish Thurrell with character references; but that's just my personal bias.
Legg long gone. More likely Mal or:
Laura Denton Gauld and Laurie Gauld Hurd were both students at Hyde when the Thurrell incident occurred. They have both been well schooled in the art of protecting the Hyde cabal at the expense of the victimized student.
-
The "future teaching placement" part. Was Hyde aware that Thurrell was seeking employment in a middle school, where he could be a danger to other children? If so, to what extent was Hyde responsible for his employment there?
Good question. I have no idea. But the middle school placement appears to be a relatively recent entry in Thurrell's illustrious teaching career. It may well be that his wife is more responsible for the requisite "character reference." One would imagine that a Waldorf school would require more than that. Perhaps the current Hyde School administration could attest to giving said reference?
I was under the impression that once you are guilty of such a transgression, you are not supposed to teach kids again.
Thurrell was not found guilty of statutory rape; the case was settled out of court. Unless stipulated otherwise in the settlement, Thurrell can continue to teach minors and Hyde can write him glowing character references. Unethical, yes; illegal, no. I'm inclined to believe that Legg would behave ethically and not furnish Thurrell with character references; but that's just my personal bias.
It is easy to confuse the fact that Legg appeared rational when juxtaposed to an emotionally unbalanced man like Joe, with ethical behaviour. Do not forget Ed was trained as a Lawyer, a profession where your guiding principle is jealously guarding the interest of your client. My take is the interest that Ed jealously guarded was Ed's. Many people identified with him because he seemed like a stable father figure, again juxtaposed with the manic screaming, crying then pink cloud behaviour of Joe.
The thing I bear in mind when reflecting on my years at Hyde is I was in a community that wanted to do a little brain salad surgery, lead by a lawyer and a mathematician. Looking back on it, it was the minister that should have been put in charge.
-
Thurrell was not found guilty of statutory rape; the case was settled out of court. Unless stipulated otherwise in the settlement, Thurrell can continue to teach minors and Hyde can write him glowing character references. Unethical, yes; illegal, no.
And, from what I gather, the Dubinsky case was also settled out of court. Pity. Perhaps the third such time will be the charm. I say such time, as there clearly have been other cases, just not quite as publicized amongst the plebeian rabble as the cases involving Thurrell and Dubinsky.
-
Looking back on it, it was the minister that should have been put in charge.
I always thought he should name his kid "Lettuce."
-
It is easy to confuse the fact that Legg appeared rational when juxtaposed to an emotionally unbalanced man like Joe, with ethical behaviour. Do not forget Ed was trained as a Lawyer, a profession where your guiding principle is jealous guarding the interest of your client. My take is the interest that Ed jealously guarded was Ed's. Many people identified with him because he seemed like a stable father figure, again juxtaposed with the manic screaming, crying then pink cloud behaviour of Joe.
The thing I bear in mind when reflecting on my years at Hyde is I was in a community that wanted to do a little brain salad surgery, lead by a lawyer and a mathematician. Looking back on it, it was the minister that should have been put in charge.
Legg may have been trained as an Attorney, but he also did many stupid things like expel students on a whim, and not give Parents tuition money back when they were supposed to. Yes, I found out recently that Hyde did indeed have a tuition refund policy at one time! It was discontinued at some point in the 1980s.
Hyde would have indeed been a saner place if Larry Pray had been put in charge. But I seriously doubt that he could have stomached it for long. This place is very much a personality cult of the Gauld's.
-
Looking back on it, it was the minister that should have been put in charge.
I always thought he should name his kid "Lettuce."
Armand Aaron Legg
-
a personality cult
You have hit the nail squarely on the head with a 22 oz framing hammer.
All of the character clap trap, the thin broth of secular humanisim boot strapped off the "Truth" the snake oil of character building, none of it works with out charisma. You need Prof. Hill or Joe Gauld or Stalin or .....
-
Looking back on it, it was the minister that should have been put in charge.
I always thought he should name his kid "Lettuce."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I do think I might know you. I did know a chap that said that at the time... perhaps it was a more commonly voiced sentiment than I realized...
-
They are all SICK!! I was there when Dubinsky was fondling the girls. He did it in many ways including crying on our shoulders about his marriage, talking about his messed up life, making us devulge every detail of our sex lives, and trying to get us to come over for a late night dip in his pool when his wife was out of town.
What about all the stacks of pictures in his home of ONLY female students. Isn't this a little odd? We all knew it was hopeless to complain about him. Everyone knew he was part of the Hyde family of sicko's and if we protested in anyway, we would be the ones who would get in trouble. The girl who was molested by him was tortured even more by Hyde's sick way of dealing with illegal matters. They wanted her to "confront" him in front of the headmaster as well as other administrators both male and female. In the normal world, this would have been treated completely differently. The girl would have been protected both physically and emotionally in the best possible way. The police would have been called in. Her parents would have been notified immediately and Dubinsky would be put on probation at once. Instead we all got a letter stating that Dubinsky needed some time away. Not one word about the fact that we had a student on campus who needed our help, only words about poor Dubinsky who seemed to be the victim. Where was the honesty to the parents who deserved to know the truth about what had been going on at the school? Didn't they deserve to be warned and have an opportunity to ask the rest of us if we also encountered the pervert?
That place is a cesspool that needs to be closed down! I don't understand why there aren't regulations in place for these dangerous places like Hyde School
I wrote the post that you quoted. I have to admit that, having left many years ago without suffering any major trauma, I devote a few minutes of my day to this site primarily for amusement; it's rebellious and fun, just like old times. The subject of Hyde as the microcosm of a small state run by madmen also holds some interest for me. But when I read posts like yours I am reminded of the very real suffering going on there, and I feel for you kids. I agree with you 200% that "the Hyde way" should be banned, and I am optimistic that it will be when children's rights and the harmfulness of homespun mental health therapies like Gauld's become a big enough public issue. Hopefully, our insights and testimonies will hasten that day.
What the hell is wrong with a place that sacrifices the psychological health, not to mention sanity, of its students and families to protect one of its own? Guest is right, these people are SICK!! Oh, there are regulations alright, but Hyde places itself above them.
Hyde School knowingly declines to report sexual abuses committed by its faculty, knowingly withholds information of such activity from the rest of the community, and knowingly reinstates and/or abets future teaching placement of the offending party once the student and their family have gone. What does this say about Hyde's modus operandi?
Hyde considers itself above the law. Think about that for a minute. Think about the sheer arrogance that it takes to continue that mind set for decades. The Dubinsky case is nothing new to Hyde. Laura Denton Gauld and Laurie Gauld Hurd were both students at Hyde when the Thurrell incident occurred. They have both been well schooled in the art of protecting the Hyde cabal at the expense of the victimized student.
The difference between Hyde and a school/youth center that follows ethical standards, is the following. My kids went to a youth center where a coach was accused of fondling a boy. This coach was immediately suspended and every single parent whose kids went to the youth center got a notice about the accusations. This coach had not been found guilty at this point but the youth center sent the notice out for two reasons. Number one to warn parents, and number two, to see if there were others who had been abused and might come forward now that it was public knowledge.
This is how Thurell, Dubinsky and all the other cases at Hyde should be handled. Instead Hyde tries to cover their asses at the expense of the students. Hyde is full of it when they use words like "concern", "honestly", blah, blah, blah! They are so completely hypocritical. They show "concern" and "honesty" when it is in their best interest ONLY!! Someone once said that Hyde is still learning (i think it was billy)......give me a break! After 40 years Hyde should know a little more than trying to protect a perpetrator rather than a kids who is a victim! Most any person with the smallest amount of character would show more concern for kids who had been through a trauma!
Any parent who is researching sending their kids to Hyde should be very cautious and do your homework. Contact some of the people who have given their names on this website. The majority of these posters seem to be honest and sincere.
-
You said it!!!
It is the kids who ultimately pay the highest price for Hyde's pathetically flaccid forty-year learning curve.
This coach had not been found guilty at this point but the youth center sent the notice out for two reasons. Number one to warn parents, and number two, to see if there were others who had been abused and might come forward now that it was public knowledge.
Hyde is not interested in warning parents; they are too afraid of the bad publicity. By the same token, Hyde does not want to learn of others who have been abused, and actually takes steps to squelch that possibility. Any kid who sees what those girls were put through by Hyde has got to be out of their gourd to come forward at that point! Yet other students did corroborate the girls' situations in both the Thurrell and the Dubinsky case, both of these men had tried before. It seems to me that that information was highly diluted if not excised from most of the community's knowledge base due to Hyde's efforts.
******
BTW, any one who wants to contact me, and who is unable to PM me by virtue of not having a username, can still easily do so using the email address I've put under "Interests" in my profile. It has been written out longhand to dissuade the spambots, but should still be quite easy to interpret.
Along the same lines, if you are concerned about protecting your identity, it is super easy to get a gmail account, and alter your visible "name" in the Accounts section to whatever you wish.
-
Looking back on it, it was the minister that should have been put in charge.
I always thought he should name his kid "Lettuce."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I do think I might know you. I did know a chap that said that at the time... perhaps it was a more commonly voiced sentiment than I realized...
As you said, it was a commonly told joke. I'd call it a Folk Pun because its authorship is not clear, like folk music, folk songs. It was in the air in the late seventies.
-
Why the differences in approach between the Thurrell/Dubinsky affairs and the Coach M naked body-fat-testing debacle? Coach M was pretty well pilloried by the whole school in front of his family, in one of the most excruciating seminars I can remember.
-
Why the differences in approach between the Thurrell/Dubinsky affairs and the Coach M naked body-fat-testing debacle? Coach M was pretty well pilloried by the whole school in front of his family, in one of the most excruciating seminars I can remember.
In individual cases it easy to manipulate the victims via shame/blame. It is typical for victims to internalize and blame themselves. It would have been hard to blame all the females in the school for doing what they were told.
The witch trail was a tried and true tradition, one at which the puppet master knew how to work the crowd. A community catharsis was provided. The community moved on without the prying eyes of the outside world. Perhaps if Congressman Ryan had come Koolaide would have been served. Could you imagine if that hit the papers? Wait what am I saying? Sumner's wife owned the Maine papers and a couple of TV stations.
It is interesting that the person who blew the whistle and refused had a reality reference that was different then the student body in general. I would guess that there was some doublethink among the Inner Party else the refuser would have committed a doublebad thoughtcrime and would have been sent to joycamp.
http://http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/
-
In individual cases it easy to manipulate the victims via shame/blame. It is typical for victims to internalize and blame themselves. It would have been hard to blame all the females in the school for doing what they were told.
The witch trail was a tried and true tradition, one at which the puppet master knew how to work the crowd. A community catharsis was provided. The community moved on without the prying eyes of the outside world. Perhaps if Congressman Ryan had come Koolaide would have been served. Could you imagine if that hit the papers? Wait what am I saying? Sumner's wife owned the Maine papers and a couple of TV stations.
God, that is so true! You are brilliant! And just like the scene of Mr W.. Always wondered about Sumner's wife, didnt seem his type..
-
In individual cases it easy to manipulate the victims via shame/blame. It is typical for victims to internalize and blame themselves. It would have been hard to blame all the females in the school for doing what they were told.
The witch trail was a tried and true tradition, one at which the puppet master knew how to work the crowd. A community catharsis was provided. The community moved on without the prying eyes of the outside world. Perhaps if Congressman Ryan had come Koolaide would have been served. Could you imagine if that hit the papers? Wait what am I saying? Sumner's wife owned the Maine papers and a couple of TV stations.
God, that is so true! You are brilliant! And just like the scene of Mr W.. Always wondered about Sumner's wife, didn't seem his type..
You mean she was a woman? Just kidding. I liked Sumner gay or not. I have thing for tweed jackets with leather elbow patches.
-
Why the differences in approach between the Thurrell/Dubinsky affairs and the Coach M naked body-fat-testing debacle? Coach M was pretty well pilloried by the whole school in front of his family, in one of the most excruciating seminars I can remember.
In individual cases it easy to manipulate the victims via shame/blame. It is typical for victims to internalize and blame themselves. It would have been hard to blame all the females in the school for doing what they were told.
The witch trail was a tried and true tradition, one at which the puppet master knew how to work the crowd. A community catharsis was provided. The community moved on without the prying eyes of the outside world. Perhaps if Congressman Ryan had come Koolaide would have been served. Could you imagine if that hit the papers? Wait what am I saying? Sumner's wife owned the Maine papers and a couple of TV stations.
It is interesting that the person who blew the whistle and refused had a reality reference that was different then the student body in general. I would guess that there was some doublethink among the Inner Party else the refuser would have committed a doublebad thoughtcrime and would have been sent to joycamp.
http://http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/
Cute . . . but perhaps "the refuser" was the only one who had Mom and Dad close at hand. If parents weren't kept at a distance, Hyde kids might not be so easily manipulated.
-
One of the steps that is required for a set up like Hyde to work is the sense of isolation and dependence. Notice I did not say cult. Since she grew up there her situation was unique. Distance has not been an impediment to communication for some time. Why didn't any of these girls call their mothers? Because the authority of the Hyde community interposes in between parent and child. I learned that first hand at my interview. Every one knew it. "Do not question your doctor," the man said. If the doctor says get naked then get naked. In this case the doctor and the parent were one and the same. Short Circuit.
-
Hey girls,
The next time hyde staff makes a pass at you tell him to lay down on the floor. Then do this:
http://www.bigmattress.com/images/How%2 ... t%20in.mpg (http://www.bigmattress.com/images/How%20to%20discourage%20harassment%20in.mpg)
-
Hey girls,
The next time hyde staff makes a pass at you tell him to lay down on the floor. Then do this:
http://www.bigmattress.com/images/How%2 ... t%20in.mpg (http://www.bigmattress.com/images/How%20to%20discourage%20harassment%20in.mpg)
This has always been my advice to my daughter. She has done it too! I am very proud of my girl. She does not put up with any shit from guys.
-
One of the steps that is required for a set up like Hyde to work is the sense of isolation and dependence. The authority of the Hyde community interposes in between parent and child. I learned that first hand at my interview. Every one knew it. "Do not question your doctor," the man said.
$$$ E pluribus unum. In Gauld we trust. $$$
-
One of the steps that is required for a set up like Hyde to work is the sense of isolation and dependence... Why didn't any of these girls call their mothers? Because the authority of the Hyde community interposes in between parent and child. I learned that first hand at my interview. Every one knew it. "Do not question your doctor," the man said. If the doctor says get naked then get naked.
Someone mentioned some time ago that Hyde was trying to get a two-year commitment from parents at the time... I suppose it is harder to "get" Hyde when you are just there for a year. Notice how none of these instances happened when the girls "just arrived."
See also Gauld's piece "Isn't Hyde Ever Wrong?" (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17336&start=14) (click for link).
I'm not trying to suggest any nefarious pre-meditation on the part of Hyde School. I am sure that having to deal with the aftermath of the Thurrell and Dubinsky transgressions cost everyone plenty a headache. But I doubt that Thurrell and Dubinsky would have been able to get away with as much as they did, had the kids' self-protective instincts been intact.
When I was there, we were definitely taught that faculty were the next thing closest to God, or Gauld, as it were. Although it seems ludicrous to contemplate at this stage in our lives, back then, it wasn't such a far stretch. If a kid is already very much of a mind to respect authority to begin with, to undergo that extra bit of indoctrination that Hyde heaps on makes for a circumstance quite ripe for exploitation by those with less than noble intent.
(This does not address, of course, Hyde's responsibility to take action once circumstances came to light, but that is for another post...)
-
One of the steps that is required for a set up like Hyde to work is the sense of isolation and dependence... Why didn't any of these girls call their mothers? Because the authority of the Hyde community interposes in between parent and child. I learned that first hand at my interview. Every one knew it. "Do not question your doctor," the man said. If the doctor says get naked then get naked.
Someone mentioned some time ago that Hyde was trying to get a two-year commitment from parents at the time... I suppose it is harder to "get" Hyde when you are just there for a year. Notice how none of these instances happened when the girls "just arrived."
See also Gauld's piece "Isn't Hyde Ever Wrong?" (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17336&start=14) (click for link).
I'm not trying to suggest any nefarious pre-meditation on the part of Hyde School. I am sure that having to deal with the aftermath of the Thurrell and Dubinsky transgressions cost everyone plenty a headache. But I doubt that Thurrell and Dubinsky would have been able to get away with as much as they did, had the kids' self-protective instincts been intact.
When I was there, we were definitely taught that faculty were the next thing closest to God, or Gauld, as it were. Although it seems ludicrous to contemplate at this stage in our lives, back then, it wasn't such a far stretch. If a kid is already very much of a mind to respect authority to begin with, to undergo that extra bit of indoctrination that Hyde heaps on makes for a circumstance quite ripe for exploitation by those with less than noble intent.
(This does not address, of course, Hyde's responsibility to take action once circumstances came to light, but that is for another post...)
Judging from a post yesterday of a girl who was there with Dubinsky, the girls' self-protective instincts were intact, but the school's protective instincts were not. Don't underestimate students, or overestimate Hyde. The fondled girl addressed her complaints to the school; when nothing was done, she sensibly addressed them to her parents. The parents sued, and it's even possible that Hyde has learned a lesson about the consequences of ignoring student complaints of sexual harrassment on the part of faculty. But perhaps now I am overestimating them.
-
You may possibly be right about the Dubinsky case. I think, from what I have heard, that Hyde received several complaints about him before things got as bad as they did. And the parents, at least the mother, did get very involved in the case.
This does not appear to be the case for what happened to Ms F. Her parents were but barely involved in the school from what I remember.
However, there had been at least one or two complaints about Thurrell prior to the incident in question.
Don't forget, that this was another time, and people (including most but not all kids) are probably a bit more savvy about having their self-protective instincts overridden than they were then. I still consider it a great danger to try to supplant parental interests with that of the school's.
-
The fondled girl addressed her complaints to the school; when nothing was done, she sensibly addressed them to her parents.
Note that the school did not notify the parents of the girl's complaints when she brought it to the school's attention.
-
I still consider it a great danger to try to supplant parental interests with that of the school's.
Pity the child with mentally ill parents and Hyde School. S/he's caught between a rock and a hard place.
-
I still consider it a great danger to try to supplant parental interests with that of the school's.
Pity the child with mentally ill parents and Hyde School. S/he's caught between a rock and a hard place.
No Shit. But I think just being duped by all the slick PR and avowed ideals is plenty sufficient; one doesn't need to be mentally ill to be taken in by them. And what of parents who are from another country and/or culture? Try wrapping your imagination around that one.
-
"...given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best..." Joe Gauld 2002
Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt that written after the Dubinsky case even?
-
"...given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best..." Joe Gauld 2002
Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt that written after the Dubinsky case even?
Yes. Would you defer to Hyde's judgment if they told you that the sexual harrassment of your child is a growth issue?
-
"...given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best..." Joe Gauld 2002
Correct me if I am wrong but wasnt that written after the Dubinsky case even?
You would have to be a pretty shit parent to have this to be true.
"We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best"
If that is true you should consider sterilization.
-
From: "Isn't Hyde Ever Wrong?" (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17336&start=14)
Since society is presently very ignorant about this powerful truth about human growth, the human cocoons we are constructing around our children are sloppy and porous, and often compromise a child's best growth:
- Society does not realize the depth of a child's animal instincts of self-gratification and subjective fears and desires, and thus doesn't fully help the child transcend them;
- Families don't recognize their incredibly interwoven nature and how much family dynamics can compromise a child's best growth;
- Societal and family ignorance have created a huge and powerful youth culture that reaffirms children's animal instincts and resists their human transcendence.
Hyde generally deals with kids who have been unusually influenced by those three factors, and, unfortunately, at a late point in their adolescent gestation period. So to counter this, Hyde creates a very intensive growth cocoon focused on character development that seeks to help students: 1) transcend their animal instincts; 2) combat negative family dynamics, and 3) create a new youth culture committed to each student's best.
Since kids--and their parents--have been far more immersed in this counter growth culture than has Hyde, Hyde can be far more objective about how to best address the true growth needs of kids.[/i]
It sounds almost as if he blames the parents, and the kids, but not Hyde... Hyde is too objective to conscientiously allow events like the Thurrell and Dubinsky transgressions to occur. That is really the fault of "a child's animal instincts of self-gratification and subjective fears and desires" along with the failure of parents, perhaps due to ignorance, to curb said animal instincts.
-
I know it sounds incredible to say this, but I really do think Hyde -- through the lens of Gauld's vision -- assigns blame to the students for what happened to them.
I know that this was clearly the case in the Thurrell incident. They were very angry with SF, far angrier than they were with Thurrell.
-
I recollect Legg saying in sch mtg: the TWO of them compromised the schools integrity.
-
I recollect Legg saying in sch mtg: the TWO of them compromised the schools integrity.
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
-
I recollect Legg saying in sch mtg: the TWO of them compromised the schools integrity.
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
How about a 30 YO teacher sells crack to his student whom he is entrusted to care for and provide moral leadership to?
-
Society does not realize the depth of a child's animal instincts of self-gratification and subjective fears and desires, and thus doesn't fully help the child transcend them;
Who helped Larry, Bob and Joe transcend them? They did not do a good job. Bow Wow ?
Standing on the corner with the lowdown blues
A great big hole in the bottom of my shoes
Honey let me be your salty dog
Let me be your salty dog
Or I won't be your little man at all
Honey let me be your salty dog
Look it here Sal, I know you
Run down stocking and a wore out shoe
Honey let me be your salty dog
Let me be your salty dog
Or I won't be your little man at all
Honey let me be your salty dog
Down in the wildwood sitting on a log
Finger on the trigger and an eye on the hog
Honey let me be your salty dog
Let me be your salty dog
Or I won't be your little man at all
Honey let me be your salty dog
Well I Pulled the trigger and the gun set go
The shot gun over in Mexico
Honey let me be your salty dog
Let me be your salty dog
Or I won't be your little man at all
Honey let me be your salty dog
Salty down now
Let me be your salty dog
Or I won't be your little man at all
Honey let me be your salty dog
Let me be your salty dog
Or I won't be your little man at all
Honey let me be your salty dog
Transend that!
-
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
A 17yo using crack... Did the kid ever use crack before? Is the kid a habitual crack user? Did the kid even want to buy the crack, or was the kid talked into it? Did the kid even know exactly what crack is?
A lot of considerations do factor in, from a moral standpoint, I guess. From a legal standpoint it is much simpler, usually. There are different standards for juveniles than for "adults" for good reason.
Is it different for sex? I would say so, personally. You're talking about elements of a person's body that are intrinsically linked to their identity and concept of self-worth. Shattering that generally has more long term repercussions than a few instances of illegal drug experimentation in one's youth does.
-
I recollect Legg saying in sch mtg: the TWO of them compromised the schools integrity.
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
How about a 30 YO teacher sells crack to his student whom he is entrusted to care for and provide moral leadership to?
Odious. But you evade the question.
-
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
A 17yo using crack... Did the kid ever use crack before? Is the kid a habitual crack user? Did the kid even want to buy the crack, or was the kid talked into it? Did the kid even know exactly what crack is?
A lot of considerations do factor in, from a moral standpoint, I guess. From a legal standpoint it is much simply, usually. There are different standards for juveniles than for "adults" for good reason.
Is it different for sex? I would say so, personally. You're talking about elements of a person's body that are intrinsically linked to their identity and concept of self-worth. Shattering that generally has more long term repercussions than a few instances of illegal drug experimentation in one's youth does.
Then SF is waived of all responsibility. As Joe said, she is simply a maggot unable to transcend animal instincts.
-
Was sex consensual? How do you define "consensual?"
Did the kid ever have sex before? no
Did the kid habitually engage in sex? no
Did the kid even want to have sex? no
...or was the kid talked into it? possibly
Did the kid even know exactly what having sex entails? probably not. I don't think she had even seen a penis in person before.
A lot of considerations do factor in, from a moral standpoint, I guess. From a legal standpoint it is much simpler, usually. There are different standards for juveniles than for "adults" for good reason.
-
I recollect Legg saying in sch mtg: the TWO of them compromised the schools integrity.
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
How about a 30 YO teacher sells crack to his student whom he is entrusted to care for and provide moral leadership to?
Odious. But you evade the question.
17 smokes crack: illegal ever where in the US
17 year old has consensual sex: illegal in some jurisdictions in the US legal in others legal in Me
30 YO has consensual sex with 17 YO: illegal in Me for the 30 YO, legal in Iowa, legal in France
-
17 smokes crack: illegal ever where in the US
17 year old has consensual sex: illegal in some jurisdictions in the US legal in others legal in Me
30 YO has consensual sex with 17 YO: illegal in Me for the 30 YO, legal in Iowa, legal in France
Deffine consensual sex. R U saying its ok to rape a student?!!!!
-
Was sex consensual? If a 30 year old sells crack to a 17 year old, and the minor does it, is the minor not guilty and punishable by law? Is it different for sex?
A 17yo using crack... Did the kid ever use crack before? Is the kid a habitual crack user? Did the kid even want to buy the crack, or was the kid talked into it? Did the kid even know exactly what crack is?
A lot of considerations do factor in, from a moral standpoint, I guess. From a legal standpoint it is much simply, usually. There are different standards for juveniles than for "adults" for good reason.
Is it different for sex? I would say so, personally. You're talking about elements of a person's body that are intrinsically linked to their identity and concept of self-worth. Shattering that generally has more long term repercussions than a few instances of illegal drug experimentation in one's youth does.
Then SF is waived of all responsibility. As Joe said, she is simply a maggot unable to transcend animal instincts.
She was the best looking maggot I ever saw in Bath Me. God Damn Bob Thurrell. He chased her away. He should burn in hell simply for that.
-
Was sex consensual? How do you define "consensual?"
Did the kid ever have sex before? no
Did the kid habitually engage in sex? no
Did the kid even want to have sex? no
...or was the kid talked into it? possibly
Did the kid even know exactly what having sex entails? probably not. I don't think she had even seen a penis in person before.
A lot of considerations do factor in, from a moral standpoint, I guess. From a legal standpoint it is much simpler, usually. There are different standards for juveniles than for "adults" for good reason.
We are caught in the horns of a dilemma. We must agree either Ed, or with Joe. Either SF is responsible for her actions (and compromised the school's integrity; Ed's position), or SF is not responsible for her actions (and it is a growth issue for Hyde to handle; Joe's position).
-
17 smokes crack: illegal ever where in the US
17 year old has consensual sex: illegal in some jurisdictions in the US legal in others legal in Me
30 YO has consensual sex with 17 YO: illegal in Me for the 30 YO, legal in Iowa, legal in France
Deffine consensual sex. R U saying its ok to rape a student?!!!!
rape in not ok
consensual: you say "may I" the other party says "yes you may."
The word on the street was SF was hot and wanted it.
-
I recollect Legg refering to a "relationship" in sch mtg. Was this a figure of speech or not?
-
SF may or may not have been hot, but I sincerely doubt that she "wanted it." Maybe I'm a total prude, but I would imagine that the sheer physical aspects which such an interaction would have entailed would have been overwhelming for someone with no prior "first time," not to mention the fact that he was married.
From what I've learned, SF was also asleep at the time, in an otherwise empty dorm as per arrangement on the part of Bob Thurrell.
Apparently there was an issue of some schoolwork that still needed finishing at the end of the school year. Thurrell made arrangements for her accommodation in the dorm adjacent to his apt.
-
SF may or may not have been hot, but I sincerely doubt that she "wanted it." Maybe I'm a total prude, but I would imagine that the sheer physical aspects which such an interaction would have entailed would have been overwhelming for someone with no prior "first time," not to mention the fact that he was married.
From what I've learned, SF was also asleep at the time, in an otherwise empty dorm as per arrangement on the part of Bob Thurrell.
Apparently there was an issue of some schoolwork that still needed finishing at the end of the school year. Thurrell made arrangements for her accommodation in the dorm adjacent to his apt.
Another fine example of charater education.
-
Wha, yeah!, cmon, yeah, yeah, cmon, yeah
Yeah, cmon, oh, yeah, ma
Yeah, Im a back door man, Im a back door man
The men dont know, but the little girl understand
Hey, all you people that tryin to sleep
Im out to make it with my midnight dream, yeah
cause Im a back door man, the men dont know
But the little girls understand, all right, yeah
You men eat your dinner, eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken, than any man ever seen, yeah, yeah
Im a back door man, wha, the men dont know
But the little girl understand
Well, Im a back door man
Im a back door man
Whoa, baby, Im a back door man
The men dont know
But the little girls understand
-
SF may or may not have been hot, but I sincerely doubt that she "wanted it." Maybe I'm a total prude, but I would imagine that the sheer physical aspects which such an interaction would have entailed would have been overwhelming for someone with no prior "first time," not to mention the fact that he was married.
From what I've learned, SF was also asleep at the time, in an otherwise empty dorm as per arrangement on the part of Bob Thurrell.
Apparently there was an issue of some schoolwork that still needed finishing at the end of the school year. Thurrell made arrangements for her accommodation in the dorm adjacent to his apt.
I am amazed at the similarities. I wonder if Thurrell and Dubinsky are related. I remember a classmate telling me that one time she woke up in her dorm to find Dubinsky standing there staring at her. She told her Mom but her Mom was afraid to make waves. Amazing the control Hyde has over parents and students. The more I read and the more I think back, the more I realize that it was all about control and fear at Hyde.
-
let recap the story so far:
There was no "relationship" between Bob and Sabina. Bob cooked up a scheme to keep her past the date of school dismissal. Bob arranged to have her in a room near his faculty apt. Bob crept into the dorm room while Sabina was asleep. Bob forced her to have sex.
Sound good?
-
let recap the story so far:
There was no "relationship" between Bob and Sabina. Bob cooked up a scheme to keep her past the date of school dismissal. Bob arranged to have her in a room near his faculty apt. Bob crept into the dorm room while Sabina was asleep. Bob forced her to have sex.
Sound good?
Sounds very bad. But why "so far"? That makes it sound like this is the data you've gleaned from Fornits. Is that so?
-
let recap the story so far:
There was no "relationship" between Bob and Sabina. Bob cooked up a scheme to keep her past the date of school dismissal. Bob arranged to have her in a room near his faculty apt. Bob crept into the dorm room while Sabina was asleep. Bob forced her to have sex.
Sound good?
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.
Otherwise, I concur with your assessment.
I think it is safe to say, however, that whatever story he told Hyde School was spoken from the perspective of covering his ass -- vis a vis the school, possibly the legal system, and definitely his wife -- and may have had perilously little to do with what was the truth. Yet this is the version the school chose to believe and take action on.
-
We are caught in the horns of a dilemma. We must agree either Ed, or with Joe. Either SF is responsible for her actions (and compromised the school's integrity; Ed's position), or SF is not responsible for her actions (and it is a growth issue for Hyde to handle; Joe's position).
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.
-
Joe: blames the system
Ed: blames the victim
Bob: blame free
-
Joe: blames the system
Ed: blames the victim
Bob: blame free
In a nutshell.
-
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"
-
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.
-
...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.
-
if(attitude problem == thoughtcrime)
{print "you are at Hyde;}
else
{you may be some place normal;}
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You know, I have heard a host of troubling rumors about Hyde in the years since I left. I have actually brought them to folks that have officially connected to the Old Blue and Gold. An I got answers like the smear you just put on Mr Bear, as like to call him.
For example,
ME: "Did Larry Kennedy and Ed Legg embezzled funds from Hyde"
Hyde Person : "Oh Oh Oh, what you make you think hyde had any money to steal? Those are just rumors."
Me: "Did Joe really have a relation ship with XXXXXX"
Hyde: "well that was a long time ago ......"
What is the truth? You guys crawled through our heads with a fine tooth comb and tweazers nit picking at our bread crumb sins and you can give a straight up honest answer to simple straight forward questions. I have done this face to face with folks who should know and are drawing Hyde pay checks. So don't hand me the "you lack character, hiding behind the anonymity of the web" bs.
-
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.
Really? how would you know?
-
There is nothing in the character of Bob or in his actions that justifies this picture of him.
:rofl: :rofl: Honey, your definetly a man, and if you really R a woman in real life, than you must look like quasi moto.
BT was a horny bastard period. oh i can feel the love and caring now.......
-
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.
Which part?
That he pulled her in, or whether or not she had carpet burns? I do not know whether or not she had carpet burns, which is why that information is posed as a speculative question. I do not know the exact nature of the "pulling."
That he pulled her at some point in this change of address, whether it was out of the bed, across the room, or whatever, is not a matter of speculation or fantasy. That much I do know.
-
There is nothing in the character of Bob or in his actions that justifies this picture of him.
:rofl: :rofl: Honey, your definetly a man, and if you really R a woman in real life, than you must look like quasi moto.
BT was a horny bastard period. oh i can feel the love and caring now.......
Wrong again! I was a blue-eyed blonde, very young and very beautiful. Bob was the only older man there who didn't hit on me.
-
Wrong again! I was a blue-eyed blonde, very young and very beautiful. Bob was the only older man there who didn't hit on me.
Hmmm. Now there you pose an interesting prospect. However, the whole picture does not comport. I would be very surprised to learn that Richard Klain, or Larry Pray, or Sumner Hawley -- who didn't even like young blue-eyed blondes, unless perhaps, they also sported testicles, would have been in any way interested in you for reasons and morals of their own that have nothing to do with you or your alleged appearance.
You should find some other, more productive, venue for your rage. It is altogether more than transparent here.
-
Wrong again! I was a blue-eyed blonde, very young and very beautiful. Bob was the only older man there who didn't hit on me.
Hmmm. Now there you pose an interesting prospect. However, the whole picture does not comport. I would be very surprised to learn that Richard Klain, or Larry Pray, or Sumner Hawley -- who didn't even like young blue-eyed blondes, unless perhaps, they also sported testicles, would have been in any way interested in you for reasons and morals of their own that have nothing to do with you or your alleged appearance.
You should find some other, more productive, venue for your rage. It is altogether more than transparent here.
I'm sorry, Boo Boo. I didn't mean to confuse you.
-
There is nothing in the character of Bob or in his actions that justifies this picture of him.
:rofl: :rofl: Honey, your definetly a man, and if you really R a woman in real life, than you must look like quasi moto.
BT was a horny bastard period. oh i can feel the love and caring now.......
Wrong again! I was a blue-eyed blonde, very young and very beautiful. Bob was the only older man there who didn't hit on me.
"Very?"
MMM sorry Sabina was the only one that _I_ would call "very." There were a couple of passingly attractive young woman there, Unless you were not a student and your initials were AD. Then I would agree that you were/(are?) a beauty. Let me take that back. Do the initials CV mean anyhing to you?
-
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.
Unless I am blind I did not see anywhere that Ursus posted the comments you are attributing to him and in fact you are completely twisting and turning his words around to justify the rotten things you are trying to pin on him. I am not a friend of Ursus, but am someone who is sick of seeing all this B.S. from the Hyde defenders who are more followers of a Jim Jones Cult than a school.
I also think you are a pig for trying to invalidate the way a girl would feel after being taken advantage of by an older person who is entrusted with her care. I don't believe for a second that you are a woman although you might be one of the women at Hyde who looks and acts more like a man. I am not trying to get mean here, but it is a fact that many of the "women" who work at Hyde are very masculine and don't have the capabilities of thinking like a lady.
Hyde is a Cult. There is no doubt about this. Like many Cults they believe they are above the law and can run the campus as they wish with no regard to rules and regulations which public schools abide by. This is what makes Hyde and many of the other private institutions so dangerous. There is no governing body although now that Hyde gets so much money from the govt for their Charter Schools, one will have some recourse when some of these staff members break the law.
Do you think a private school could get away with the Thurell or Dubinsky scandal without very serious repurcusions? Whoever you are, wake up and smell the coffee!! You seem like someone who says that if a girl is raped she must have been asking for it!
-
I'm sorry, Boo Boo. I didn't mean to confuse you.
Oh... I am not confused. I have a pretty good idea of exactly where you are coming from. And I find it pretty sad that a grown man is so desperate to smear someone that he will resort to using any topic of discussion as a backdrop to do so.
I guess this is what Hyde does to some people: renders them into petty knee-jerk atavists, so hellbent on dominating the seminar that they forget that they are no longer in one.
Ultimately, the only dispersion you have been able to cast from today's discussion is on yourself. For your own sake, at least, get a grip.
-
It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.
I have never caught anyone stealing my firewood, screwing my wife, or molesting my daughter and I have never shot a man.
-
It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.
I have never caught anyone stealing my firewood, screwing my wife, or molesting my daughter and I have never shot a man.
?? ???
-
It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.
I have never caught anyone stealing my firewood, screwing my wife, or molesting my daughter and I have never shot a man.
?? ???
I think what he was trying to say was if he were Mr Fenner, Lynn Thurrell would be a widow.
-
It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.
To be sure, some consideration can be lent to this as well.
But let's consider, for a moment, Hyde's position on parental involvement, so finely put into words by Joe (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17336&start=14) (color emphasis added):
* ** **** ** *
Since kids--and their parents--have been far more immersed in this counter growth culture than has Hyde, Hyde can be far more objective about how to best address the true growth needs of kids. And given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best, and further we consider our commitment to help each student realize that best a sacred trust.
So--Yes, we may be wrong, and thus we appreciate all the input we can get. However in the end, we urge parents that until graduation to defer to Hyde's judgment, not their own. To instead accept their own judgment becomes a clear statement to their children that the Hyde experience is simply an add-on to old family dynamics, and not a new beginning for the entire family.
* ** **** ** *
So... Hyde expects parents to be involved vis a vis the seminar process, but to defer final judgment to Hyde when it comes to interpretation of such, not to mention all else.
We know little of Hyde's response to the parents' certain alarm in this case. However, given Hyde's response to other legal circumstances they have found themselves in, it would safe to say that they probably acted in Hyde's own self-serving interests, and not in the best interests of the child. It is likely that their actions may even have been quite proactive, in an attempt to stave off potential need for litigation.
Were thinly veiled threats insinuated? Were the circumstances significantly downplayed? Was there an attempt to redistribute responsibility? What kind of pressure did Hyde put on the parents?
I think one also needs to consider the fact that the parents in this case were of a different generation than most of the current set of parents, and that questioning the "authority" of Hyde would have carried a heavier psychological onus than we would ordinarily consider justified.
In the end, Hyde's "commitment to help each student realize {their} best" was far less of "a sacred trust" than the student or parents were led to believe. Just about the only thing that appears "sacred" here is preserving the appearance of the old Blue and Gold.
-
http://www.stechpalme.ch/whoiswho_fennersabina.html (http://www.stechpalme.ch/whoiswho_fennersabina.html)
-
Don't think so... Bigger chin, bigger ears... Of course, those could have changed with age, but not the eyes. Wrong eyes. But overall, some similarities...
-
Don't think so... Bigger chin, bigger ears, wrong eyes. But similar...
I did not think so either. I don't look like my Hyde student ID anymore I don't look like my employee badge for that matter. I had the picture taken during hunting season and I had a beard; rural male ritual.
-
...And then there is the issue of the increasing number of hairs that lack their original pigmentation, not to mention the decreasing number thereof... :-? Sigh... Life goes on...
-
It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.
To be sure, some consideration can be lent to this as well.
But let's consider, for a moment, Hyde's position on parental involvement, so finely put into words by Joe (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17336&start=14) (color emphasis added):
* ** **** ** *
Since kids--and their parents--have been far more immersed in this counter growth culture than has Hyde, Hyde can be far more objective about how to best address the true growth needs of kids. And given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best, and further we consider our commitment to help each student realize that best a sacred trust.
So--Yes, we may be wrong, and thus we appreciate all the input we can get. However in the end, we urge parents that until graduation to defer to Hyde's judgment, not their own. To instead accept their own judgment becomes a clear statement to their children that the Hyde experience is simply an add-on to old family dynamics, and not a new beginning for the entire family.
* ** **** ** *
So... Hyde expects parents to be involved vis a vis the seminar process, but to defer final judgment to Hyde when it comes to interpretation of such, not to mention all else.
We know little of Hyde's response to the parents' certain alarm in this case. However, given Hyde's response to other legal circumstances they have found themselves in, it would safe to say that they probably acted in Hyde's own self-serving interests, and not in the best interests of the child. It is likely that their actions may even have been quite proactive, in an attempt to stave off potential need for litigation.
Were thinly veiled threats insinuated? Were the circumstances significantly downplayed? Was there an attempt to redistribute responsibility? What kind of pressure did Hyde put on the parents?
I think one also needs to consider the fact that the parents in this case were of a different generation than most of the current set of parents, and that questioning the "authority" of Hyde would have carried a heavier psychological onus than we would ordinarily consider justified.
In the end, Hyde's "commitment to help each student realize {their} best" was far less of "a sacred trust" than the student or parents were led to believe. Just about the only thing that appears "sacred" here is preserving the appearance of the old Blue and Gold.
One thing we know about Hyde is that the school's grasp of the concept of character is terribly shallow. They are skilled at trotting out the nice-sounding terminology and make it sound like they're authorities on character. But, beneath the thin Hyde rhetoric is a bunch of simple minded thought-control machines.
I've met very few Hyde staff who are truly independent thinkers. Most spin out the Hyde jargon like they're rehearsing for a play. The behavior of lots of Hyde staff belies the school's lofty claims about character education. When you sign up for Hyde, you're signing up for a very odd collection of staff, some of whom haven't rid themselves of their own personal demons, some of whom can't seem to function outside of Hyde's protective cover, some of whom lack character in any significant depth, some of whom should not be teaching anything in the classroom given their own questionable academic backgrounds and qualifications, some of whom have engaged in scandalous behavior.
Why would any parent pay close to $40,000 for this kind of environment?
-
The last I heard, it was closer to $45,000, and that was 2006. About the only thing you are certainly getting for that money, is the certainty that you are spending that amount of money. Yah, sounds crazy to say it like that, but believe it or not, that is important to some people...
-
One thing we know about Hyde is that the school's grasp of the concept of character is terribly shallow. They are skilled at trotting out the nice-sounding terminology and make it sound like they're authorities on character. But, beneath the thin Hyde rhetoric is a bunch of simple minded thought-control machines.
I've met very few Hyde staff who are truly independent thinkers. Most spin out the Hyde jargon like they're rehearsing for a play. The behavior of lots of Hyde staff belies the school's lofty claims about character education.
It would seem to me that one of the most important things you can teach your child would be an appreciation of and the capacity for critical thinking. It is, quite frankly, a most necessary survival skill no matter what you end up doing for a living.
Teenagers are, by definition, going through a stage of development where this skill is naturally exercised by leaps and bounds. It would behoove a parent to not only encourage this questioning, but also help their kid to hone this skill in a discriminatory fashion. That is, how to pick apart a scenario and dissect it logically.
There is also the feature of "gut instincts," how to recognize them and that they should be listened to.
Both of these fine modes of common sense survival, generally accepted and respected for thousands of generations of parents and kids, that is, eons of the evolving social networks of society, are summarily tossed out the window at Hyde in favor of a so-called character education. Which is, by the way, neither "character-oriented" nor "education-adequate" in the final analysis.
What gives... that people still get suckered like this?
-
One thing we know about Hyde is that the school's grasp of the concept of character is terribly shallow. They are skilled at trotting out the nice-sounding terminology and make it sound like they're authorities on character. But, beneath the thin Hyde rhetoric is a bunch of simple minded thought-control machines.
I've met very few Hyde staff who are truly independent thinkers. Most spin out the Hyde jargon like they're rehearsing for a play. The behavior of lots of Hyde staff belies the school's lofty claims about character education.
It would seem to me that one of the most important things you can teach your child would be an appreciation of and the capacity for critical thinking. It is, quite frankly, a most necessary survival skill no matter what you end up doing for a living.
Teenagers are, by definition, going through a stage of development where this skill is naturally exercised by leaps and bounds. It would behoove a parent to not only encourage this questioning, but also help their kid to hone this skill in a discriminatory fashion. That is, how to pick apart a scenario and dissect it logically.
There is also the feature of "gut instincts," how to recognize them and that they should be listened to.
Both of these fine modes of common sense survival, generally accepted and respected for thousands of generations of parents and kids, that is, eons of the evolving social networks of society, are summarily tossed out the window at Hyde in favor of a so-called character education. Which is, by the way, neither "character-oriented" nor "education-adequate" in the final analysis.
What gives... that people still get suckered like this?
One of the key reasons parents and kids end up at Hyde is that they feel absolutely desperate, don't know about other schools, are seduced by Hyde's very slick public relations materials, and don't have the time or inclination to look behind the Hyde curtain. Of course, many people leave Hyde once they figure the place out. But by then they've already made a drastic mistake. Sad.
-
"Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best."
-
"Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best."
Does this sound familiar to you?
Turn your kids over to me
Turn your money over to me
Go out and solicit others to turn over their kids and money
Immerse yourself in the process and don't question the leader
Geez Louise, does this sound like a Cult? No by George, this is Hyde School!!
-
Geez Louise, does this sound like a Cult? No by George, this is Hyde School!!
Hmm. With all due respect ( :lol: ), I'd be more inclined to say: "Geez Louise, does this sound like a Cult? YES, by George, this IS Hyde School!!"
-
If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck
swims like a duck
................................. Might as well call it a duck.
-
If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck
swims like a duck
................................. Might as well call it a duck.
(http://http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/hayley_loves_pie/animal%20icons/duck.gif)
Looks like a tasty little bugger to me...
-
"Every individual is gifted with a unique potential that defines a destiny"
Does that mean there is only one place I can end up if I make decisions based on the teaching of Hyde? What implications does this have for the alternate realities suggested by string theory?
If I am not in fact the master of my fate and the captain on my soul, does it matter what I do, because it is fate ... destiny.
-
What implications does this have for the alternate realities suggested by string theory?
Just string up the god damn ducks and let'em have it! :lol:
-
(http://http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g132/xXbruisesonmyheartXx/Animal%20Icons/myspace-icons-animals111.gif)
-
It must be that you need to be very passive to be a hyde parent.
To be sure, some consideration can be lent to this as well.
But let's consider, for a moment, Hyde's position on parental involvement, so finely put into words by Joe (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17336&start=14) (color emphasis added):
* ** **** ** *
Since kids--and their parents--have been far more immersed in this counter growth culture than has Hyde, Hyde can be far more objective about how to best address the true growth needs of kids. And given the limited time available, Hyde insists on being the final judge on growth issues. We are in a better position than parents to determine a student's true best, and further we consider our commitment to help each student realize that best a sacred trust.
So--Yes, we may be wrong, and thus we appreciate all the input we can get. However in the end, we urge parents that until graduation to defer to Hyde's judgment, not their own. To instead accept their own judgment becomes a clear statement to their children that the Hyde experience is simply an add-on to old family dynamics, and not a new beginning for the entire family.
* ** **** ** *
So... Hyde expects parents to be involved vis a vis the seminar process, but to defer final judgment to Hyde when it comes to interpretation of such, not to mention all else.
We know little of Hyde's response to the parents' certain alarm in this case. However, given Hyde's response to other legal circumstances they have found themselves in, it would safe to say that they probably acted in Hyde's own self-serving interests, and not in the best interests of the child. It is likely that their actions may even have been quite proactive, in an attempt to stave off potential need for litigation.
Were thinly veiled threats insinuated? Were the circumstances significantly downplayed? Was there an attempt to redistribute responsibility? What kind of pressure did Hyde put on the parents?
I think one also needs to consider the fact that the parents in this case were of a different generation than most of the current set of parents, and that questioning the "authority" of Hyde would have carried a heavier psychological onus than we would ordinarily consider justified.
In the end, Hyde's "commitment to help each student realize {their} best" was far less of "a sacred trust" than the student or parents were led to believe. Just about the only thing that appears "sacred" here is preserving the appearance of the old Blue and Gold.
One thing we know about Hyde is that the school's grasp of the concept of character is terribly shallow. They are skilled at trotting out the nice-sounding terminology and make it sound like they're authorities on character. But, beneath the thin Hyde rhetoric is a bunch of simple minded thought-control machines.
I've met very few Hyde staff who are truly independent thinkers. Most spin out the Hyde jargon like they're rehearsing for a play. The behavior of lots of Hyde staff belies the school's lofty claims about character education. When you sign up for Hyde, you're signing up for a very odd collection of staff, some of whom haven't rid themselves of their own personal demons, some of whom can't seem to function outside of Hyde's protective cover, some of whom lack character in any significant depth, some of whom should not be teaching anything in the classroom given their own questionable academic backgrounds and qualifications, some of whom have engaged in scandalous behavior.
Why would any parent pay close to $40,000 for this kind of environment?
Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?
-
Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?
What about the kids who might have had no problem getting into college before Hyde, but who were too traumatized after Hyde to even try?
What about those phony "grades," one part character growth, one part academics, where if the teacher or the school did not like you, or felt that you were "deficient" in the character department, the academic portion was somehow artificially depressed?
What about the kids who left during one of the many purges, or whose parents pulled them out before graduation, and who had difficulty obtaining their transcript from Hyde?
What about those obnoxious letters sent along with the transcript detailing the so-called difference between a "diploma" and a "certificate," and how and why you failed to obtain the diploma?
It would appear that Hyde finds ways to make academic progress difficult for students who are not in agreement with the school, even though academic achievement is allegedly considered separate. In certain cases, I personally would not consider sabotage to be too strong or harsh a term for it.
-
Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?
What about the kids who might have had no problem getting into college before Hyde, but who were too traumatized after Hyde to even try?
What about those phony "grades," one part character growth, one part academics, where if the teacher or the school did not like you, or felt that you were "deficient" in the character department, the academic portion was somehow artificially depressed?
What about the kids who left during one of the many purges, or whose parents pulled them out before graduation, and who had difficulty obtaining their transcript from Hyde?
What about those obnoxious letters sent along with the transcript detailing the so-called difference between a "diploma" and a "certificate," and how and why you failed to obtain the diploma?
It would appear that Hyde finds ways to make academic progress difficult for students who are not in agreement with the school, even though academic achievement is allegedly considered separate. In certain cases, I personally would not consider sabotage to be too strong or harsh a term for it.
I remember on one of these threads some one with a story of how, Legg I think it was, described in detail the character faults that lead to a failure to receive a diploma when forwarding a transcript to a college one ex student was applying to.
-
Hyde prides itself on its unique character education model that equips students to make it successfully in life. Has anyone come across solid data on the percentage of Hyde graduates who make it through college? I'd like to know what the percentage is, especially if you subtract out the kids of faculty and other kids who don't arrive at Hyde with major problems. If you take Hyde's large group of "turnaround" kids, what percentage make it through college?
What about the kids who might have had no problem getting into college before Hyde, but who were too traumatized after Hyde to even try?
What about those phony "grades," one part character growth, one part academics, where if the teacher or the school did not like you, or felt that you were "deficient" in the character department, the academic portion was somehow artificially depressed?
What about the kids who left during one of the many purges, or whose parents pulled them out before graduation, and who had difficulty obtaining their transcript from Hyde?
What about those obnoxious letters sent along with the transcript detailing the so-called difference between a "diploma" and a "certificate," and how and why you failed to obtain the diploma?
It would appear that Hyde finds ways to make academic progress difficult for students who are not in agreement with the school, even though academic achievement is allegedly considered separate. In certain cases, I personally would not consider sabotage to be too strong or harsh a term for it.
This is yet another astonishing form of Hyde hypocrisy: Attaching those patroizing letters to transcripts alerting recipients that the student fell below the silly Hyde character threshold. If only Hyde would also attach a letter alerting recipients about the number of Hyde faculty and staff who fell below the character threshold. Isn't it remarkable that Hyde feels so free to judge students and parents but is so unwilling to face up to the remarkable litany of character horror stories involving the school's very own faculty and staff?
You can't make this stuff up. Hyde deserves a place in the hypocrisy Hall of Fame (or Hall of Shame).
-
aw, lol. jes fake it till you make it. thats what the Hyde pro's do
-
This is yet another astonishing form of Hyde hypocrisy: Attaching those patroizing letters to transcripts alerting recipients that the student fell below the silly Hyde character threshold. If only Hyde would also attach a letter alerting recipients about the number of Hyde faculty and staff who fell below the character threshold. Isn't it remarkable that Hyde feels so free to judge students and parents but is so unwilling to face up to the remarkable litany of character horror stories involving the school's very own faculty and staff?
You can't make this stuff up. Hyde deserves a place in the hypocrisy Hall of Fame (or Hall of Shame).
If this weren't so GodDamn serious, it would be GodDamn hilarious. How aptly and cleverly put, Guest.
The recovery time from Hyde is infinitely longer than the so-called attendance time.
-
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"
This situation, with everyone looking to the "authority" as a barometer of moral judgement, and "authority" deftly dodging the bullet by obfuscating the circumstances and turning it into yet another "character lesson," reminds me of Milgram's electroshock experiments at Yale in the 60s.
-
Hey they were only following orders, just like the millions of Americans who watch Faux News "We Decide. You Obey" or Read Gannett papers for that matter.
We are just sheep, without just leaders, we are all just fucked. Take Bush and Iraq for example ..........
Jack Napis
-
Hey they were only following orders, just like the millions of Americans who watch Faux News "We Decide. You Obey" or Read Gannett papers for that matter.
We are just sheep, without just leaders, we are all just fucked. Take Bush and Iraq for example ..........
Jack Napis
Agreed. Note earlier comment/discussion re. survival skill of critical thinking...
-
Hey they were only following orders, just like the millions of Americans who watch Faux News "We Decide. You Obey" or Read Gannett papers for that matter.
We are just sheep, without just leaders, we are all just fucked. Take Bush and Iraq for example ..........
Jack Napis
Agreed. Note earlier comment/discussion re. survival skill of critical thinking...
Hyde was tribal. It is all about group cohesion. No critical thinking was involved. That is why you could for example watch a staff member walk up behind a kid walking on an icy path, push the kid, and walk away thinking "he had that coming to him." I don't think that Hyde does what Joe's claims in terms of removing the primitive instincts of kids. I think it just rearranges them.
Instead of having the normal cruelties of adolescent peer groups on the outsiders Hyde refines the peer group and redirects the cruelty in a way that the community deems as acceptable. I used the metaphor of stoning before. I think it is apt. It is after all the same thing when you get down to it: aggressive primitive behavior channeled in a socially sanctioned way.
Jack Napis
-
Hyde was tribal. It is all about group cohesion. No critical thinking was involved. That is why you could for example watch a staff member walk up behind a kid walking on an icy path, push the kid, and walk away thinking "he had that coming to him." I don't think that Hyde does what Joe's claims in terms of removing the primitive instincts of kids. I think it just rearranges them.
Jack Napis
(http://http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/xxEnchanted_Onexx/penguin2.gif)
-
"With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority." (Stanley Milgram, 1965)
-
Choose the brand doctors choose most for Aspirin, Zyklon B and Heroin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer)
Made by good Germans, doing what they were told.
-
Review/description of a Documentary aired on TV last year, from the NYTimes: Click HERE for link. (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/arts/television/01huma.html?ex=1179633600&en=0a025d1c63029fe4&ei=5070)
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Published: June 1, 2006
People wonder how ordinary American soldiers, men and women, could have mistreated prisoners so barbarically at Abu Ghraib. "The Human Behavior Experiments," a documentary on both Court TV and the Sundance Channel tonight, suggests that actually it's surprising such things don't happen more often.
Dr. Stanley Milgram's infamous "electroshock" experiments at Yale in the 1960's revealed just how banal the banality of evil is. "Human Behavior" shows black-and-white clips from those studies, and also reports on other, even more disturbing, experiments.
(http://http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/06/01/arts/human.190.jpg)The Human Behavior Experiments[/b]
Court TV and the Sundance Channel, tonight at 10, Eastern and Pacific times; 9, Central time.
Lynne Kirby and Laura Michalchyshyn, executive producers for Sundance Channel; Robyn Hutt, senior executive producer for Court TV; written and produced by Alex Gibney; Alison Ellwood and Eva Orner, producers; Julie Anderson, co-producer; Diana DeCilio, editor; David Strathairn, narrator; music by Wendy Blackstone; Salimah El-Amin, associate producer and director of research.
-
So it a Hyde diploma an indication of character?
-
So it a Hyde diploma an indication of character?
Theoretically, yes. However, character appears to be ascertained by a student's "obedience" and "compliance" to the "authority" that is Hyde.
It is not sufficient, nor even applicable, if a student himself, or his or her parents, feel that "character growth" has been achieved. The determination is made strictly by Hyde.
If Hyde feels a student made insufficient character growth, and they can not convince the parents to fork up the additional $45,000 for a "Senior Leadership" year, the student receives a "certificate." Some might say this is basically little more than a GED, with a Hyde label on it. In some cases, the student came back for the additional so-called Leadership year, and still only got a certificate.
Periodically, Hyde has purges, in which students are expelled for very nebulous so-called character issues. Things that no public school in its right mind would consider doing, as it could never stand up in court. Situations where no crime was committed, no egregious acts against the school were undertaken, and where academic progress was more than sufficient. The problem? Hyde doesn't like the student's "attitude," even in circumstances where the student fervently desires to stay at Hyde and has been trying their best. These students get nothing.
It would appear that there are personal likes and dislikes on the part of Hyde administrators, and that these likes and dislikes have more to do with the assessment of "character" than the school would have one to believe.
-
I talked to a kid ( now adult) that should have been in my graduating class. He said he was encouraged to "run away" by Henry Milton. I wonder if there is evidence of that still happening. It sound like they turn the screws to kids that they think they can make jump to skew the numbers of college placement.
To be fair Old Henry is not around to defend himself. I hear he is down south some where. At least there is no ice to push kids on in fla.
It may be self serving, but I think is some cases resistance to hyde is a better indication of character then graduation. To be clear: I respect many of the people that I attended with , the ones that graduated ,the ones that did not and the ones that ran away too. I think it is important to differentiate between the system and the people in it. My opinion is there was/is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
-
I talked to a kid ( now adult) that should have been in my graduating class. He said he was encouraged to "run away" by Henry Milton. I wonder if there is evidence of that still happening. It sound like they turn the screws to kids that they think they can make jump to skew the numbers of college placement.
Oh, I think they use several methods. The purges are part of that (the purges are also used for other reasons). There is also something to making life so difficult for some kids that the parents take the kids out for fear of the kid's psychological safety.
And I think they get rid of kids for more reasons than just college placement. E.g., SF, who I don't believe would have had much difficulty in that department. Don't know about the Dubinsky case, but whether or not the parents pulled that girl out or Hyde got rid of her by making her life pure hell is probably a moot point. The image of that now former student yelling out "Get out while you can!" while Billy Procida was conducting a tour with some prospective student and his/her parents also comes to mind...
It may be self serving, but I think is some cases resistance to hyde is a better indication of character then graduation. To be clear: I respect many of the people that I attended with , the ones that graduated ,the ones that did not and the ones that ran away too. I think it is important to differentiate between the system and the people in it. My opinion is there was/is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
I totally agree.
In addition to there being something fundamentally wrong with the system, I also think that the system is capriciously applied. Whether that is by design, for reasons of overriding issues, or by incompetence or personal likes and dislikes, or a combination of all of the above, is not clear. I'm rather inclined to believe it to be a combination of the above.
This is why you have:
* kids who get a diploma who fully deserve a diploma;
* kids who get a diploma who no way in hell deserve a diploma;
* kids who deserve a diploma who don't get one;
* kids who deserve a diploma who get expelled instead;
* kids who don't deserve a diploma who don't get one;
* kids who deserve to get expelled who don't get expelled;
* kids who deserve to get expelled who do get expelled.
There is only a smidgeon of justice running through all of this and the exceptions to so-called rules are too numerous to mention. Though I will mention your (?) bringing up Joanie Gallo as one that comes to mind of someone who should have gotten one, but did not (at the time).
What is so utterly destructive about all this is that Hyde passes itself off as the be-all/end-all of character assessment, and if you and/or your kid believe this, and also fall at the short end of that stick... there is the risk of some serious psychological damage, in my humble estimation.
They are fond of saying that if you can't make it at Hyde, you can't make it anywhere... didn't Vanda bring that up again when she went back for her diploma? I'm trying to remember the true origin of that phrase, that is not a Joe Gauld original, although they do try to convey that impression now, don't they...
-
Joan Gallo, Yes I agree.
-
I talked to a kid ( now adult) that should have been in my graduating class. He said he was encouraged to "run away" by Henry Milton. I wonder if there is evidence of that still happening. It sound like they turn the screws to kids that they think they can make jump to skew the numbers of college placement.
Oh, I think they use several methods. The purges are part of that (the purges are also used for other reasons). There is also something to making life so difficult for some kids that the parents take the kids out for fear of the kid's psychological safety.
And I think they get rid of kids for more reasons than just college placement. E.g., SF, who I don't believe would have had much difficulty in that department. Don't know about the Dubinsky case, but whether or not the parents pulled that girl out or Hyde got rid of her by making her life pure hell is probably a moot point. The image of that now former student yelling out "Get out while you can!" while Billy Procida was conducting a tour with some prospective student and his/her parents also comes to mind...
It may be self serving, but I think is some cases resistance to hyde is a better indication of character then graduation. To be clear: I respect many of the people that I attended with , the ones that graduated ,the ones that did not and the ones that ran away too. I think it is important to differentiate between the system and the people in it. My opinion is there was/is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
I totally agree.
In addition to there being something fundamentally wrong with the system, I also think that the system is capriciously applied. Whether that is by design, for reasons of overriding issues, or by incompetence or personal likes and dislikes, or a combination of all of the above, is not clear. I'm rather inclined to believe it to be a combination of the above.
This is why you have:
* kids who get a diploma who fully deserve a diploma;
* kids who get a diploma who no way in hell deserve a diploma;
* kids who deserve a diploma who don't get one;
* kids who deserve a diploma who get expelled instead;
* kids who don't deserve a diploma who don't get one;
* kids who deserve to get expelled who don't get expelled;
* kids who deserve to get expelled who do get expelled.
There is only a smidgeon of justice running through all of this and the exceptions to so-called rules are too numerous to mention. Though I will mention your (?) bringing up Joanie Gallo as one that comes to mind of someone who should have gotten one, but did not (at the time).
What is so utterly destructive about all this is that Hyde passes itself off as the be-all/end-all of character assessment, and if you and/or your kid believe this, and also fall at the short end of that stick... there is the risk of some serious psychological damage, in my humble estimation.
They are fond of saying that if you can't make it at Hyde, you can't make it anywhere... didn't Vanda bring that up again when she went back for her diploma? I'm trying to remember the true origin of that phrase, that is not a Joe Gauld original, although they do try to convey that impression now, don't they...
The one thing I can remeber Vanda saying is " I figured I should get a diploma since Hyde was asking me for money"
Joe looked like he was going to have a fit when the guy from New York was giving his speech. Some prejudices die hard, some never die,
Joan's story was astonishing. I was sitting there thinking "how did this woman walk out with out a diploma"
-
The one thing I can remeber Vanda saying is " I figured I should get a diploma since Hyde was asking me for money"
More of a sound bite than a real reason... Hyde always asks you for money. I am sure they are still asking the families of the girls in the Thurrell and the Dubinsky cases for money, as underhanded, odious, and incredible as it sounds.
No matter how many times I've moved, leaving no forwarding address, they still find me and ask me for money. They are the most consistent spam of my life.
Joe looked like he was going to have a fit when the guy from New York was giving his speech. Some prejudices die hard, some never die,
Do elaborate?
Joan's story was astonishing. I was sitting there thinking "how did this woman walk out with out a diploma"
Do elaborate here too... I must confess, I was more than a little amazed to hear that she went back to get her diploma, as it never would have occurred to me that she might not have gotten it! And this is coming from a person who did not know her very well. Non sequitur... she had a brother who also attended Hyde, did she not? I am thinking he was named Ricky?
-
I think it is important to differentiate between the system and the people in it. My opinion is there was/is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
you said it!! Hear! Hear!
-
I think it is important to differentiate between the system and the people in it. My opinion is there was/is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
you said it!! Hear! Hear!
There's no question that there's something fundamentally wrong with the Hyde system. It's based on a terribly outmoded framework that doesn't fit what most of its students need. Most other schools for this population have figured that out; Hyde is stuck in the past, which is why it's losing ground big time.
Some of the people at Hyde I've gotten to know are decent, caring people. But I've also met some Hyde staff who are on a scary power trip, love controlling other people's lives, suck up to the Gaulds, and use Hyde to meet their own needs. Quite a few of the Hyde staff have struggled terribly and it shows. Hyde seems to be a magnet for staff who would have a hard time functioning in more normal environments. Many of these folks are awful role models for Hyde students.
-
I talked to a kid ( now adult) that should have been in my graduating class. He said he was encouraged to "run away" by Henry Milton. I wonder if there is evidence of that still happening. It sound like they turn the screws to kids that they think they can make jump to skew the numbers of college placement.
Oh, I think they use several methods. The purges are part of that (the purges are also used for other reasons). There is also something to making life so difficult for some kids that the parents take the kids out for fear of the kid's psychological safety.
And I think they get rid of kids for more reasons than just college placement. E.g., SF, who I don't believe would have had much difficulty in that department. Don't know about the Dubinsky case, but whether or not the parents pulled that girl out or Hyde got rid of her by making her life pure hell is probably a moot point. The image of that now former student yelling out "Get out while you can!" while Billy Procida was conducting a tour with some prospective student and his/her parents also comes to mind...
It may be self serving, but I think is some cases resistance to hyde is a better indication of character then graduation. To be clear: I respect many of the people that I attended with , the ones that graduated ,the ones that did not and the ones that ran away too. I think it is important to differentiate between the system and the people in it. My opinion is there was/is something fundamentally wrong with the system.
I totally agree.
In addition to there being something fundamentally wrong with the system, I also think that the system is capriciously applied. Whether that is by design, for reasons of overriding issues, or by incompetence or personal likes and dislikes, or a combination of all of the above, is not clear. I'm rather inclined to believe it to be a combination of the above.
This is why you have:
* kids who get a diploma who fully deserve a diploma;
* kids who get a diploma who no way in hell deserve a diploma;
* kids who deserve a diploma who don't get one;
* kids who deserve a diploma who get expelled instead;
* kids who don't deserve a diploma who don't get one;
* kids who deserve to get expelled who don't get expelled;
* kids who deserve to get expelled who do get expelled.
There is only a smidgeon of justice running through all of this and the exceptions to so-called rules are too numerous to mention. Though I will mention your (?) bringing up Joanie Gallo as one that comes to mind of someone who should have gotten one, but did not (at the time).
What is so utterly destructive about all this is that Hyde passes itself off as the be-all/end-all of character assessment, and if you and/or your kid believe this, and also fall at the short end of that stick... there is the risk of some serious psychological damage, in my humble estimation.
They are fond of saying that if you can't make it at Hyde, you can't make it anywhere... didn't Vanda bring that up again when she went back for her diploma? I'm trying to remember the true origin of that phrase, that is not a Joe Gauld original, although they do try to convey that impression now, don't they...
The one thing I can remeber Vanda saying is " I figured I should get a diploma since Hyde was asking me for money"
Joe looked like he was going to have a fit when the guy from New York was giving his speech. Some prejudices die hard, some never die,
Joan's story was astonishing. I was sitting there thinking "how did this woman walk out with out a diploma"
After a short hiatus, I am happy to find the same old "Fornits lifers" still carrying on about the same old Fornits things. You should have Hyde put you in touch with Larry Dubinsky; you've got more in common than you know, or would care to admit.
Ursus, you are precious. I've known Holocaust survivors, hostages of enemy regimes, persons bereaved of family members by terrorists, the mutilated, and the raped, but none of them come close to the rancor of the bear, who ass-kissed Ed Legg for years, only to be expelled by him just before graduation! Ha ha ha! Good old Ed, I've got to hand it to him: that man had insight! I'm glad to read that Fornits is your "life-affirming gift"; that says a lot about the quality of your life. Let me guess: divorced, unemployed, kids won't talk to you, friendless, broke, and, at the root of it all, no Hyde diploma! Ursus, you have no sense of humor, but you are hilarious! Best of luck to you, old bear. I'll check in every few months to see how you're still doing.
Mike
-
Ursus, you are precious. I've known Holocaust survivors, hostages of enemy regimes, persons bereaved of family members by terrorists, the mutilated, and the raped, but none of them come close to the rancor of the bear, who ass-kissed Ed Legg for years, only to be expelled by him just before graduation! Ha ha ha! Good old Ed, I've got to hand it to him: that man had insight! I'm glad to read that Fornits is your "life-affirming gift"; that says a lot about the quality of your life. Let me guess: divorced, unemployed, kids won't talk to you, friendless, broke, and, at the root of it all, no Hyde diploma! Ursus, you have no sense of humor, but you are hilarious! Best of luck to you, old bear. I'll check in every few months to see how you're still doing.
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao::
Never kissed Ed's ass, never kissed anybody's ass there... since as you say, I have no sense of humor, not even enough of a sense of humor to know how to kiss someone's ass there, let alone the prerequisite charm involved... But it would certainly appear, given what's on your mind, that you would know a great deal about that type of activity.
Ed wouldn't recognize me from a lump on a log; which says a lot about the only kind of insight he could have possibly had, i.e., not much. Sorry to disparage your hero, but the man was clueless about such subtleties.
As to the remainder of your most personally directed attack, you have about as much clue as Ed did, nay, less. Even sifting through my posts as carefully and obsessively as you apparently do, searching for any and all catchy phrases or life events that you might possibly use to turn against me, you still haven't caught the gingerbread man.
I'll take your attentiveness as a compliment. Thanks! Next time, try a wee bit harder, old chum!
:wave:
-
Ursus, you are precious. I've known Holocaust survivors, hostages of enemy regimes, persons bereaved of family members by terrorists, the mutilated, and the raped, but none of them come close to the rancor of the bear, who ass-kissed Ed Legg for years, only to be expelled by him just before graduation! Ha ha ha! Good old Ed, I've got to hand it to him: that man had insight! I'm glad to read that Fornits is your "life-affirming gift"; that says a lot about the quality of your life. Let me guess: divorced, unemployed, kids won't talk to you, friendless, broke, and, at the root of it all, no Hyde diploma! Ursus, you have no sense of humor, but you are hilarious! Best of luck to you, old bear. I'll check in every few months to see how you're still doing.
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao::
Never kissed Ed's ass, never kissed anybody's ass there... since as you say, I have no sense of humor, not even enough of a sense of humor to know how to kiss someone's ass there, let alone the prerequisite charm involved... But it would certainly appear, given what's on your mind, that you would know a great deal about that type of activity.
Ed wouldn't recognize me from a lump on a log; which says a lot about the only kind of insight he could have possibly had, i.e., not much. Sorry to disparage your hero, but the man was clueless about such subtleties.
As to the remainder of your most personally directed attack, you have about as much clue as Ed did, nay, less. Even sifting through my posts as carefully and obsessively as you apparently do, searching for any and all catchy phrases or life events that you might possibly use to turn against me, you still haven't caught the gingerbread man.
I'll take your attentiveness as a compliment. Thanks! Next time, try a little harder, old chum!
:wave:
What attack! That was a thank you note for brightening yet another morning with laughter! You have correctly surmised that I put together my profile of you from all the biographical data you generously make available on Fornits. What can I say, you are an interesting character!
Regards, my friend!
Mike
Mike
-
The guy that was making Joe squirm was as queer as a three dollar bill.
-
The guy that was making Joe squirm was as queer as a three dollar bill.
Always wondered what Joe thought of Sumner's predilections, whether he even understood them...
Somewhere back, in the archives here, someone posted re. Sumner trying to tongue-kiss a former male student who came back for an alumni event.
Not sure what that was all about. Perhaps an exaggeration, perhaps not. Suffice to say, it was believable.
Never quite sure why Sumner married Jean Gannett, as the relationship appeared to be platonic at best. I don't doubt that there was affection, but the whole deal smacked of other, more political issues. Was Sumner trying to get Joe and Ed off his back? Was he trying to do his part for the olde Blue and Gold by ensuring the school remained unscathed by the local media? Or was he merely grateful for Joe's tolerance of his alcohol consumption?
-
I hate to say something negative about Sumner Hawley cuz most of you seem to like him here, but he told me that he would write a letter of recommendation for college for me and he never did. Hyde hated me and he was the only one I felt I could turn to. I called him many times over several months and each time he said he would do it. It seems to me that he could have been more honest with me if he really didn't feel comfortable. Instead he just stringed me along.
I think he was a damned coward. Maybe he had good reason to be and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But from where I sat it pretty much sucked, sucked big time. And he didnt even have the balls to set me straight.
They talk up this big story about ethics and responsibility and honesty and all that other crap, and its really just one big pile of putrid horseshit when it comes to applying it to themselves. They play favorites with their chosen ones and they single out some others to be the examples of what its like to be on the bottom.
Its worse than a regular boarding school. At least there everybody knows that bullshit goes around. At Hyde they pretend they are above all that but they are really actually WORSE than everybody else. They think their shit dont stink, and we're supposed to believe it, cuz they say that it is so.
-
Hyde hated me
Hyde as a collective entity hated you?
-
I hate to say something negative about Sumner Hawley cuz most of you seem to like him here, but he told me that he would write a letter of recommendation for college for me and he never did. Hyde hated me and he was the only one I felt I could turn to. I called him many times over several months and each time he said he would do it. It seems to me that he could have been more honest with me if he really didn't feel comfortable. Instead he just stringed me along.
I think he was a damned coward. Maybe he had good reason to be and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But from where I sat it pretty much sucked, sucked big time. And he didnt even have the balls to set me straight.
They talk up this big story about ethics and responsibility and honesty and all that other crap, and its really just one big pile of putrid horseshit when it comes to applying it to themselves. They play favorites with their chosen ones and they single out some others to be the examples of what its like to be on the bottom.
Its worse than a regular boarding school. At least there everybody knows that bullshit goes around. At Hyde they pretend they are above all that but they are really actually WORSE than everybody else. They think their shit dont stink, and we're supposed to believe it, cuz they say that it is so.
Well... I did like Sumner, although... I have to say, that what you write does not surprise me.
For the life of me, he could never look me straight in the eye. When it was simply unavoidable, e.g., discussing sundry matters in his office, he would put tuck his chin in, almost as if to hide his face somehow, by skewing the perception thereof... I had always chalked it up to morbid shyness, but perhaps there was more to it.
He seemed to enjoy a set of personal freedoms that the other faculty did not. I expect that had something to do with his association with the founding of the school as well as his age. He rarely spoke up at school meetings and seminars, and when he did, he seemed most uncomfortable about it. Perhaps that is why many of us liked him: for whatever reason, he seemed less inclined to jump on the character assassination bandwagon. Perhaps that had more to do with his personality than with his personal moral code. He also was intelligent and valued academic striving, a rare quality to find at Hyde...
That said, I do think Sumner should have been more honest with you re. writing a letter of recommendation and it is very unfortunate that he was not. It sounds cruel. You would think a school would be able to put personal likes and dislikes on hold when it comes to furthering the success of its students. After all, the success of its students is what a "boarding school" should theoretically be all about, eh? It is just nauseatingly typical of Hyde to continue its personal agenda way past the point of efficacy. What could have been gained by this?
-
Larry fucking OWNS all you goonballs, fucking geeks. :lol:
He also owns the most viewed thread on this board. Go Larry!
-
...the most viewed thread on this board.
And this would be why?
A lot of Diddler Dubinsky fans out there?
A lot of voyeuristic readers who want to be up on the latest juicy commentary?
...or:
The fact that this thread also contains a tremendous amount of other pertinent material?
The fact that Larry just happens to epitomize the sad sorry truth about Hyde and their pathetic methods of handling it?
-
...the most viewed thread on this board.
And this would be why?
A lot of Diddler Dubinsky fans out there?
A lot of voyeuristic readers who want to be up on the latest juicy commentary?
...or:
The fact that this thread also contains a tremendous amount of other pertinent material?
The fact that Larry just happens to epitomize the sad sorry truth about Hyde and their pathetic methods of handling it?
All of the above!!
From what I understand, this same creature who inappropriately touched the female students, still lives in Hyde housing and still has contact with the female students at Hyde as of 2007. Hyde obviously approves of his presence. What does this tell you about this sick culture? This would not happen in the public schools or any boarding school that abides by the same rules as public insitututions. It couldn't happen. I caution you Mother's out there with daughters!
Hyde needs to wake up and stop living according to the Taliban rules where it is acceptable to demean and fondle females. Hopefully the next time it happens, the parents will come to this site and see all the posts that tell a continuing story about Hyde.
-
...the most viewed thread on this board.
And this would be why?
A lot of Diddler Dubinsky fans out there?
A lot of voyeuristic readers who want to be up on the latest juicy commentary?
...or:
The fact that this thread also contains a tremendous amount of other pertinent material?
The fact that Larry just happens to epitomize the sad sorry truth about Hyde and their pathetic methods of handling it?
All of the above!!
From what I understand, this same creature who inappropriately touched the female students, still lives in Hyde housing and still has contact with the female students at Hyde as of 2007. Hyde obviously approves of his presence. What does this tell you about this sick culture? This would not happen in the public schools or any boarding school that abides by the same rules as public insitututions. It couldn't happen. I caution you Mother's out there with daughters!
Hyde needs to wake up and stop living according to the Taliban rules where it is acceptable to demean and fondle females. Hopefully the next time it happens, the parents will come to this site and see all the posts that tell a continuing story about Hyde.
Does Hyde approve? Or is it blackmail? What is in Larry's photo collection?
-
...the most viewed thread on this board.
And this would be why?
A lot of Diddler Dubinsky fans out there?
A lot of voyeuristic readers who want to be up on the latest juicy commentary?
...or:
The fact that this thread also contains a tremendous amount of other pertinent material?
The fact that Larry just happens to epitomize the sad sorry truth about Hyde and their pathetic methods of handling it?
All of the above!!
From what I understand, this same creature who inappropriately touched the female students, still lives in Hyde housing and still has contact with the female students at Hyde as of 2007. Hyde obviously approves of his presence. What does this tell you about this sick culture? This would not happen in the public schools or any boarding school that abides by the same rules as public insitututions. It couldn't happen. I caution you Mother's out there with daughters!
Hyde needs to wake up and stop living according to the Taliban rules where it is acceptable to demean and fondle females. Hopefully the next time it happens, the parents will come to this site and see all the posts that tell a continuing story about Hyde.
Does Hyde approve? Or is it blackmail? What is in Larry's photo collection?
I'd check that stack of magazines next to that solo chair in the attic mentioned by a previous poster... :rofl:
Seriously now: does anybody know of Larry's taking photos of students, e.g., those late night dips in the pool he was allegedly so fond of hosting for the girls when Donna was away? There is an uncomfortable thought...
-
Does Mr. Dubinsky have a formal job at Hyde, or is he only the spouse of Mrs. Dubinsky as far as Hyde is concerned? Has Hyde informed parents of his history at Hyde and the problems he encountered?
-
Does Mr. Dubinsky have a formal job at Hyde, or is he only the spouse of Mrs. Dubinsky as far as Hyde is concerned? Has Hyde informed parents of his history at Hyde and the problems he encountered?
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
-
Does Mr. Dubinsky have a formal job at Hyde, or is he only the spouse of Mrs. Dubinsky as far as Hyde is concerned? Has Hyde informed parents of his history at Hyde and the problems he encountered?
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
Thanks -- these details are very helpful.
-
Does Mr. Dubinsky have a formal job at Hyde, or is he only the spouse of Mrs. Dubinsky as far as Hyde is concerned? Has Hyde informed parents of his history at Hyde and the problems he encountered?
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
How could Hyde take the risk of having someone like this on campus? They must be out of their minds taking on this liability
-
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
How could Hyde take the risk of having someone like this on campus? They must be out of their minds taking on this liability
Not exactly novel behavior on their part.
-
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
How could Hyde take the risk of having someone like this on campus? They must be out of their minds taking on this liability
Not exactly novel behavior on their part.
How could Hyde take the risk? Very easy answer. Number one, Hyde's arrogance is beyond anything you have ever experienced, and number two there are always desperate parents out there who play into all this B.S. and are weak enough to worship J Gauld. Most every adult who is involved with Hyde has deep deep issues even after spending years and years at Hyde. Truth is, that none of them ever truly "get it" or they would move on!!
-
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
How could Hyde take the risk of having someone like this on campus? They must be out of their minds taking on this liability
Not exactly novel behavior on their part.
How could Hyde take the risk? Very easy answer. Number one, Hyde's arrogance is beyond anything you have ever experienced, and number two there are always desperate parents out there who play into all this B.S. and are weak enough to worship J Gauld. Most every adult who is involved with Hyde has deep deep issues even after spending years and years at Hyde. Truth is, that none of them ever truly "get it" or they would move on!!
Those that "get it" do move on, often with much attendant frustration and disillusion. For despite Hyde's avowed ideals, the reality bears little resemblance to these laudable goals.
The reality, in fact, bears a great deal more resemblance to the old "reign in the errant youth and control their wayward behavior" of reform schools in the past, and was, in fact and not surprisingly, how Hyde was started in the first place! Perhaps this makes the hypocritical smearing on of a so-called "character-based" facade all the more distasteful and insulting. Let's just call a spade a spade, Hyde, and not a fancy schmancy available-to-members-only silverplated name-brand shovel! Both might serve well for the purposes of dispensing all the bullshit laid around there, but the former would be a hell of a lot of honest, eh?
-
Most every adult who is involved with Hyde has deep deep issues even after spending years and years at Hyde.
Most any human being who has spent a significant chunk of time at Hyde will have deep deep issues, whether or not they had them prior to their "life-changing experience."
-
Most every adult who is involved with Hyde has deep deep issues even after spending years and years at Hyde.
Most any human being who has spent a significant chunk of time at Hyde will have deep deep issues, whether or not they had them prior to their "life-changing experience."
I am starting a self help group Hyde Alums Anonymous:
1) We admit we are powerless over Joe and our lives have become unmanageable
-
Most every adult who is involved with Hyde has deep deep issues even after spending years and years at Hyde.
Most any human being who has spent a significant chunk of time at Hyde will have deep deep issues, whether or not they had them prior to their "life-changing experience."
I am starting a self help group Hyde Alums Anonymous:
1) We admit we are powerless over Joe and our lives have become unmanageable
Hyde Alums Anonymous: HAA! HAA! HAA!
:lol: (http://http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb267/cutie93_11_06/emoticons/bananas-2.gif)(http://http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb267/cutie93_11_06/emoticons/bananas-2.gif) :lol:
-
I imagine that the sheer number of pages this thread contains may well be daunting, but this thread, among a few others, contains quite a lot of material not just about Larry's sexual proclivities, but also those of a number of other former Hyde faculty, etc, and is well worth the reading time invested.
To summarize re. your question: Larry was a former Hyde student in the mid 70s who married another former Hyde student (Donna) and who both returned to teach at Hyde. Several of the current Hyde administration knew Larry as a student, and some knew Donna as well, as some of them were students around the same time.
Larry was... shall we say... a bit too liberal in translating his "affections" for the (female) students into physical channels... He was also in charge of the Dean's Area, and hence privy to student's required confessions of their sexual misadventures and transgressions, which he apparently took great satisfaction in hearing out in a most "thorough" manner.
Hyde was well aware of this problem, as there had been complaints from students for years. Eventually, as Hyde never did anything save make these girls feel pretty shitty for even opening their mouths about such a thing, one of the parents sued re. the sexual assault of their daughter.
Apparently Hyde still did not see fit to alter Larry's circumstances, hoping that Larry "taking some time off to think about things" should suffice. However, Donna is still employed at Hyde, and least two (I believe) of their kids still attend Hyde, so Hyde rationalizes that Larry's involvement with the Hyde community is necessary for "family reasons." It is my understanding that the Dubinskys live in faculty housing, on or extremely close to the Woodstock campus.
How could Hyde take the risk of having someone like this on campus? They must be out of their minds taking on this liability
If in fact all of this is true, why is Larry still hanging around Hyde? What type of people would run a school that allows known pedophile on campus and even provides housing for them?
I do not blame Hyde for someone else's behavior but I do blame them for the way they ignore this very dangerous situation! This is something to take very seriously and it is obvious from everyone posting that this is a man with severe sexual problems. How can any parent send their child, (especially a female) to Hyde knowing the attitude of the faculty toward sexual harassment?
-
(http://http://www.the3stooges.net/members/1234567/uploaded/Larry2.jpg)
-
::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: ::roflmao:: Priceless!
-
(http://http://www.rondamatson.com/images/ericlarryatfireflys.jpg)
The "real" Larry is the one on the left who looks a bit like a rabbit that's been denied access to sufficient roughage.
-
(http://http://www.rondamatson.com/images/ericlarryatfireflys.jpg)
The "real" Larry is the one on the left who looks a bit like a rabbit that's been denied access to sufficient roughage.
So, this is the pervert who is friends with the faculty at Hyde? It seems as though many of the faculty at Hyde have some kind of emotional problems. Why is this? What draws these totally messed up people to Hyde? I notice that most of the intertwined family has been there all their lives. This certainly is a good case for a psychiatrist to analyze. Something is not normal about this school and those who run it.
-
The "real" Larry is the one on the left who looks a bit like a rabbit that's been denied access to sufficient roughage.
ya well ya know what they say bout rabbits, horny male rabbits, that is......
-
Something is not normal about this school and those who run it.
Kind of reminds me of the still current sex scandals going on in the Catholic Church.
-
Update in docs: The transcript from the lawsuit filed against Hyde in 2002 for its acquiescence and abetting of the inappropriate behavior of Larry Dubinsky is now printed out in its entirety (such as is available from ISACCorp) on the Interview thread in the FQA forum. See here:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=22002&start=52 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=22002&start=52)
-
::bump::
-
Watch out
You might get what you're after
Cool babies
Strange but not a stranger
I'm an ordinary guy
Burning down the house
Hold tight wait till the party's over
Hold tight we're in for nasty weather
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house
Here's your ticket pack your bag: time for jumpin' overboard
The transportation is here
Close enough but not too far, maybe you know where you are
Fightin' fire with fire
All wet
Hey you might need a raincoat
Shakedown
Dreams walking in broad daylight
Three hun-dred six-ty five de-grees
Burning down the house
It was once upon a place sometimes I listen to myself
Gonna come in first place
People on their way to work baby what did you except
Gonna burst into flame
My house
Sort of the ordinary
That's right
Don't want to hurt nobody
Some things sure can sweep me off my feet
Burning down the house
No visible means of support and you have not seen nuthin yet
Everything's stuck together
I don't know what you expect starring into the tv set
Fighting fire with fire
-
Update in docs: The transcript from the lawsuit filed against Hyde in 2002 for its acquiescence and abetting of the inappropriate behavior of Larry Dubinsky is now printed out in its entirety (such as is available from ISACCorp) on the Interview thread in the FQA forum. See here:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=22002&start=52 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=22002&start=52)
Wow, very informative and very damaging to Hyde School.
-
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the amount of energy Hyde apologists and would-be apologists devote to cast aspersion on any potential stain on their beloved alma mater. If you look at the beginning of this thread, the first 10 pages or so, the original voices alerting folks to the shenanigans of Larry Dubinsky are absolutely slammed by condescension and disbelief. When this fails to silence, more personal attacks are resorted to. This is, of course, what also happened recently with the Sumner Hawley threads.
A recent poster noted "where there is smoke, there is usually fire" (paraphrase my doing, in case I didn't quote exactly). Potential parents and students would do well to also take note.
IMO, "character" is not something that can be taught in the however many years someone has the misfortune of spending at Hyde. People leave essentially unchanged as far as any "moral compass" or what have you is concerned. Maybe they have a few more buzz words or phrases they can use to bolster their points or positions, but nothing more than you could pick up from a Hallmark anthology of cute and inspirational cards. Certainly that "anthology" would cost parents a great deal less than Hyde does.See "The 10 Priorities" thread for some amusing dissection.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=23309 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=23309)[/list]
Whether character is the result of nature or nurture might make for some interesting debate. One thing that is pretty clear to me is that -- whatever it is, or whatever proportion is this or that -- it is formed long before one's adolescence.
-
Update in docs: The transcript from the lawsuit filed against Hyde in 2002 for its acquiescence and abetting of the inappropriate behavior of Larry Dubinsky is now printed out in its entirety (such as is available from ISACCorp) on the Interview thread in the FQA forum. See here:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=22002&start=52 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=22002&start=52)
Wow, very informative and very damaging to Hyde School.
Any other these type documents out there? I here there were several other lawsuits.
-
I went to Hyde with Larry back in the 70’s. Although he was a few years behind me he was “weird” even back then, Larry was a short and fat nerd who lisped when he talked. You needed a face mask so he did not spit on you as he talked. I got out of that
that
unofficial state mental hospital before they made me drink the Kool-Aid. Joe “Bald” as we called him had an ego as large as New England. Only Joe thinks he can get the Arabs and Jews to hold peace talks at Hyde and come out with a win win solution “Joe for President”. Joe thinks he can fix anything and anyone, that’s why Larry still has “connections” with Hyde. Joe made us hold our hand under water in a pond for over 30 minutes in 32 degrees of winter time ice water as a learning experience. I think is Larry’s time to place his nano sized penis in the same pond. As far as Larry and Donna remarrying, I think Lorena Bobbitt is his true soul mate. She would have “nipped” this problem in, the well use your imagination.
-
I went to Hyde with Larry back in the 70's. Although he was a few years behind me he was "weird" even back then, Larry was a short and fat nerd who lisped when he talked. You needed a face mask so he did not spit on you as he talked. I got out of that unofficial state mental hospital before they made me drink the Kool-Aid. Joe "Bald" as we called him had an ego as large as New England. Only Joe thinks he can get the Arabs and Jews to hold peace talks at Hyde and come out with a win win solution "Joe for President". Joe thinks he can fix anything and anyone, that's why Larry still has "connections" with Hyde. Joe made us hold our hand under water in a pond for over 30 minutes in 32 degrees of winter time ice water as a learning experience. I think is Larry's time to place his nano sized penis in the same pond. As far as Larry and Donna remarrying, I think Lorena Bobbitt is his true soul mate. She would have "nipped" this problem in, the well use your imagination.
Yah, well, often it is these nano-sized budlettes (ice-water shrinkage or not) that seek more pathological means of affirming their importance...or existence, for that matter. The reason Hyde tolerates it so easily is because he guzzles the Kool-Aid so damn well. And I don't think Joe wants to fix that, ha ha!
:D :D
-
There are some photos on the hyde site of Larry giving Paul Hurd a great big man hug. That big dose of Larry's man love must have had him crawling in his skin.
-
EEWWW!!! I *almost* feel bad for Mr. D, your talking about him like that!
-
EEWWW!!! I *almost* feel bad for Mr. D, your talking about him like that!
Hey, Krista, don't you feel toooooo bad... Hyde School's SOP is to reward all their pedophiles with some kind of Teaching Award once the furor over their indiscretions has died down, and all immediate parties concerned have either long left or died.
Hey, take a look at Robert Thurrell. Now THAT guy tried worming his way around a number of girls' underpants before he finally succeeded in wiggling his way in! Given that Hyde knew this beforehand (and yet did nothing), one must wonder how Thurrell's "methods" fit in with Hyde's scheme of things. Note that Hyde DID gave him his precious little award and public "recognition ceremony" just a few years ago.
I wonder what all that says about the late Sumner Hawley's former rutting habits? Now, that heel's got a friggin SOCIETY named after him, for those special individuals sufficiently cerebrally porous to actually put Hyde School in their last will and testament. Of course, his former fan club of young returning (male) alums know all about his gift for educating!
I'm sure Larry Dubinsky will get his due one of these days. He will get his Teaching Award for his dedication and commitment to demanding "the best" from his students, particularly those of female gender, and his uniquely up close and personal style of doing so. There'll be a touching little ceremony, lots of clapping and smiles of approval from students who never had the ecstasy of knowing him, at least not "up close and personal," and lots of "great big M-A-N hugs" all around.
Stay tuned. :D :D :D
Hey, of course the above statements are strictly my opinions, right?
-
(http://http://profile.ak.facebook.com/v229/626/75/s1586602868_2912.jpg)
http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=1000000 ... b4f36a93b6 (http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=1586602868&sid=0ec5296261af7f77972e22b4f36a93b6)
-
So ridiculous. The School already settled in Hiler v Hyde and they just let him walk around campus? Pretty absurd!!!
Case links:
1. https://www.fornits.com/phpbb/index.php/topic,44749.0.html
2. https://ia800202.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.ctd.18684/gov.uscourts.ctd.18684.docket.html
3. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1e0g0oy6/connecticut-district-court/hiler-v-hyde-school/
Here is what Ursus transcribed from photos of the case into text:
From Ursus: https://www.fornits.com/phpbb/index.php/topic,22002.msg297625.html#msg297625
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
L. HILER VS. HYDE SCHOOL AT WOODSTOCK
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MARCH 5, 2002
COMPLAINT
1. This is an action by a female student against a private school which, upon information and belief, is the recipient of federal funds, for tolerating and encouraging a pattern of sexual misconduct directed against her and other female students by a male faulty member, over a long period of time.
2. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code and this court's supplementary and diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff's causes of action under state law.
3. The plaintiff is an adult female citizen of the State of XXXXX. She was born on XXX and at all times mentioned herein was an out-of-state student at the defendant's school in Woodstock, Connecticut.
4. The defendant is a private school located in Woodstock, Connecticut. Upon information and belief, the defendant receives federal financial assistance for the operation of its educational and related programs.
5. The amount at issue in this case is greater than seventy-five thousand dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
6. In 2001, and for several years prior thereto, the defendant employed at its school in Woodstock an adult male teacher by the name of Larry Dubinsky. At all times mentioned herein, said Dubinsky was acting as the agent, servant, and employee of the defendant, within the scope of his employment and agency, and for the defendant's financial benefit.
7. For several years prior to and including the events described hereinafter, the defendant, through its administrators and officials, had actual knowledge that Dubinsky was subjecting the female students at Hyde School to sexual harassment which included inappropriate touching, staring, and comments. Despite such actual knowledge, the defendant retained Dubinsky on its faculty and permitted him to continue to have daily, direct and unsupervised contact with the adolescent female students at the school, including the plaintiff.
8. During the second week of July, 2001, at the school, Dubinsky initiated a "role-playing" incident with the plaintiff in the course of which he insisted upon having full body contact with the plaintiff, repeatedly and over her objection, while making lewd and inappropriate comments to her which included the phrase "fucking pussy".
9. On August 1, 2001, while instructing a dance routine in which the plaintiff was involved, Dubinsky required the plaintiff to be his partner and to dance with him. He required her to bend down in front of him, then lifted her, raised her blouse, felt around her body for her hips and placed his hands on her hips. When the plaintiff objected and moved away from him, he attempted to coerce her into continuing.
10. When the plaintiff complained to the defendants administrators about the aforesaid misconduct, she was summoned to a meeting at which she was required to meet with Dubinsky and was criticized by administrators for not wanting to look at Dubinsky during the meeting. The following day, she was summoned to yet another meeting with administrators, which the administrators concealed from her parents. When school officials were informed in September of 2001 that the plaintiff was suffering from recurring nightmares regarding Dubinsky, a faculty member falsely accused the plaintiff of flirting with another male teacher. Her mother's pleas to the defendant's highest administrators that Dubinsky be kept away from the plaintiff and not allowed on school grounds were rejected. In February of 2002, the plaintiff was required to serve as a waitress at a party given by the defendant's headmaster at which other under-age students were required to serve alcoholic beverages. Dubinsky was an invited guest at that party.
11. In the manner described above, the defendant has, on the basis of the plaintiff's sex, excluded her from participation in, denied her the benefits of, and/or subjected her to discrimination under an education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, Sections 1681 - 1688 of Title 20 of the United States Code.
12. In the manner described above, the defendant through its aforesaid agent subjected the plaintiff to assault and battery on each of the two separate occasions described above, in violation of Connecticut state law.
13. The conduct of the defendant and its agent described above was extreme and outrageous and was carried out with the knowledge that it probably would cause the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.
14. In the manner described above, the defendant further acted in negligent disregard of the probability that its conduct would cause the plaintiff, like any person of ordinary sensibilities similarly situated, to suffer emotional distress so severe that physical illness could result.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the defendant described above, the plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.
CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL
The plaintiff claims trial by jury.
THE PLAINTIFF
BY:______________
JOHN R. WILLIAMS
Federal Bar No. ct00215
Williams and Pattis, LLC
51 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
TELEPHONE: 203.562.9931
FAX: 203.776.9494
E-MAIL: [email protected]
Her Attorney