They are doing harm to the school (financially) and its image. Why should they remain as students? They don't run the place and they don't get to make this call.
Defending the suit costs the college money. Hence, wasting the endowment.
"Due process" has nothing to do with filing frivolous lawsuits without standing. That's just harassment. They didnt' like something so they are whining. They don't get to waste the college's endowment that way.
And they'd be justified.
I've seen it a lot when helping people scale up PHP CMS based websites (usually Drupal) to handle high volumes. Varnish is a fairly common proxy server.
So, "journalists" get to make noise in the sphere of public opinion but are to be immune from the negative repercussions of said attention? Quite a deal for them, I say. Especially when many take money to alter the focus of their writings, or otherwise have a political axe to grind.
Your attitude is naive in the extreme.
There is seriously no point in explaining to these nimrods that they are being (semi-)expertly fleeced by con men. Con men suitable for their dulled senses, at least. They'll either learn with time, or they won't. The fact that they are still willing to dump tons of money on games - moreover, with Kickstarter, even worse than the usual 'prerelease' scam* - indicates the foolishness beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Imagine an alternative situation where a food retailer crowdfunded "Christmas Dinner". You donate your money, and they remove the previously promised turkey and replace it with Spam on December 23. Would these same morons argue that Spam was better for you at that point? I think they would...
* Why on earth would you ever give money to a retailer or even a manufacturer for a vaporware product? Ever.
And when methods aren't vetted by strong ethics, slimy methods often produce the "best" results. It reminds me of RealPlayer back in the nineties.
I'm completely shocked that when given additional opportunity, you still won't back up your claims.
The bizarre thing is that you're accusing me of "singling out one particular issue based purely on the person implementing it," when you have literally no example of me ever doing that, ever, least of all in this discussion, where if anything I was taking Gruber's side.
... you did seem to lament the courts' inaction
Not in any way, no, I did not.
You're a liar.
When talking about transparency, it's yours that is the most obvious...
I agree. I am nearly completely transparent and obvious and clear. I lack pretense or disguise.
... exactly the way your financiers want it
No. It's true that the framers and most people who understand politics want the people to be ignorant about most issues in government, because otherwise, the people would be spending too much time watching government and not enough time enjoying life and being productive. Everyone should want to be ignorant about most things, especially most things government does. Otherwise you'll be miserable.
But it's not true that they want people to be ignorant, but with a delusion of lack of ignorance. You're just making things up.
... with its present day monolithic two-face one party system. Not a single independent in the house. Smells very bad...
There's no objective reason why it's a bad thing.
Of course not, you dope!
I'm a dope because you
... you believe the charade is for real
You're a liar.
Well, yes, people who believe what they are told -- and then profess to know those things -- without investigating it, are stupid.
Gruber was mostly right, although the word "stupid" is probably not what he meant. But the fact is that whoever believed it wasn't a tax, it wouldn't raise rates, it wouldn't force you to change plans and possibly doctors, etc., was ignorant. Not stupid, necessarily, but ignorant. That said, someone who is ignorant and thinks that he actually knows these things is kinda stupid. So all the news folks, for example, who said that what Republicans said about the ACA were lies
The fact is that almost everything the GOP said about the ACA was true. Federal funding of abortions, subsidies for illegals, massive government control defined at a later date by an administrator and not Congress, death panels, increased taxes and premiums, decreased choice