<p>oh... lol then i'm lost</p>
<p>vista? fallbrook? escondido? san marcos? oceanside? ok im done... for a moment, i thought u were an out-of-stater, that's why i asked why ucla.</p>
<p>I used to live in Vista...and San Marcos, La Costa, Encinitas, Leucadia, Solana Beach, Del Mar..and ick...Chula Vista. North County San Diego is the best. If I end up going to UCSD I might opt to live in La Jolla..if I can afford it, or PB or OB.</p>
<p>Man I love and miss San Diego.</p>
<p>Like I said, NOWHERE. None of you have named it, so far. But its population is nearing 100,000, making the place like itself to a city. More like urban sprawl, the liars.</p>
<p>DARTMOUTH</p>
<p>It's been a few years since I graduated but Dartmouth can outparty any school on the West Coast or East Coast. At one point Playboy did a rating of the top party colleges - Dartmouth wasn't on the list - there was an asterisk stating that Dartmouth was excluded from the ratings because of "professionalism". I'm embarassed to say that I spent more time drinking beer the first two years than studying. It's a great school. We also used to have an exchange program with UCSD - 30 or so UCSD women would show up on the Dartmouth campus for a semester, looking better than any of the Dartmouth women(I think that's what they were) and they'd have a great time partying with us. I'm hoping my son goes to UCLA - I figure it'll be a nice calm environment where he can spend most of his time studying!</p>
<p>UCSD students? Yeah, sure... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>If UCSD women look better than Dartmouth women, that scares me. I have seen the UCSD gals...let's just say Playboy won't be doing an issues on those gals anytime soon. ;)</p>
<p>I'm sorry if I caused offense, oib 1. Perhaps my sister's friend, born and raised in a crappy little town(where parental units are nowhere to be seen most of the weekend, providing ample opportunity for parties) in California, felt Dartmouth was not up to her partying standards. I believe her main complaint was its "professionalism," but did not use that word.</p>
<p>Please do not replace "professionalism" with any...offensive...word, as her word/s were not.</p>
<p>why does everyone say ucsd girls are butt ugly? i've been there and saw a lot of nice looking people (of both sexes). it looked pretty normal to me over there.</p>
<p>If one person calls you an elephant, never-mind it. If another person calls you an elephant, you better buy a bag of peanuts.</p>
<p>This might be an oversimplification, but the point is that, many people say that, because it is largely true. I lived in SD for 10 years. UCSD girls are on par with UCSC...it's brutal.</p>
<p>Did you year about UCSD's sex scandal? They showed one of their students having sex on SRTV (UCSD's television net work) for ten minutes.</p>
<p>Pent up nerd porn...just shows there is a fetish for everyone. ;)</p>
<p>It poses an interesting constitutional question.</p>
<p>Right now, the "clear and present danger" rule applies to free speech as well as decency laws. Should the FCC be involved? But since it is a campus on a closed circuit, then does FCC have the right to step in? And of coruse the definition of free speech must be revised again.</p>
<p>Each part of the constitution is open to contemporary interpretation right?</p>
<p>The right to free speech only goes so far. You can't call up the president and threaten to kill him. Well, you can, but you won't be happy about it when the FBI kicks in your door and your face.</p>
<p>The same is true for the limits of free speech and decency laws in this case. If anything, UCSD may have special provisions that afford them more latitude in cases such as these. Just like there are different versions of common laws on military posts.</p>
<p>In this case, the FCC may have the right because a UC is not a private institution, bur rather funded by the state and in part on a federal level...accordingly, the leap to the FCC having some level of jurisdiction doesn't seem extreme. </p>
<p>In other words...those UCSD geeks are busted! ;)</p>
<p>And with this latest news in mind I am reordering my UC preferences:</p>
<p>1) UCSD
2) UCLA
3) UCI
4) UCD</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>Well, each part of the constitution is open to interpretation, but some clauses can only be interpreted so far, and the world "contemporary" can be interpreted in many ways as well.</p>
<p>By contemporary I mean the modern definition. When the constitution was first written it was intended for the world of the 18th century...a lot has happened since then as many an amendment would point to. And just as a society's morals evolve, so too must the law and our interpretation of it. That is all I mean...but what the hell do I know? I just wanna fix bloody, nasty, grisly wounds in an ER. ;)</p>
<p>Well like the article points out - it is a close-circuit TV station, and the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction, public school or not. Hey, if thats what they decide to put on the station, so be it. What problem do people have with it other than "oh, its offensive"?? If you're offended, dont' watch it.</p>
<p>the UC Regents aren't even trying to get involved.. they are "leaving it to the students"</p>