Watch GLEE and you will get kicked out of college

[Obveeus]

Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...off campus at a
Starbucks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-kicked-o_n_1459660.html

[Ed Stasiak]

> Obveeus
>
> Student voluntarily attends a kooky fundi Christian college, agrees to
> abide by their stupidly strict code of conduct, knowingly violates the
> stupidly strict code of conduct, gets kicked out because of it, complains
> this somehow isn't fair.

FTFY

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <jngvq8$mj7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Bob Jones Univ. just became my favorite college in the entire universe!!
:D

--
"We're gonna need a lot of therapy." - the character Rachel in "Bunnyman"
(named 1 of the 5 Worst Horror Films of 2011 by 28DaysLaterAnalysis.com!!)

[David]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:00:19 -0700, "Ian J. Ball"
<ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

>In article <jngvq8$mj7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...off campus at a
>> Starbucks.
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-kicked-o_n_1459660.h
>> tml
>
>Bob Jones Univ. just became my favorite college in the entire universe!!
>:D

Ah, Bob Jones U. Proof that anything can call themselves a university.

[wolfagain]

On Apr 28, 11:13 am, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:00:19 -0700, "Ian J. Ball"
>

> <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <jngvq8$mj...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...off campus at a
> >> Starbucks.

> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-kicked-o_n_...

> >> tml
>
> >Bob Jones Univ. just became my favorite college in the entire universe!!
> >:D
>
> Ah, Bob Jones U. Proof that anything can call themselves a university.

BJU has high moral Standards ...not a place for modern young males
like "David" who don't work and still live with their mothers

[RichA]

On Apr 28, 10:45 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...off campus at a

> Starbucks.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-kicked-o_n_...

Their school, their rules.

[William December Starr]

In article <ijball-NO_SPAM-E0A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> said:

>> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching
>> GLEE...off campus at a Starbucks.
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-kicked-o_n_1459660.html
>
> Bob Jones Univ. just became my favorite college in the entire
> universe!! :D

I'd say that anybody who attends Bob Jones University -- other
than for reasons having to do with some sort of scam, undercover
investigation, or practical joke -- pretty much deserves the
treatment they get there.

-- wds

[Obveeus]

I don't have a problem with nutters running institutions, but it bothers me
that they enjoy tax free status AND get to take our tax dollars in the form
of tuition grants given to the students.

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <jnhvk0$6or$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

That bothers me about all colleges, actually.

[David]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:08:12 -0700, "Ian J. Ball"

<ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

>In article <jnhvk0$6or$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:00:19 -0700, "Ian J. Ball"
>> > <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Bob Jones Univ. just became my favorite college in the entire universe!!
>> >>:D
>> >
>> > Ah, Bob Jones U. Proof that anything can call themselves a university.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with nutters running institutions, but it bothers me
>> that they enjoy tax free status AND get to take our tax dollars in the form
>> of tuition grants given to the students.
>
>That bothers me about all colleges, actually.

Even ones that have a strong football program?

[Mason Barge]

Ah, geez, look at the crap that comes out of some of the *respected*
universities. It makes Bob Jones U. at least somewhat easier to take.

[Ken Wesson]

Their rules should govern only what goes on on-campus. How students
conduct themselves off school grounds is, quite frankly, none of their
damn business.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <4f9dd4a8$1...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson

Nevertheless, religious schools tend to attempt control of their
students' off-campus and after-hours conduct. This silly business at
the exceptionally ridiculous Bob Jones University is an only slightly
more extreme example of what goes on most of the time at many other
places.

While I'd generally agree with the notion that a student who
voluntarily enrolls in a place like Bob Jones University accepts the
burden of a stupid code of conduct, I'm not sure exactly what
"voluntarily" means in this context. Some kids are given little choice
in the matter.

[BTR1701]

On Apr 28, 10:45 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...
> > >> off campus at a Starbucks.

How did they catch him? Are they seeding the surrounding businesses with
spies? Hacking his computer?

[Ken Wesson]

What I'd like to know is what gives them any legal leg to stand on. What
goes on off their own premises is, literally and legally, none of their
business. How do they even know that something went on elsewhere that
they don't like, in many cases, unless they're unlawfully spying on
others' private premises? If they try to claim a breach of contract or
some similar thing, how would they prove the alleged breach to the
satisfaction of a court or a jury?

And that's assuming they can avoid the contract term being thrown out as
unenforceable, unconscionable, or similarly. If they make students enter
contracts that have terms that are obviously irrelevant to their
provision of educational services to those students, that would seem to
be a problem. Contracts are expected to provide "consideration" to both
sides. A contract between an educator and a student should require of the
educator that they attempt to provide the education specified, and of the
student two things: money to (at least) cover the costs of doing so and
such behavioral consideration from the student as is necessary to enable
the provision of education -- such as the student not being too
disruptive in classes other students are attending. Behavioral terms that
are obviously not relevant to the needs of the educator would seem to be
questionable on a legal standpoint. The student adhering vs. not adhering
to those terms has no impact on the educator, after all, unlike if the
student is disruptive in a class, or cheats on a test, or fails to pay
tuition.

[BTR1701]

In article <4f9e...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com>

Not if he signed a contract agreeing to certain behaviors in exchange
for admission to their university. The contract would be legal and its
effect wouldn't stop at their property line.

> And that's assuming they can avoid the contract term being thrown out as
> unenforceable, unconscionable, or similarly.

Why would it be? Similar contacts have been enforceable in varied
aspects of society since the founding of the republic.

> If they make students enter
> contracts that have terms that are obviously irrelevant to their
> provision of educational services to those students, that would seem to
> be a problem.

Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for a
contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to be
something of value.

[Ken Wesson]

But it *wouldn't make sense!* Why, logically, would they *care* about
those behaviors? If I contracted with you to not eat ice cream for one
year in exchange for being a card carrying member of your Official
Yodeling Enthusiasts Club (which has nothing whatsoever to do with ice
cream, dieting, or etc.), would that be enforceable or would the courts
be likely to consider it laughable? Why would a yodeling enthusiasts'
club care what the members ate on their own time in their own homes,
after all? Why would it matter to them?

> Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for a
> contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to be
> something of value.

How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"? If I join
your yodeling club and then eat ice cream what have you lost? If nothing,
then if I don't what have you gained? If nothing again, then where's the
consideration? Likewise, if a student watches Glee on his or her own time
away from campus what has that university lost? If nothing, then if the
student never watches Glee what has that university gained? If nothing
again, then where's the consideration?

[Remysun]

On Apr 29, 11:27 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:

> How did they catch him? Are they seeding the surrounding businesses with
> spies? Hacking his computer?

Somebody with a plank in his eye snitched.

[Obveeus]

"Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4f9dd4a8$1...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson
> <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:44:52 -0700, RichA wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 10:45 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...off
>> >> campus
>> >> at a
>> >> Starbucks.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-
>> kicked-o_n_...
>> >
>> > Their school, their rules.
>>
>> Their rules should govern only what goes on on-campus. How students
>> conduct themselves off school grounds is, quite frankly, none of their
>> damn business.
>
>
> Nevertheless, religious schools tend to attempt control of their
> students' off-campus and after-hours conduct. This silly business at
> the exceptionally ridiculous Bob Jones University is an only slightly
> more extreme example of what goes on most of the time at many other
> places.

I read a similar story a few days ago about a Catholic school that fired one
of their teachers for having invetrofertilization in an effort to become
pregnant. Apparently, she and her husband were violating 'God's will' and
as such had to be removed from the school so that she would not influence
others with her satanic ways.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jnlq2l$m71$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Yeah, well, she was left handed, too.

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

[Steve Bartman]

On 30 Apr 2012 07:25:27 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But it *wouldn't make sense!* Why, logically, would they *care* about
>those behaviors? If I contracted with you to not eat ice cream for one
>year in exchange for being a card carrying member of your Official
>Yodeling Enthusiasts Club (which has nothing whatsoever to do with ice
>cream, dieting, or etc.), would that be enforceable or would the courts
>be likely to consider it laughable? Why would a yodeling enthusiasts'
>club care what the members ate on their own time in their own homes,
>after all? Why would it matter to them?
>
>> Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for a
>> contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to be
>> something of value.
>
>How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"? If I join
>your yodeling club and then eat ice cream what have you lost? If nothing,
>then if I don't what have you gained? If nothing again, then where's the
>consideration? Likewise, if a student watches Glee on his or her own time
>away from campus what has that university lost? If nothing, then if the
>student never watches Glee what has that university gained? If nothing
>again, then where's the consideration?

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamer_v._Sidway

Classic contract law case. Consideration related.

Steve

[Ed Stasiak]

> Ken Wesson

>
> Why, logically, would they *care* about those behaviors?

Because religion. Logic doesn't have anything to do with it.

[BTR1701]

In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Not a requirement under the law.

> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for a
> > contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to be
> > something of value.
>
> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?

The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
valuable.

[Mason Barge]

[rest of rant snipped]

You do not grasp the fundamental right of privacy of association, which is
protected by the Constitution. They don't have to have a "contract" and
they don't have to show breach of a contract to kick someone out (although
they might have to refund some money).

Let me turn the question around. What gives a state the right to
interfere, in any way, with the rules of conduct of a private
organization?

[Mason Barge]

Did they examine her for a third nipple?

[Tom]

On Apr 28, 9:45 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> Student kicked out of college graduation for watching GLEE...off campus at a

> Starbucks.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/this-student-was-kicked-o_n_...

And didn't Bill O'Rielly recently charge GLEE was helping teens turn
gay?

Tom

[David]

And repressed kids are most at-risk, so an introduction of "Glee" to
the campus would lead to a homosexual outbreak.

[Tom]

On Apr 30, 1:12 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:

YIKES! It's contagious! Run!

Tom

[anim8rFSK]

In article <tuktp79rii9gn9v4o...@4ax.com>,

Sigh, Lycia Naff ...

[Ken Wesson]

> Read<SLAP!>

I will not dignify condescending responses to my posts by even continuing
to read past the point where the rudeness becomes apparent.

[Ken Wesson]

Perhaps it should be.

>> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for
>> > a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to
>> > be something of value.
>>
>> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
>
> The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
> valuable.

In what way? If we were discussing a two-player zero-sum game then one
player giving something up is equivalent to the other gaining something,
and therefore valuable.

But in this instance, where is the value? Student X gives up something
while university Y gains nothing. Seems like a negative-sum event to me.
Something was lost and nobody gained. I don't see any value in that.

If the student gave something *to the university* that would be another
matter. That's a transaction where X gives something up and Y gains it.

But I don't see any value to Y in X giving something up where that event
has no material consequences for Y at all.

Once again, you're simply not making sense, and neither is university Y.

[Ken Wesson]

To which "rant" are you referring?

> You do not grasp<SLAP!>

Please either give up, or else retry without the condescension and
rudeness if you really want me to read whatever it is that you are trying
to say here.

[Ken Wesson]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:38:12 -0400, Obveeus wrote:

> "Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

>> Nevertheless, religious schools tend to attempt control of their
>> students' off-campus and after-hours conduct. This silly business at
>> the exceptionally ridiculous Bob Jones University is an only slightly
>> more extreme example of what goes on most of the time at many other
>> places.
>
> I read a similar story a few days ago about a Catholic school that fired
> one of their teachers for having invetrofertilization in an effort to
> become pregnant. Apparently, she and her husband were violating 'God's
> will' and as such had to be removed from the school so that she would
> not influence others with her satanic ways.

Sounds like a wrongful termination suit waiting to happen, and possibly a
First Amendment lawsuit on top of that if the school received public
monies.

Add to that the spying and prying into matters of an employee's private
life that are none of an employer's damn business -- likely grounds for a
privacy-invasion lawsuit. Medical records being seen by unauthorized
people is a particularly serious matter in such suits.

[BTR1701]

In article <4fa7...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> > Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
> >
> > Not a requirement under the law.
>
> Perhaps it should be.

You're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it.

> >> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for
> >> > a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to
> >> > be something of value.
> >>
> >> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
> >
> > The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
> > valuable.
>
> In what way?

In the way that people value their freedom.

[Ken Wesson]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:34:00 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

> In article <4fa7...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>> > In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
>> > Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
>> >
>> > Not a requirement under the law.
>>
>> Perhaps it should be.
>
> You're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it.

And you, likewise, are welcome to your opinion.

>> >> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration
>> >> > for a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only
>> >> > has to be something of value.
>> >>
>> >> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
>> >
>> > The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
>> > valuable.
>>
>> In what way?
>
> In the way that people value their freedom.

There's that zero-sum thinking again. Student X giving up his freedom is
not valuable *to university Y* unless somehow *university Y gains by X's
loss*. I still don't see any evidence being presented here of the
university's gain in the case where what X gives up is not something that
happens or affects things on campus at all.

It doesn't, or at least shouldn't, count as "consideration" unless one
party of the contract gains something. Whether a party loses something is
immaterial. Loss for its own sake is, well, just plain stupid. It's
whether a party gains something that matters. To a *sane* person entering
into a contract they'd be interested in the other side agreeing to things
*that benefit them*, and have no logical reason to want the other side to
agree to things *that don't affect them*. If I contract with you for
something, I want you to agree to terms that *I gain from* in some manner
-- where I get money, or a product, or a service, or you stop flaming me
in that other thread, or whatever. I don't particularly care what you
gain or lose. I care what *I* gain or lose. Of course for a lot of things
you would lose something if I gain, and so you'd want something to offset
that, so you'd want some terms in the contract whereby *you* gain,
possibly where *I* lose something.

But the contract we're discussing has one side insisting on including
terms adhering to which will benefit *neither side*, and that to me
simply makes no sense, nor does it make sense for the courts to deem such
clauses enforceable since nobody gains by their enforceability more or
less by definition. Insisting on a negative-sum term like that, where the
other side loses something but I gain nothing, makes as little sense to
me as going out of your way to annoy someone else or engaging in random
vandalism. Less, actually, since in the heat of the moment you can get a
certain cathartic satisfaction out of smashing something or annoying
someone back who annoyed you, but making a complete stranger agree to a
term that hinders him without helping you in any way in some contract
where the effects won't happen for a while has no such effects.

[Steve Bartman]

So you didn't want to read about a case which was directly on the
point of your central contention? Weird.

I pointed you to a resource which answered your question. I now see,
after several rodeos with you, that this response is standard
behavior. You consider it "rude" when someone knows more than you
about something and simply points you, with no further comment, to a
site where you can fill in the gaps. This blind spot is your problem,
not mine.

I won't answer any of your posts in future. Remain in darkness,
comforted by your seemingly immense collection of swimsuit model
posters.

Steve

[BTR1701]

In article <4fa76b7c$1...@news.x-privat.org>,

Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:34:00 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > In article <4fa7...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> >> > Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
> >> >
> >> > Not a requirement under the law.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it should be.
> >
> > You're welcome to your opinion. I don't share it.
>
> And you, likewise, are welcome to your opinion.
>
> >> >> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration
> >> >> > for a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only
> >> >> > has to be something of value.
> >> >>
> >> >> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
> >> >
> >> > The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
> >> > valuable.
> >>
> >> In what way?
> >
> > In the way that people value their freedom.
>
> There's that zero-sum thinking again.

There's no legal requirement that the sum be anything else.

[Mason Barge]

On 7 May 2012 04:36:08 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
>> Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> > Not if he signed a contract agreeing to certain behaviors in exchange
>>> > for admission to their university. The contract would be legal and
>>> > its effect wouldn't stop at their property line.
>>>
>>> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
>>
>> Not a requirement under the law.
>
>Perhaps it should be.

"Should" is a tricky word. You want a governmental entity to intrude into
the relationship between people and insitutions they join or attend?

There's a first amendment protection for them, actually.

>>> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration for
>>> > a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only has to
>>> > be something of value.
>>>
>>> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
>>
>> The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
>> valuable.
>
>In what way? If we were discussing a two-player zero-sum game then one
>player giving something up is equivalent to the other gaining something,
>and therefore valuable.

This is a bit patronizing to the student. I'd guess that many of the
students, who choose to attend a place like that, don't consider that
pledging to behave in a certain way is a negative.

That is, the people who go to Bob Jones do so specifically, in part,
because they want to be in an organization with other students who share
their ideals and beliefs.

[Ken Wesson]

No, I didn't want to read a Usenet post that started off with something
phrased as a rude demand, and so I didn't.

And since your premise above was wrong, everything that followed from it
is presumptively meaningless, and so I've taken the liberty of not
reading any of that, either.

If you have something substantive to say about the original issue, by all
means please do so. But please omit the demanding tone ("Read X", "Do
this", "Don't do that") and omit making any statements whose subject is
me ("So you didn't want to ...") instead of the original issue. Including
that sort of thing will result in my snipping and not reading most of yet
another post.

[Ken Wesson]

You've misunderstood yet again. The zero-sum thinking here is that if X
values Z and X gives up Z at Y's request then Y gained something
(presumably Z). In the real world Y may have gained nothing and may have
even lost something as well. And in the instance under discussion Y has
gained precisely nothing.

I don't see how the contract clause at issue counts as "consideration"
because it does not give either party something that party values. One
party loses something and the other neither loses nor gains anything. I
think one (or both) parties should have to gain something for there to be
"consideration".

One thing that is interesting in all of this: usually, zero-sum thinking
occurs where someone fails to take into account a *positive* sum
interaction. The big war on copyright piracy is a good example of this,
as it seems a lot of those involved think that each infringement is a
lost sale, or something similar -- the pirate's gain is necessarily
matched by an equal loss by the movie studio or record label or whatever.
This has been proved false -- free copies can actually boost sales and
don't necessarily displace any -- but the wrong-think persists
nonetheless.

But in this instance the zero-sum thinking is in a situation that's
really *negative* sum. That is, instead of assuming that if X gains "for
free" then Y necessarily lost something, the assumption seems to be that
if X gives something up then Y necessarily gains something. Again,
though, in this instance that's simply not the case.

[Ken Wesson]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:02:14 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:

> On 7 May 2012 04:36:08 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
>>> Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> > Not if he signed a contract agreeing to certain behaviors in
>>>> > exchange for admission to their university. The contract would be
>>>> > legal and its effect wouldn't stop at their property line.
>>>>
>>>> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
>>>
>>> Not a requirement under the law.
>>
>>Perhaps it should be.
>
> "Should" is a tricky word. You want a governmental entity to intrude
> into the relationship between people and insitutions they join or
> attend?

That ship has long since sailed. In all areas there are laws against
various forms of discrimination and sometimes affirmative action quotas
(I don't agree with the latter, by the way). In K-12 and high school
there's various standards and No Child Left Behind requirements. You
can't contractually sell yourself into slavery and there are a variety of
other limitations on contract law, inalienable Xs and non-transferable
Ys, etc.

>>>> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration
>>>> > for a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only
>>>> > has to be something of value.
>>>>
>>>> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
>>>
>>> The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
>>> valuable.
>>
>>In what way? If we were discussing a two-player zero-sum game then one
>>player giving something up is equivalent to the other gaining something,
>>and therefore valuable.
>
> This is a bit patronizing to the student. I'd guess that many of the
> students, who choose to attend a place like that, don't consider that
> pledging to behave in a certain way is a negative.

Sure it is. Regardless of whether you intend to or not, losing the option
is a negative in any sane utility function. I don't plan to watch Glee
either, but I'd still consider being *barred* from doing so to be a
negative. Hell, what happens if I visit someone and they're watching it?
I might not want to watch Glee but I might want to visit that someone and
with the hypothetical ban I would not be able to, or would have
capricious restrictions on when I could at the very least. That's a

negative.

> That is, the people who go to Bob Jones do so specifically, in part,
> because they want to be in an organization with other students who share
> their ideals and beliefs.

One of their ideals is "not watching Glee"? That seems *exceedingly*
silly and pointless. Furthermore, if everyone who goes there hates Glee
none of them would choose to watch Glee and there'd be no point in
contractually barring them from watching Glee since none would choose to
anyway. So you have still not managed to produce a justification for the
contract term at issue.

[Steve Bartman]

Having just read more of your "legal" drivel when arguing with a
realio trulio attorney I don't feel the need to stroke your ego by
saying I give a damn if you erase my posts or not. When it comes to
knowledge of basic contract law, you are an ass. If you had read the
case I so kindly pointed out you would not persist in posting
inanities concerning settled contract law and factors of consideration
which have been extant for more than a century. Even when Mason TELLS
you what the law is your answer is "Well I think that's stupid. I
wouldn't care about "Glee"."

Sometimes you can't fix stupid.


Steve

[BTR1701]

In article <4fa8...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com>

> I don't see how the contract clause at issue counts as "consideration"

That much is apparent. But whether you see how or not, it is.

[Mason Barge]

On 8 May 2012 09:49:34 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:02:14 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:
>
>> On 7 May 2012 04:36:08 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
>>>> Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> > Not if he signed a contract agreeing to certain behaviors in
>>>>> > exchange for admission to their university. The contract would be
>>>>> > legal and its effect wouldn't stop at their property line.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
>>>>
>>>> Not a requirement under the law.
>>>
>>>Perhaps it should be.
>>
>> "Should" is a tricky word. You want a governmental entity to intrude
>> into the relationship between people and insitutions they join or
>> attend?
>
>That ship has long since sailed. In all areas there are laws against
>various forms of discrimination and sometimes affirmative action quotas
>(I don't agree with the latter, by the way).

There are no laws against any form of discrimination in admission to a
private college, per se, much less rules for student conduct. Title IX is
so widespread in application only because the federal government,
rapacious in its zeal to conform the world to its standards, has decided
that any college that has students with federally-guaranteed loans must
comply with the provisions of the loan act.

Well, you *might* be able to make a claim based on race under 42 USC
Section 1981, but I don't know of it having been tried. It would be a
tight contest.

>In K-12 and high school
>there's various standards and No Child Left Behind requirements.

Public institutions are on a completely different footing than private
ones. NCLB participation by private schools is voluntary.

>You
>can't contractually sell yourself into slavery and there are a variety of
>other limitations on contract law, inalienable Xs and non-transferable
>Ys, etc.

That's true, but it's pretty much a meaningless generality in terms of the
subject.

>>>>> > Not according to well-established contract law. The consideration
>>>>> > for a contract needn't be related to its subject matter. It only
>>>>> > has to be something of value.
>>>>>
>>>>> How are the conduct restrictions at issue "something of value"?
>>>>
>>>> The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
>>>> valuable.
>>>
>>>In what way? If we were discussing a two-player zero-sum game then one
>>>player giving something up is equivalent to the other gaining something,
>>>and therefore valuable.
>>
>> This is a bit patronizing to the student. I'd guess that many of the
>> students, who choose to attend a place like that, don't consider that
>> pledging to behave in a certain way is a negative.
>
>Sure it is. Regardless of whether you intend to or not, losing the option
>is a negative in any sane utility function. I don't plan to watch Glee
>either, but I'd still consider being *barred* from doing so to be a
>negative. Hell, what happens if I visit someone and they're watching it?
>I might not want to watch Glee but I might want to visit that someone and
>with the hypothetical ban I would not be able to, or would have
>capricious restrictions on when I could at the very least. That's a
>negative.

That's a negative for you. The whole point is, these people have a right
of free choice and don't look to your standards or preferences.

>
>> That is, the people who go to Bob Jones do so specifically, in part,
>> because they want to be in an organization with other students who share
>> their ideals and beliefs.
>
>One of their ideals is "not watching Glee"? That seems *exceedingly*
>silly and pointless.

Again, you are making a decision for them based on your own preferences
and ideas.

[Remysun]

You see no value. The university creates a certain reputation by
forcing its students to comply, and the student benefits from the
university's reputation. That is value in a nutshell.

[stinking cunt]

[Steve Newport]

I'm so tired of Obveeus wanting SMASH to be GLEE.

*********************************

[Remysun]

On May 9, 3:24 am, NewportsRe...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:

> I'm so tired of Obveeus wanting SMASH to be GLEE.

I'm not so sure that's the case with him, but I agree that they should
be unique shows.

Now, if you like having the American Songbook show up in a TV show,
you're missing out on Hart of Dixie, which without much fanfare has
continually had moments of community performances with festivals,
secret society initiations, and Gilbert and Sullivan throughout its
rookie season.

[Adam H. Kerman]

This makes it exactly like The Vampire Diaries, although there are
fewer mutilated corpses.

[Steve Newport]

From: remys...@yahoo.com (Remysun) Hart of Dixie, without much

fanfare has continually had moments of community performances with
festivals, secret society initiations, and Gilbert and Sullivan

--------------------------------------
SN: You know, I'm not really that fond of G & S.

*********************************

[Remysun]

On May 9, 4:54 am, NewportsRe...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:

> SN: You know, I'm not really that fond of G & S.

Fair enough, that was only one episode.

[Obveeus]

"Steve Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote:

> I'm so tired of Obveeus wanting SMASH to be GLEE.

SMASH has no chance of being GLEE since SMASH is a soap opera. I just hope
for it to be a bit less soapy than it is and provide some pleasant music
rather 'show tunes'.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You do know it's set on Broadway during the production of a musical, yes?
Show tunes are totally wrong for this show, good point.

[Steve Newport]

From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)

SMASH has no chance of being GLEE since SMASH is a soap opera.

----------------------------------------
SN: And GLEE isn't????? SMASH is disappointing, but not nearly as
contrived and manipulative of its characters as GLEE is.

*********************************

[Steve Newport]

From: a...@chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) You do know, Obveeus, that
SMASH is set on Broadway during the production of a musical, yes? Show
tunes are totally wrong for this show?
-------------------
SN: He can't even bear the sound of Christmas music. He hated the GLEE
episode that featured music by Bernstein.

*********************************

[Obveeus]

"Steve Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote:
> From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)
> SMASH has no chance of being GLEE since SMASH is a soap opera.
> ----------------------------------------
> SN: And GLEE isn't?????

No, GLEE is not a soap opera. Yes, SMASH is a soap opera.

[Steve Newport]

From: Obv...@aol.com (Obveeus)

No, GLEE is not a soap opera.

----------------------------------------
SN: Yeah-- it is. And one whose plot and characters are more beholden
than SMASH to selling music.

*********************************

[Steve Newport]

Nah, watching GLEE doesn't make you gay. It makes you awful.

*********************************

[Ken Wesson]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:21:11 -0500, Steve Bartman wrote:

> On 8 May 2012 09:35:50 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If you have something substantive to say about the original issue, by
>>all means please do so. But please omit the demanding tone ("Read X",
>>"Do this", "Don't do that") and omit making any statements whose subject
>>is me ("So you didn't want to ...") instead of the original issue.
>>Including that sort of thing will result in my snipping and not reading
>>most of yet another post.
>

> Having just read more of your "legal" drivel<SMACK!>

[Ken Wesson]

Then the university must gain something. What does it gain?

[Ken Wesson]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:20:50 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:

> On 8 May 2012 09:49:34 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:02:14 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 May 2012 04:36:08 +0100, Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <4f9e2247$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
>>>>> Ken Wesson <kwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> > Not if he signed a contract agreeing to certain behaviors in
>>>>>> > exchange for admission to their university. The contract would be
>>>>>> > legal and its effect wouldn't stop at their property line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it *wouldn't make sense!*
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a requirement under the law.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps it should be.
>>>
>>> "Should" is a tricky word. You want a governmental entity to intrude
>>> into the relationship between people and insitutions they join or
>>> attend?
>>
>>That ship has long since sailed. In all areas there are laws against
>>various forms of discrimination and sometimes affirmative action quotas
>>(I don't agree with the latter, by the way).
>
> There are no laws against any form of discrimination in admission to a
> private college,

42 USC Section 1981. And then there's likely various private causes of
action that could be brought.

>>You
>>can't contractually sell yourself into slavery and there are a variety
>>of other limitations on contract law, inalienable Xs and
>>non-transferable Ys, etc.
>
> That's true, but it's pretty much a meaningless generality

As support for my statement that the ship of government intervention in
private contractual relationships had already sailed, it is far from
meaningless.

>>Sure it is. Regardless of whether you intend to or not, losing the
>>option is a negative in any sane utility function. I don't plan to watch
>>Glee either, but I'd still consider being *barred* from doing so to be a
>>negative. Hell, what happens if I visit someone and they're watching it?
>>I might not want to watch Glee but I might want to visit that someone
>>and with the hypothetical ban I would not be able to, or would have
>>capricious restrictions on when I could at the very least. That's a
>>negative.
>
> That's a negative for you.

No.

> The whole point is, these people have a right of free choice and don't
> look to your standards or preferences.

No, apparently they look to completely spurious, capricious, and
frivolous ones that make no logical sense whatsoever.

>>One of their ideals is "not watching Glee"? That seems *exceedingly*
>>silly and pointless.
>
> Again, you are making a decision for them based on your own preferences
> and ideas.

Actually, I am basing my thoughts on *logical* preferences and ideas; in
particular, that what A does that has no effect on B is none of B's
business and B has neither the right to know about it nor should be able
to use it in a contract with A on unrelated grounds. For example, if A
contracts with B that B educate A on topic C in exchange for amount of
money D, it's logically irrelevant what television shows A watches away
from B's property and on A's own time as that affects neither B's
property, nor B's ability to perform to its contract with A or with other
students, nor A's ability to perform to his contract with B (i.e., pay
the tuition owed).

Particularly, B should not be imposing contract terms the violation of
which B can only detect through stalking and/or spying on A. I think
there should be a principle that if B, in the normal performance of its
duties per a contract and without going out of its way to look for a
violation of a particular clause, beyond searches of B's own property and
observations of goings-on on B's own property, could not detect a
hypothetical violation that A takes measures to conceal from public view,
then that clause should be deemed unenforceable. (A not paying tuition
would be obvious to B in B's examination of its own property, to wit its
bank balance, for example. A being disruptive in class would also be
obvious to B in observing its own property and in attempting to carry out
its teaching duties in the disrupted class. A watching Glee on the TV in
his own (off-campus) home with the curtains drawn, the sound turned down,
and no visitors could not be detected by B without intentional spying
outside of B's private property. So B is unaffected by whether A watches
Glee or not and B therefore has no logical reason to contract with A that
A cannot do so and there is no public interest justification in such a
clause being enforced. The ability to enforce such clauses does not
enable B to perform a business activity, provide a good or service, or
similarly that B cannot do anyway, or otherwise B could detect violations
automatically as a matter of course and that's clearly not the case here.)

[Ken Wesson]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:31:36 -0700, Remysun wrote:

> On May 6, 11:36 pm, Ken Wesson <kwes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> > The student is giving up his freedom to behave as he pleases. That's
>> > valuable.
>>
>> In what way? If we were discussing a two-player zero-sum game then one
>> player giving something up is equivalent to the other gaining
>> something, and therefore valuable.
>>
>> But in this instance, where is the value? Student X gives up something
>> while university Y gains nothing. Seems like a negative-sum event to
>> me. Something was lost and nobody gained. I don't see any value in
>> that.
>>
>> If the student gave something *to the university* that would be another
>> matter. That's a transaction where X gives something up and Y gains it.
>>
>> But I don't see any value to Y in X giving something up where that
>> event has no material consequences for Y at all.
>>
>> Once again, you're simply not making sense, and neither is university
>> Y.
>
> You see no value.

Because there is none.

> The university creates a certain reputation by forcing its students to
> comply,

A reputation for being a nosy busybody that inexplicably cares about what
TV shows its students watch on their own time in their own homes. Which
is hardly something of value.

> and the student benefits from the university's reputation.

The only way I can see for a student to benefit from that particular
reputation is by a) shopping elsewhere for an education and b) if no
other university accepts him, being forewarned to look for that in the
fine print and try to negotiate it out of the contract in their
particular case.

> That is value in a nutshell.

That doesn't make much sense unless there's a significant number of
people out there shopping around for universities that teach X, have
tuition less than Y, and have no students that watch Glee. I can't see
anyone sane considering the third criterion above to be important in such
a decision, though.

So add "attracts headcases" to the reputation described above -- another
negative. Except maybe in the eyes of headcases.