[njtosd]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I am sure critical thinking is a good thing to have. I am questioning if critical thinking is worth 200K of student loans for most people.

[/quote]

OK – I don’t get these figures for student loan debt. Tuition, fees, room and board, insurance and transportation at University of California schools comes up to slightly less than $30,000 a year, according to U of C:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html

So, even if you paid for all of that with student loans, without defraying any of it with a job, you would be about $120,000 in the hole. And I never knew anyone in college who didn’t have a job – I worked in a china store, others worked for food service, etc.. My brother in law went to school full time, worked three jobs, and paid for his education and expenses at a Big 10 school without going into debt at all. Let’s say you could reasonably earn about $5000 a year, you could keep the low balance down to $100,000. Getting a job and living low for a few years after college would allow that amount to be whittled down significantly. I think the high student loan balances result from choosing to go to a private college (absolutely no reason to do that in California, which is one reason we’re moving back) or living extravagantly on loans.

[njtosd]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I am sure critical thinking is a good thing to have. I am questioning if critical thinking is worth 200K of student loans for most people.

[/quote]

OK – I don’t get these figures for student loan debt. Tuition, fees, room and board, insurance and transportation at University of California schools comes up to slightly less than $30,000 a year, according to U of C:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html

So, even if you paid for all of that with student loans, without defraying any of it with a job, you would be about $120,000 in the hole. And I never knew anyone in college who didn’t have a job – I worked in a china store, others worked for food service, etc.. My brother in law went to school full time, worked three jobs, and paid for his education and expenses at a Big 10 school without going into debt at all. Let’s say you could reasonably earn about $5000 a year, you could keep the low balance down to $100,000. Getting a job and living low for a few years after college would allow that amount to be whittled down significantly. I think the high student loan balances result from choosing to go to a private college (absolutely no reason to do that in California, which is one reason we’re moving back) or living extravagantly on loans.

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

[/quote]

I agree with this to a point, but you forget that the administration of this site receives the user’s email address. That address might be anonymous, or it could be like the one my husband has at work, which is: first name.last name @company. This is a pretty standard formula. And many of the techno guys on this board probably have ways of tracing email addresses. So it’s not as anonymous as one might think. “Publication” in the libel sense only requires one person to receive the information.

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

[/quote]

I agree with this to a point, but you forget that the administration of this site receives the user’s email address. That address might be anonymous, or it could be like the one my husband has at work, which is: first name.last name @company. This is a pretty standard formula. And many of the techno guys on this board probably have ways of tracing email addresses. So it’s not as anonymous as one might think. “Publication” in the libel sense only requires one person to receive the information.

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

[/quote]

I agree with this to a point, but you forget that the administration of this site receives the user’s email address. That address might be anonymous, or it could be like the one my husband has at work, which is: first name.last name @company. This is a pretty standard formula. And many of the techno guys on this board probably have ways of tracing email addresses. So it’s not as anonymous as one might think. “Publication” in the libel sense only requires one person to receive the information.

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

[/quote]

I agree with this to a point, but you forget that the administration of this site receives the user’s email address. That address might be anonymous, or it could be like the one my husband has at work, which is: first name.last name @company. This is a pretty standard formula. And many of the techno guys on this board probably have ways of tracing email addresses. So it’s not as anonymous as one might think. “Publication” in the libel sense only requires one person to receive the information.

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=briansd1]

The marriage vows say nothing about sex outside of marriage.

One can have sex outside of marriage, still honor one’s word, and still love and cherish one’s spouse, all at the same time.[/quote]

Umm . . . . . usually people discuss their plans for marriage with their potential spouse prior to taking their marriage vows. I guess it is sort of a recipe for disaster if all you discuss prior to the big day is sports, politics and the antics of your coworkers. I distinctly remember looking at my husband-to-be and asking him if he wanted to have kids, and if so, how many. I would think that most people would work out those basic issues (including monogamy vs. lack thereof) before on embarking on something like marriage. But maybe not . . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=briansd1]

The marriage vows say nothing about sex outside of marriage.

One can have sex outside of marriage, still honor one’s word, and still love and cherish one’s spouse, all at the same time.[/quote]

Umm . . . . . usually people discuss their plans for marriage with their potential spouse prior to taking their marriage vows. I guess it is sort of a recipe for disaster if all you discuss prior to the big day is sports, politics and the antics of your coworkers. I distinctly remember looking at my husband-to-be and asking him if he wanted to have kids, and if so, how many. I would think that most people would work out those basic issues (including monogamy vs. lack thereof) before on embarking on something like marriage. But maybe not . . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=briansd1]

The marriage vows say nothing about sex outside of marriage.

One can have sex outside of marriage, still honor one’s word, and still love and cherish one’s spouse, all at the same time.[/quote]

Umm . . . . . usually people discuss their plans for marriage with their potential spouse prior to taking their marriage vows. I guess it is sort of a recipe for disaster if all you discuss prior to the big day is sports, politics and the antics of your coworkers. I distinctly remember looking at my husband-to-be and asking him if he wanted to have kids, and if so, how many. I would think that most people would work out those basic issues (including monogamy vs. lack thereof) before on embarking on something like marriage. But maybe not . . . .

[Author]

Posts