| Author |
Message |
    
strength
New member
Username: strength
Post Number: 19
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 192.197.95.253
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 6:52 pm: | 
|
I'm going to be careful here, for legal reasons.... The following statements are only my opinions:
The Anglican Church is stating that it did not have responsibility for GCC. It is distancing itself, and has been ever since the scandal broke.
At first glance of today's article in the Brockville paper, it seems that the Chair of the Board of GCC is taking full responsibility, and opening his arms to victims. This takes the focus OFF of the Anglican church and helps to distance GCC from it.
But the piece of information that they are not revealing is that the Chair of the Board at GCC is an Anglican Canon, who works in upper management of the Anglican Church of Canada.
Before the scandal broke, the Diocesan Executive Officer, Anglican Diocese of Ontario, Ven Wayne Varley wrote about the school's closing to an Anglican newsletter. (The letter seems to have been yanked from the internet today, but I have a hard copy). At that point (pre-scandal), he makes it very clear that GCC had close Anglican ties. He says that Canon Jackson is the Board Chair and Rev. Mintz is the Headmaster, and he praises them both. He also says; "Grenville had an on-going relationship with our Diocese mainly through Bishop Bruce and several of his predecessors who provided support as Episcopal Visitor."
Then the scandal breaks, and suddenly there is no more praise, and definitely no more acknowledgment of the ties between the Church and GCC.
If I were the primate, I would first protect the church. Especially so, considering the enormity of Anglican guilt and embarassment over their role in Residential School abuse. Grenville is dying anyway. So distance the church from Grenville, and have your senior management employee, who luckily happens to be the Chair of the Board, take the full weight of public glare, and end up looking like a hero. Its a great plan. Just don't tell anyone that he's a powerful Anglican administrator.
I'm so disgusted, and sometimes consider just leaving the whole mess alone. But I simply can't get it out of my head that the past Bishop was told by GCC staff that there was cult activity at the school, and yet he didn't stop to consider whether the abuse would involve students / children.
They knew enough to step in and investigate. It could have saved so much pain.
And the church has the resources to extend some aid and assistance to GCC victims. (I don't mean money. I mean expertise and support.)
Buddies, this kind of abuse CAN'T happen ever again. The churches of this country have got to look at what happens when their clerics go over the edge with power. If not for our generation, then for the next.
Remember in Schindler's list when a shovel goes missing in the concentration camp? The guard lines everyone up and shoots one prisoner. He then threatens to shoot the rest unless someone tells who stole the shovel. So a boy steps forward, points to the dead man, and says "he did it".
That's what the Anglican Church is doing to Grenville. Pointing at the dead guy to avoid getting shot itself. |
strength
New member
Username: strength
Post Number: 22
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 67.71.21.124
| | Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 8:56 pm: |
|
On the other hand, I just found this article:
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/church-denies-that-closed-controversial-school-was-anglican/ |
sandrabrownearly
New member
Username: sandrabrownearly
Post Number: 25
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 72.66.131.168
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Do the papers have to get permission from the poster to quote things that are on this site? |
sandrabrownearly
Junior Member
Username: sandrabrownearly
Post Number: 26
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 72.66.131.168
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Do the papers have to get permission from the poster to quote things that are on this site? |
gayatgcc
Member
Username: gayatgcc
Post Number: 79
Registered: 7-2007
Posted From: 76.66.38.163
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Sandra,
I don't think they've been asking for permission! That is why I formed the Facebook groupd ... we can select who reads the posts!
I got nervous about who was reading these posts! |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 207.236.90.177
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 3:55 pm: |
|
I know my opinion may not be popular in this forum. I am no lawyer, but I am in agreement with the Anglican Church's position regarding their relationship with GCC and any responsibility (and implied liability) for GCC's actions.
What Strength points to as apparent 'smoking gun' evidence that the Chair of the GCC's Board of Directors was an Anglican Canon is interesting, but I can't really see that it is truly significant.
To assume Church complicity, or even passive acceptance, because of this is a tenuous conclusion at best. Even publicly held companies have a Board of Directors (I think it's a legal requirement), and many of those Board members are from other companies (or may sit on the Boards of multiple independent corporations). Even before you consider the requirements of confidentiality here, if something happens at company A, you can't hold company B responsible.
Even when attending the school, I never considered GCC to be part of the Anglican Church. It was simply an independent private boarding school whose management happened to be 'ordained' Anglican ministers. Like most private boarding schools (UCC, Branksome, etc.) it also had its own chapel, but the chapel was never 'church' property.
Also, I never believed that the headmasters were employed, managed or even supervised by the church. Farnsworth and Haig (I never knew Mintz) were not appointed by the church to any position of spiritual responsibility for a parish on church-owned property, nor did they report directly to a superior in the church hierarchy, so how could they be considered in the employ of the church? With an independent Board of Governors, GCC was a legally and economically independent entity.
If the Anglican Church never had any ownership or stakeholder status with of GCC, I can't see how any corresponding direct responsibility or liability could be attributed to the church. I would be more curious to know if GCC always remained independently owned (and by whom) after it was purchased from its previous owners, the Catholic Church, or if the COJ ever became a legal stakeholder through ownership, with the associated owner liability for what took place where it may have had actual authority and legal responsibility to act.
If the Anglican Church ever had any responsibility or duty related to what happend, it would be from a 'spiritual' stakeholding in its relationship with GCC. Even then, though, I find it very difficult to believe any order from the Church to cease and desist any activities could have been enforced. In all likelihood, anything like this would have been ignored (and correspondingly villainized in subsequent sermons), nor would the Anglican Church have had any legal authority to intercede, or even perform an investigation on GCC premises.
If I had to find fault with the Anglican Church for its handling of the situation, it would be for their complacency and denial, deliberate or otherwise, of the situation, remaining more concerned with maintaining good relations with the school, and correspondingly unwilling to believe in the truth when they were told.
It would be my hope that, though they aren't obligated, they would take steps in future to ensure that they would take reports of this nature more seriously and do whatever possible to at least ascertain if they are valid. If they feel there is truth, they should pursue it, or ensure it is pursued by the appropriate authorities without simply washing their hands of it.
DK |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 207.236.90.177
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 3:57 pm: |
|
I know my opinion may not be popular in this forum. I am no lawyer, but I am in agreement with the Anglican Church's position regarding their relationship with GCC and any responsibility (and implied liability) for GCC's actions.
What Strength points to as apparent 'smoking gun' evidence that the Chair of the GCC's Board of Directors was an Anglican Canon is interesting, but I can't really see that it is truly significant.
To assume Church complicity, or even passive acceptance, because of this is a tenuous conclusion at best. Even publicly held companies have a Board of Directors (I think it's a legal requirement), and many of those Board members are from other companies (or may sit on the Boards of multiple independent corporations). Even before you consider the requirements of confidentiality here, if something happens at company A, you can't hold company B responsible.
Even when attending the school, I never considered GCC to be part of the Anglican Church. It was simply an independent private boarding school whose management happened to be 'ordained' Anglican ministers. Like most private boarding schools (UCC, Branksome, etc.) it also had its own chapel, but the chapel was never 'church' property.
Also, I never believed that the headmasters were employed, managed or even supervised by the church. Farnsworth and Haig (I never knew Mintz) were not appointed by the church to any position of spiritual responsibility for a parish on church-owned property, nor did they report directly to a superior in the church hierarchy, so how could they be considered in the employ of the church? With an independent Board of Governors, GCC was a legally and economically independent entity.
If the Anglican Church never had any ownership or stakeholder status with of GCC, I can't see how any corresponding direct responsibility or liability could be attributed to the church. I would be more curious to know if GCC always remained independently owned (and by whom) after it was purchased from its previous owners, the Catholic Church, or if the COJ ever became a legal stakeholder through ownership, with the associated owner liability for what took place where it may have had actual authority and legal responsibility to act.
If the Anglican Church ever had any responsibility or duty related to what happend, it would be from a 'spiritual' stakeholding in its relationship with GCC. Even then, though, I find it very difficult to believe any order from the Church to cease and desist any activities could have been enforced. In all likelihood, anything like this would have been ignored (and correspondingly villainized in subsequent sermons), nor would the Anglican Church have had any legal authority to intercede, or even perform an investigation on GCC premises.
If I had to find fault with the Anglican Church for its handling of the situation, it would be for their complacency and denial, deliberate or otherwise, of the situation, remaining more concerned with maintaining good relations with the school, and correspondingly unwilling to believe in the truth when they were told.
It would be my hope that, though they aren't obligated, they would take steps in future to ensure that they would take reports of this nature more seriously and do whatever possible to at least ascertain if they are valid. If they feel there is truth, they should pursue it, or ensure it is pursued by the appropriate authorities without simply washing their hands of it.
DK |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 207.236.90.177
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 4:07 pm: |
|
I know my opinion may not be popular in this forum. I am no lawyer, but I am in agreement with the Anglican Church's position regarding their relationship with GCC and any responsibility (and implied liability) for GCC's actions.
What Strength points to as apparent 'smoking gun' evidence that the Chair of the GCC's Board of Directors was an Anglican Canon is interesting, but I can't really see that it is truly significant.
To assume Church complicity, or even passive acceptance, because of this is a tenuous conclusion at best. Even publicly held companies have a Board of Directors (I think it's a legal requirement), and many of those Board members are from other companies (or may sit on the Boards of multiple independent corporations). Even before you consider the requirements of confidentiality here, if something happens at company A, you can't hold company B responsible.
Even when attending the school, I never considered GCC to be part of the Anglican Church. It was simply an independent private boarding school whose management happened to be 'ordained' Anglican ministers. Like most private boarding schools (UCC, Branksome, etc.) it also had its own chapel, but the chapel was never 'church' property.
Also, I never believed that the headmasters were employed, managed or even supervised by the church. Farnsworth and Haig (I never knew Mintz) were not appointed by the church to any position of spiritual responsibility for a parish on church-owned property, nor did they report directly to a superior in the church hierarchy, so how could they be considered in the employ of the church? With an independent Board of Governors, GCC was a legally and economically independent entity.
If the Anglican Church never had any ownership or stakeholder status with of GCC, I can't see how any corresponding direct responsibility or liability could be attributed to the church. I would be more curious to know if GCC always remained independently owned (and by whom) after it was purchased from its previous owners, the Catholic Church, or if the COJ ever became a legal stakeholder through ownership, with the associated owner liability for what took place where it may have had actual authority and legal responsibility to act.
If the Anglican Church ever had any responsibility or duty related to what happend, it would be from a 'spiritual' stakeholding in its relationship with GCC. Even then, though, I find it very difficult to believe any order from the Church to cease and desist any activities could have been enforced. In all likelihood, anything like this would have been ignored (and correspondingly villainized in subsequent sermons), nor would the Anglican Church have had any legal authority to intercede, or even perform an investigation on GCC premises.
If I had to find fault with the Anglican Church for its handling of the situation, it would be for their complacency and denial, deliberate or otherwise, of the situation, remaining more concerned with maintaining good relations with the school, and correspondingly unwilling to believe in the truth when they were told.
It would be my hope that, though they aren't obligated, they would take steps in future to ensure that they would take reports of this nature more seriously and do whatever possible to at least ascertain if they are valid. If they feel there is truth, they should pursue it, or ensure it is pursued by the appropriate authorities without simply washing their hands of it.
DK |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 207.236.90.177
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 4:16 pm: |
|
I know my opinion may not be popular in this forum. I am no lawyer, but I am in agreement with the Anglican Church's position regarding their relationship with GCC and any responsibility (and implied liability) for GCC's actions.
What Strength points to as apparent 'smoking gun' evidence that the Chair of the GCC's Board of Directors was an Anglican Canon is interesting, but I can't really see that it is truly significant.
To assume Church complicity, or even passive acceptance, because of this is a tenuous conclusion at best. Even publicly held companies have a Board of Directors (I think it's a legal requirement), and many of those Board members are from other companies (or may sit on the Boards of multiple independent corporations). Even before you consider the requirements of confidentiality here, if something happens at company A, you can't hold company B responsible.
Even when attending the school, I never considered GCC to be part of the Anglican Church. It was simply an independent private boarding school whose management happened to be 'ordained' Anglican ministers. Like most private boarding schools (UCC, Branksome, etc.) it also had its own chapel, but the chapel was never 'church' property.
Also, I never believed that the headmasters were employed, managed or even supervised by the church. Farnsworth and Haig (I never knew Mintz) were not appointed by the church to any position of spiritual responsibility for a parish on church-owned property, nor did they report directly to a superior in the church hierarchy, so how could they be considered in the employ of the church? With an independent Board of Governors, GCC was a legally and economically independent entity.
If the Anglican Church never had any ownership or stakeholder status with of GCC, I can't see how any corresponding direct responsibility or liability could be attributed to the church. I would be more curious to know if GCC always remained independently owned (and by whom) after it was purchased from its previous owners, the Catholic Church, or if the COJ ever became a legal stakeholder through ownership, with the associated owner liability for what took place where it may have had actual authority and legal responsibility to act.
If the Anglican Church ever had any responsibility or duty related to what happend, it would be from a 'spiritual' stakeholding in its relationship with GCC. Even then, though, I find it very difficult to believe any order from the Church to cease and desist any activities could have been enforced. In all likelihood, anything like this would have been ignored (and correspondingly villainized in subsequent sermons), nor would the Anglican Church have had any legal authority to intercede, or even perform an investigation on GCC premises.
If I had to find fault with the Anglican Church for its handling of the situation, it would be for their complacency and denial, deliberate or otherwise, of the situation, remaining more concerned with maintaining good relations with the school, and correspondingly unwilling to believe in the truth when they were told.
It would be my hope that, though they aren't obligated, they would take steps in future to ensure that they would take reports of this nature more seriously and do whatever possible to at least ascertain if they are valid. If they feel there is truth, they should pursue it, or ensure it is pursued by the appropriate authorities without simply washing their hands of it.
DK |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 207.236.90.177
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 4:26 pm: |
|
I know my opinion may not be popular in this forum. I am no lawyer, but I am in agreement with the Anglican Church's position regarding their relationship with GCC and any responsibility (and implied liability) for GCC's actions.
What Strength points to as apparent 'smoking gun' evidence that the Chair of the GCC's Board of Directors was an Anglican Canon is interesting, but I can't really see that it is truly significant.
To assume Church complicity, or even passive acceptance, because of this is a tenuous conclusion at best. Even publicly held companies have a Board of Directors (I think it's a legal requirement), and many of those Board members are from other companies (or may sit on the Boards of multiple independent corporations). Even before you consider the requirements of confidentiality here, if something happens at company A, you can't hold company B responsible.
Even when attending the school, I never considered GCC to be part of the Anglican Church. It was simply an independent private boarding school whose management happened to be 'ordained' Anglican ministers. Like most private boarding schools (UCC, Branksome, etc.) it also had its own chapel, but the chapel was never 'church' property.
Also, I never believed that the headmasters were employed, managed or even supervised by the church. Farnsworth and Haig (I never knew Mintz) were not appointed by the church to any position of spiritual responsibility for a parish on church-owned property, nor did they report directly to a superior in the church hierarchy, so how could they be considered in the employ of the church? With an independent Board of Governors, GCC was a legally and economically independent entity.
If the Anglican Church never had any ownership or stakeholder status with of GCC, I can't see how any corresponding direct responsibility or liability could be attributed to the church. I would be more curious to know if GCC always remained independently owned (and by whom) after it was purchased from its previous owners, the Catholic Church, or if the COJ ever became a legal stakeholder through ownership, with the associated owner liability for what took place where it may have had actual authority and legal responsibility to act.
If the Anglican Church ever had any responsibility or duty related to what happend, it would be from a 'spiritual' stakeholding in its relationship with GCC. Even then, though, I find it very difficult to believe any order from the Church to cease and desist any activities could have been enforced. In all likelihood, anything like this would have been ignored (and correspondingly villainized in subsequent sermons), nor would the Anglican Church have had any legal authority to intercede, or even perform an investigation on GCC premises.
If I had to find fault with the Anglican Church for its handling of the situation, it would be for their complacency and denial, deliberate or otherwise, of the situation, remaining more concerned with maintaining good relations with the school, and correspondingly unwilling to believe in the truth when they were told.
It would be my hope that, though they aren't obligated, they would take steps in future to ensure that they would take reports of this nature more seriously and do whatever possible to at least ascertain if they are valid. If they feel there is truth, they should pursue it, or ensure it is pursued by the appropriate authorities without simply washing their hands of it.
DK |
dan_grant
New member
Username: dan_grant
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 142.59.68.139
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 6:51 pm: |
|
I am sorry I can't agree with PHLEBAS. I attended GCC from 1978 till 1983 and I have every year book from that time frame and there are pictures and words that clearly indicate the anglican church ( and its authority figuers) were strongly involved with the school. Maybe there was no financial assistance between the two, but there was a strong presence from the church as depicted in 1982/83 with bishop Read shaking Vicky Entwisle's hand as a confirmand. How about 1981/82 page 6/7 picture of bishop Anselm Genders from Burmuda or try 1979/80 page 42 Bishop Henry Hill confirming students. So next time dont try to bull s**t us with the anglican church was not part of GCC. Just because they didn't police the school it was still opperated with an anglican affiliation. So don't let the church off just because they have a front man to take the heat. It is a bit sickening that the church would even try to avoid its duty in this matter after the world witnessed the roman catholic priest scandals...yes you all heard about the diddler prists.
These are my thoughts and my thought only.
Later
Dan |
strength
New member
Username: strength
Post Number: 24
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 69.156.58.113
| | Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Dan, your posting is helpful as I prepare for my meeting with the Bishop. I think that we all have to remember that the ultimate goal is to prevent this kind of abuse of power from ever happening again. It seems important to take a very close look at what people do when they have church authority (are ordained by the church), but have no accountabilty / responsibility for what they do with that authority. |
breaker_19_girl
Intermediate Member
Username: breaker_19_girl
Post Number: 201
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 64.187.49.13
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 12:27 am: |
|
I agree with strength and Danny |
breaker_19_girl
Intermediate Member
Username: breaker_19_girl
Post Number: 202
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 64.187.49.13
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 12:29 am: |
|
I agree with strength and Danny
Ps.. hi strength... long time no hear from... hope life is well with you....
Liane |
badkid
New member
Username: badkid
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 209.53.125.87
| | Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 3:00 am: |
|
I was sent there for two reasons, because they offered general level courses, and because we were lead to believe it was anglican. How in the hell can you not be affiliated when you have Anglican ordained priests in positions of power? |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 72.141.74.94
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
And I was there with you, and I have the yearbooks still too...
Your point is correct, and I agree 100% that there was Anglican Church involvement with GCC, but I don't agree that they really had any significant influence over the school's management or activities.
Also, do you really believe these many of these outsiders like Bishop Reed, etc. who didn't actually live onsite 24 x 7 were really aware of the truth? Frankly, I thought Bishop Reed, though 'nice', was a senile old coot (and a few french fries short of a happy meal).
Frankly, I always thought GCC resembled a Potemkin Village whenever outsiders were participating in ceremonies.
The point I was trying to make earlier was to consider how much 'influence' the Anglican Church actually had on the school and behaviour of Haig, Farnsworth, etc., and how much they really could have done about it. The Anglican Church's influence, if any, was minor in comparison with that exerted by the COJ.
The real influence was behind the scenes, from the COJ. The COJ exerted a great deal more influence on Haig, Farnsworth, and the GCC staff than any other outside organization, including the Anglican Church. Remember the frantic preparations when C & J were coming to visit? Everything had to be so perfect, it was like the Royal Family was coming to visit.
Also, consider how many staff and students came from the COJ, already 'pre-programmed', with regular visits in the summer for 'reprogramming' (a favourite phrase of the outside students like us, if I recall correctly). 
DK
(Message edited by Phlebas on September 09, 2007) |
dan_grant
New member
Username: dan_grant
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 142.59.68.139
| | Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Phlebas: never were truer words spoken than to say the school put on a good face when visiters attended. Heck even when my parents visited the staff were sickly sweet to me but when they left the old ways returned. So I will agree with you there.
I never bought into the religion thing so I have no opinion of the visiting anglican dignitaries I never hung around them or spoke to them.
How much influence did the anglican church actually have over Haig, Farnsworth? I do not know. I have to believe a substantial amount. As a former soldier of the canadian army I caught supreme sh*t when a soldier under my command messed up. As a cop I caught crap when a junior cop made an error and I failed to correct it. So if the school's priest made errors than the anglican church should be held to some degree of responsibility.
It is clear that the C of J, K & J were huge influences on Haig, Farnswoth and the staff. We need only read the other post here to see that. Are they to blame for the way things were run? Yes! Can retribution be gained from them? Doubtful! I read the articles stating Farnsworth possition. He will never admit the actions of that time are his, the schools or staffs fault, he claims everything done was done with love.
I still very strongly believe that someone of authority needs to step up. They need to acknowledge these things occured and not try to dump it on one fall guy.
I look forward to attending the closing on Saturday. I hope I get a chance to look Farnsworth in the eye and tell him what he told me the day I was Expelled..."you have to be a man. Take responsibility for your actions, grow and learn, or you will never become anything in life."
Later all
Dan |
phlebas
New member
Username: phlebas
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 207.236.90.177
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 9:34 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I look forward to seeing you there.
As an ex-reservist, I can relate to your military experience and perspective on the chain of command but I have never expectated it in a civilian setting.
The key phrase relevant in this discussion of 'responsibility' and potential liability, though, is 'under your command', or the responsibility for the actions of your subordinates.
As for Farnsworth (Sr.)'s attendance, well I expect I'll have better things to do than looking into his eye. I prefer to simply not acknowledge him, or any of his 'lieutenants' (military pun intended).
DK |
postgccwife
New member
Username: postgccwife
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 24.226.103.12
| | Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 9:57 am: |
|
The view locally is that FF sr will not be attending. I know his son/DIL/grandsons are attending - I saw their names on the list sent out by Nancy..... |
wrowe
New member
Username: wrowe
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 69.55.41.190
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 4:06 am: |
|
What in the heck is going on. Can someone try and explain to me why this is happening now ? Why in some cases over 20 years has gone by ?
Why especially if you were a returning student - that you returned if it was that bad ? Why if you were a staff member you didn't leave ?
Why everyone posting here is happy to avoid stating their name ?
Why can't you be proud enough of any good that Grenville had - allow to creep out and show you have the Gonads to state your name ?
I am going to state that I personally can't believe the discussions on this website. I was told off a few times... and probably deserved it.
I probably grew up better for it.
Sorry, folks this is unproductive especially 20 yrs later. Nothing can come out of your complaining now - the school is closing so if your tales of woe are true - no one else can be hurt.
Get over it, S--- Happens.
Wayne Rowe
Grad 1981
wrowe@ruggedwest.com |
purgatory
Junior Member
Username: purgatory
Post Number: 44
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 70.50.76.66
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:11 am: |
|
What the heck is going on here???? Well Wayne as said before take some time , and read the posts!!! Why are people not posting their name??? I have answerred that, and so have other posters. Have you taken the time to see the threads about the many good things that did come out of GCC?? There are a few threads here that discuss our fond memories....you should read them!!!
To say it is unproductive to be discussing prior issues is unproductive is only your opinion, so please once again stop telling us what we should, and should not be doing. I personally feel it is never to late to work on one self--I see this as a life time journey. Manyy of us have not just started complaining, but have been in theerapy for years trying to undo the damage done while at GCC.We are all at different places when it comes to healing.So once again Wayne before you continue to spew out your thoughts please take some more time, and truly read the posts. Many of your questions have already been answered, but you choose not to acknowledge this. |
lightsout
Junior Member
Username: lightsout
Post Number: 36
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 76.100.140.96
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:21 am: |
|
Wayne - if you feel this board and discussions are a waste - then move along...and go somewhere else.
I have never understood - when someone doesn't like something or thinks it is a waste - why they stick around to critcize it...seems quite silly to me.
(there you go with the gonads statement - you must really want to beat that one with a stick!) |
bossman
Member
Username: bossman
Post Number: 56
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 142.32.208.232
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:35 am: |
|
What kept me semi sane at GCC was the people I kept close to me, I wouldn't have made it without them. Some never had any options to leave the school Wayne. I had some good times there as stated in my previous posts and that was due to my buddies there not the enviroment. I have no problem if people want to remain unnamed it is hard to vent to others that haven't been to GCC and experienced it. •••• happens, your right. Don't want to listen to it, don't read it.
Al Halliday |
papillon
Junior Member
Username: papillon
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2007
Posted From: 152.31.96.2
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 9:36 am: |
|
I have noticed that a lot of the pro-GCC posters share a characteristic that seems typical of GCC and the CoJ in general. That is, taking one's own experience and mental "inventory" and insisting it is true (or should be true) for everyone else. This is an arrogant act that breaches the Law of Allowance.
Just because you think something, doesn't mean everyone else should. Just because you had a particular experience doesn't mean everyone else did. Everyone has a right to their own viewpoint and their own opinion and their own experience.
Learn some respect for your fellow beings. People have every right to be nutters, should they choose, but they do not have the right to foist this view onto others, especially children.
I, too, am a bit surprised at the number of people talking out so many years later. I pitched a fit with regard to the arrogance and craziness of the CoJ and GCC from the get-go. No one supported me in that then. I was called the "daughter of the Devil" and other derogatory names, kicked out and left to die. And, yes, that was ABUSE that I experienced.
However, it is actually fairly common for allegations of abuse to only surface years, or decades, later. It's a common pattern. |
wagener84
Member
Username: wagener84
Post Number: 79
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 199.214.192.50
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 10:04 am: |
|
Wayne,
This posting board is used by those of us who feel the need to seek healing after all these years. If you do not like it..too bad. If it offends you...don't visit the site. However, lets get one thing very clear..the voices of those who need to speak will never again be silenced. By the sounds of some of your posts, it appears you may have some of your own personal issues to deal with as well. Better to be honest and deal with them than simply brushing them off as "life" or "•••• happens". |
tabby1979
Member
Username: tabby1979
Post Number: 67
Registered: 8-2007
Posted From: 207.216.241.43
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 11:48 am: |
|
Wayne - you ever heard of identity theft? That is a good enough reason not to post your real name. This board is public domain, anyone can read these posts. Most people that have been reading the posts thoroughly know my real name. So back off and let people deal with their feeings they way they want to. |
stephlivingston
New member
Username: stephlivingston
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 72.143.203.122
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 7:38 pm: |
|
I totally agree with all of you that we should be able to say how we feel. Everyone was abused in some way or another. A lot of it was always behind closed doors for me because I feel they just enjoyed getting me upset because I was too scared to fight back. I am still like that with athority to this day. I am very easily intimidated aspecially by men. Many of the men that I won't mention names while I was at GCC could be very intimidating and thinking of it now I think most of the women staff were the way they were because of how the men in power acted towards the students and the rude things that were told to them behind close doors. I really hope that whatever happens with all of these past detailes and people speaking out after all this time that certain people will be at least repremanded in some fashion and have to agnologe what they have done or said to other adults and to many young children over the years. Since I was notified of what was happening with GCC I have been checking the news regularly and a great deal of things are coming back to me that I had buried over the years and I tell ya if everyone comes to the surface with there stories of the past GCC is going to close with a very bad history but hopefully we as past students can all keep in touch and remeber the good times and try to forget the bad times. That is my hope for everyone. |
cpv
New member
Username: cpv
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2007
Posted From: 24.226.63.128
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Since I was notified of what was happening with GCC I have been checking the news regularly and a great deal of things are coming back to me that I had buried over the years and I tell ya if everyone comes to the surface with there stories of the past GCC is going to close with a very bad history but hopefully we as past students can all keep in touch and remeber the good times and try to forget the bad times. That is my hope for everyone.
You said it, thank you Chris V
(I liked the whole post, the last part hit home) |
|
