Received: by 10.68.125.201 with SMTP id ms9mr3107398pbb.3.1336488190042;
        Tue, 08 May 2012 07:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: pr3ni2678pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 09:43:09 -0500
From: BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Watch GLEE and you will get kicked out of college
References: <jngvq8$mj7$1@dont-email.me> <48135069-4923-487c-b77a-27a6b136cc1f@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> <4f9dd4a8$1@news.x-privat.org> <290420122307170489%bubba@nowhere.edu.invalid> <4f9e078c@news.x-privat.org> <atropos-34633B.21374729042012@news.giganews.com> <4f9e2247$1@news.x-privat.org> <atropos-F05F63.08493830042012@news.giganews.com> <4fa73518@news.x-privat.org> <atropos-1B5723.22335906052012@news.giganews.com> <4fa76b7c$1@news.x-privat.org> <atropos-AA5738.08461407052012@news.giganews.com> <4fa8ce9b@news.x-privat.org>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 07:45:16 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-C03842.07451608052012@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-fGIIaG4017EaWkTnKNwqdcWjfF3i0N2Gx3q/iU2gcIydLBg1hHM9ynmiFN0hPtXY75WQeAeKPVqIK7q!rMOSnnD45zaD9sTxyTDyfVrh6hg4hfw0DGcyhwaGkeWsvFFZ5EtHQuHGHzxX0i4orjvdWm5Uy89x!Jg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3077
X-Received-Bytes: 3218

In article <4fa8c...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson <kwes...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On Mon, 07 May 2012 08:46:14 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> 
> > In article <4fa76b7...@news.x-privat.org>,
> >  Ken Wesson <kwes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:34:00 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <4fa73...@news.x-privat.org>, Ken Wesson
> >> > <kwes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:49:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <4f9e224...@news.x-privat.org>,
> >> >> >  Ken Wesson <kwes...@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.

> 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.