on at least two occasions this user was basically trying to make arguments on behalf of other people and interpret their own posts for them
On at least these two occasions, others had first posted their interpretations or misinterpretations of what had been shared... I replied to these interpretations/misinterpretations with my own understanding of the posts. Why would it be fine for some to interpret/misinterpret... and inappropriate for other users to share their understanding of what was posted? This sounds like a double-standard. Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement.
Board Rules do allow for disagreement.
I'm not saying that your reinterpretations were a violation of board rules. I'm merely saying that I consider such discussions a waste of time. Bostonian and Old Dad are big boys, and capable of presenting their own arguments. If I've missed the mark on my interpretations of their posts, as the authors of such posts, they're best positioned to notice and correct me if necessary.
One can say "bloviate much?" and then play victim of bullying only after having severed their own self-awareness.
Dude, please note that
"Bloviate, much 
" is not an attack and does not violate
Board Rules. Nor does it change the tone or justify subsequent personal attacks. Possibly you (and others) may take offense at simple statement of disagreement.
Board Rules do allow for disagreement.
See, here's you offering your own interpretations again where they're not valid or useful, because you say this as if you have some sort of authority. You are not the person empowered with interpreting what does or does not violate the board rules. We have mods who do that.
If you had stated the opinion as your own, of course, that would be perfectly valid. Here's mine - it's most definitely a violation to state that someone was "talking at length,
especially in an inflated or empty way," and that philly's subsequent responses contained the appropriate level of outrage for the situation.
Regarding the cost of college:
- Price generally moves based on supply and demand. There has been and increased demand for college. This may be based largely on statistics which showed that in the past several decades, in general, those with degrees earned more, in the economy which existed at that time. (Notable exceptions: Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg.)
If only someone had said something like, "private institutions are free to be as nakedly capitalistic as they like, but public institutions have a higher calling."
Oh, look, they did.
Public institutions have a mandate to provide a higher education as a public good, and are expected to cover their costs, with some help from the public as necessary. It is completely disconnected from supply and demand. This is basic stuff.
- Some have argued for college as a means to become upwardly mobile, therefore a benefit to the individual.
Who are "some"? Why not try setting aside the weasel words for a moment and actually take a position for once? What does indigo think about the price of a college education?
