NOTICE TO POTENTIAL PARENTS

[Troll Control]

On 2005-10-10 09:56:00, HydeFan wrote:

"

Any other questions?  Or can we accept that we are some major facts short of a scandal, that at least some of us here are prone to distortion, and that maybe the biggest scandal here is that Anonymous made it fairly easy to publicly identify an alleged rape victim.



[ This Message was edited by: HydeFan on 2005-10-10 11:12 ]"

I certainly can't accept that the major problem surrounding a child's being sodomized at Hyde ("gang raped") is that another former client of Hyde made it easy to identify the victim.  That's ludicrous.

Obviously, the major problem is that this boy was sodomized in an unsafe environment and the adults (Hyde staff) that were charged with his welfare failed miserably in safeguarding him and subsequently failed to properly report the incident as is required by law.

HydeFan, you have a really twisted view of the world.  Your tortured soul is still haunted by thinking imbued by Hyde.  It's really sad and a shame.

[Antigen]

So these purpatrators, what did happen to them? Did they advance up through the ranks at Hyde? Were they placed in positions of authority over other kids? How did Hyde go about protecting the new kids from these predators?

And here's a silly question for you. Until you started posting in this forum about it, did any of the staff at Hyde make any effort to inform prospective marks (parents) that their kids would be living in close quarters w/ known rapists?

Understand that legal and illegal are political, and often arbitrary,
categorizations; use and abuse are medical, or clinical, distinctions.

--Abbie Hoffman

[HydeFan]

I certainly can't accept that the major problem surrounding a child's being sodomized at Hyde ("gang raped") is that another former client of Hyde made it easy to identify the victim.  That's ludicrous.

So you don't see any problem then with disclosing the identity of a rape victim, potentially forcing the to relive a trauma that they CHOSE to not relive any more than they had to 5-10 years ago?

That's fairly illuminating....

Obviously, the major problem is that this boy was sodomized in an unsafe environment

From my experience, there is a fair degree of vigilent observation at Hyde.  Not like public schools where everyone looks the other way.  That said, there is also a fair degree of freedom.  Hyde is not a lock-down, and the kids aren't monitored on cameras.  

Anyway, this would be a nice fact....IF YOU HADN'T MADE IT UP!

and the adults (Hyde staff) that were charged with his welfare failed miserably in safeguarding him

Yes, I see, based solely on the fact that it was alleged to have happened, ergo, Hyde failed "miserably" in safeguarding him.

and subsequently failed to properly report the incident as is required by law.

You don't really want to go through all of this again.  Well, apparently you do, so:

1.  Show me any credible evidence that the child ask for it to be reported and that he was prevented from doing so;

2.  Show me any credible evidence the child's family wasn't intimately involved in this decision and chose to do the best thing for the child;

3.  Show me any credible evidence that no report in fact was made;

4.  Show me any credible evidence that there was a duty to make this report.

Here's why you can't and won't be able to show any of these things:  They are all fundamentally private communications, and anyone who pretends to know otherwise is lying.

Its really not much more complicated than that.

[Troll Control]

i'm sorry, but you just have a warped sense of ethics.  there's no other way to explain it.

you keep coming on here saying that hyde did nothing wrong, yet a child was gang raped while under their care and that child was directed to tell other children about it in a seminar rather than police being notified and appropriate action taken.

you've got some real problems, hydefan.  seriously.

a child gets gang-sodomized at hyde, nothiong is done about it except to revictimize the kid in front of other kids and you think everything's a-ok about that.  some things should be handled by professionals, not untrained hacks.

anyway, thank you for doing the victims of this type of hideous abuse at the hands of hyde schools a service.  your lack of ethics and morals as well as your defense of unconscionable negligence has done more to dissuade potential clients than you anyone else could have done.  

you've given a unique insiders' perspective on hyde's philosophy on how to deal with sexual assaults and possibly other serious crimes committed on their watch: divert, digress, dissemble and, when all else fails, blame the children.  good job in showing what kind of a misanthrope you are and what a sham hyde is.  thanks, i mean it.

when you can't educate, elucidate or administrate, blame the victim.  p.s.: go for the crotch.

[HydeFan]

On 2005-10-10 13:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

you keep coming on here saying that hyde did nothing wrong,

What I keep saying is we have no evidence of wrong-doing.

yet a child was gang raped while under their care and that child was directed to tell other children about it in a seminar rather than police being notified and appropriate action taken.

Nice!  More new facts.  Tell me, how do you know what the child was directed to say and whether the  police were notified and what if any other action was taken?

a child gets gang-sodomized at hyde, nothiong is done about it except to revictimize the kid in front of other kids and you think everything's a-ok about that.

Again, something you don't have the facts about.

anyway, thank you for doing the victims of this type of hideous abuse at the hands of hyde schools a service.

Yes, yes, I see.  I caused the rape too, doncha know?

your lack of ethics and morals as well as your defense of unconscionable negligence

More defamation.  Nice.

has done more to dissuade potential clients than you anyone else could have done.

 

Really?  

when you can't educate, elucidate or administrate, blame the victim.  p.s.: go for the crotch.

Really, where?

[Antigen]

On 2005-10-10 13:10:00, HydeFan wrote:

Here's why you can't and won't be able to show any of these things: They are all fundamentally private communications, and anyone who pretends to know otherwise is lying.

Or they were in group when the kid brought the issue up and so they heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

That's one of the fundamental flaws w/ the LGA/Synanon method, hun. It is inapropriate and damaging to the confessor as well as the wittnesses to discuss highly emotional, personal information in a group setting. Never MIND a group of kids; most being held under coercion.

This I believe: That the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: The freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: Any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual.
--John Steinbeck, American novelist

[HydeFan]

On 2005-10-10 15:20:00, Antigen wrote:  Or they were in group when the kid brought the issue up and so they heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

See that's just my point Antigen.  No one here is alleging that they heard this child say anything with regard to my number 1.  The only "fact" was that it was alleged to have happened and the child spoke about it.  

Here are all 4 points for you again:

1. Show me any credible evidence that the child ask for it to be reported and that he was prevented from doing so;

2. Show me any credible evidence the child's family wasn't intimately involved in this decision and chose to do the best thing for the child;

3. Show me any credible evidence that no report in fact was made;

4. Show me any credible evidence that there was a duty to make this report.

Since the childs parent was the headmaster, we know #2 can never be even be alleged.

Since a report could have been made by either faculty, victim or parents, and a report could have been made without the entire school knowing it, there is no way anyone can say what happened their either.  Moreso, no one has alleged that the child was allowed to speak about this freely in a seminar, but wasn't allowed to report it to the police.  And then we are to belive that in the seminar he commented on how he wasn't allowed to report it.  If you knew Hyde, you would know wny Anonymous has not made that allegation.  It simply makes NO SENSE.

For #4, well, that's just the law.

Oh, and FWIW, Hyde students are free to come and go.  They are not "held against their will".  Hyde is not Synanon, and the LGAT's by definition are dramatically different from Hyde's seminars.

Antigen you had no affiliation with Hyde and never did, so where do you get off telling people what its about.  Your posts are as disingenuous as anyones here.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-10-10 09:56:00, HydeFan wrote:

"

On 2005-10-10 09:34:00, Anonymous wrote:



"HydeFan says someone mentioned who the victim was.  Could you please tell me where it says this?  I don't see it in any posts, but possibly I missed something.  I did see that it is a child of one of the Headmasters, but this could be most anyone as Headmasters have changed through the years and there are at last count 4 or 5 schools."

You obviously aren't following these posts too closely, but that's ok, neither is "Anonymous".

It happened in the 90's

Facts:

1) Several boys sodomized a student at Hyde within the last 10 years

Last 10 years, but during the 90s, that means from 10/95-12/99 on the Bath, Campus (another thread said that, I can retrieve if you want).  So let me suggest that if you were close to the school at all during that period, you would know the answer.



Any other questions?  Or can we accept that we are some major facts short of a scandal, that at least some of us here are prone to distortion, and that maybe the biggest scandal here is that Anonymous made it fairly easy to publicly identify an alleged rape victim.



Anyway, if nothing else, this stream shows the resiliance of the distorters, and I think the parents reading this should be able to see that fairly clearly at this point.



[ This Message was edited by: HydeFan on 2005-10-10 11:12 ]"

What I find interesting is that YOU HYDEFAN are helping to identify this supposed victim.  You are trying publicly to tie all the posts together in order to identify this person and at the same time, accusing Anonymous of the same!  Make your mind up!

You say that it happened on the Bath Campus, but did Anonymous say it was a Headmaster from the Bath Campus?  I didn't see that. Please forgive me if I am wrong, I know you have all the answers......NOT!

[HydeFan]

You say that it happened on the Bath Campus, but did Anonymous say it was a Headmaster from the Bath Campus?  I didn't see that. Please forgive me if I am wrong, I know you have all the answers......NOT!"

Like I said, if you were familiar with the campuses during this period you would know there was only one possibility.[ This Message was edited by: HydeFan on 2005-10-10 16:05 ]

[Anonymous]

Although you think you are so smart, maybe you aren't!  I know exactly who anonymous is talking about and it ain't even close to what you are thinking.  Everyone knew about it.  It was all over campus! Leave it alone!

[HydeFan]

Out of respect for the victim, I am willing to leave that part alone as long as others are as well.

[Antigen]

So this old farmer slaughters a couple of pigs and leaves them strung up from a tree to bleed out. Then he goes about the rest of his chores, returning an hour or two later to find one of the pigs missing.

Weeks turn to months, no sign of a culprit anywhere. But the farmer is patient. One day, he's shootin' the breeze w/ the neighbor over the fencepost. The neighbor asks him if he ever did find out who took that old pig. "Yeah, just now", says the farmer. He'd never told anyone about no missing pig, not even his wife. The better part of valor is?

Hear me people: We now have to deal with another race - small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing. Strangely enough they have a mind to till the soil and the love of possessions is a disease with them. These people have made many rules which the rich may break but the poor may not. They take their tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule.
http://www.powersource.com/gallery/people/sittbull.html' target='_new'>Chief Sitting Bull, speaking at the Powder River Conference, 1877

[HydeFan]

Discretion of course, amigo.  Couldn't have said it better my self.  (You know, depending on whatever it is you were saying!)

[Antigen]

Over your head, maybe?

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
--Thomas Henry Huxley, English biologist

[HydeFan]

Well the moral of the story is obvious.  

Its relevance, like yours, well, not as much.